Poirot – You asked: “Who or what told human society how to behave before God revealed himself - or do you believe that 'morality' only began with the advent of (sky-god) religions?”

If humans did not exist until God created them then there never was a time that there was human morality without God.

Wm Trevor – I don’t know why you object to me asking questions. I am just trying to find out what answers atheists have.

You asked: “So are you suggesting that there was never an occasion or time when moral or ethical behaviour was not externally suggested and internally accepted by people?” What I am saying is that unless there is someone who has made us and who is greater and wiser than us, then all we are left with are each person’s subjective preferences about what is right and wrong – and when there is disagreement there is now way of determining who, if anyone, is correct.

Joe – in a earlier post you wrote “we construct our own sense of morality” – and yet you seem to object to me saying that atheists make up their morality. How are “construct” and “make up” significantly different?

You also say: “one's morality, one's elaborations of right and wrong, can always be improved: they are constantly evolving”. For this to make any sense there would have to be some objective moral standard out there somewhere by which you can measure your progress. Do you really believe there is such a standard and if you do, who set it as the standard and how did it come into being?

You also suggest that what I write is inspired by religious convictions – I have not been the one to raise references to God in this discussion, others have. I have simply tried to logically determine, if atheism is true, can it sustain morality. I don’t see that it can.

McReal – you say that: “expectations are a collective”. So are you saying that whatever the majority says makes something “right” or “wrong”?

You then assert: “Still, some entities get it wrong”. That is the issue at point however – how do you know that they get it wrong? Is it just because they disagree with you, or with the group that you agree with? That would seem to be completely subjective and does not answer the question of how do you know what is right and wrong.

Pericles,

Yes, I wonder why there has to be this false organising of 'us vs. them' at this time: who needs us atheists to get together and form a single, compact target ? For whom ?

If I may take a leaf out of Arjay's World Book of Conspiracies, who might benefit from such a pointless gathering apart from some nameless religious fruit-cakes who need just such a target to rail against, who might see such a gathering as a provocation, as the work of Shaitan/Satan, and atheists as the ultimate unbelievers ? Lucky we don't have a flag, or it would be getting burnt somewhere in Pakistan as I write :)

The deeper question is, how does it all relate to oil ? Oops, too much Arjay.

JP,

No, we don't just make up whatever we like, we engage in the long and painful process of constructing our sense of right and wrong, from examples around us, and from experience, trial and error. We all do it, I guess, religious and non-religious, good and bad.

And we don't need some unseen hand to help us as our morality evolves - and there simply isn't some objective moral standard 'out there' either, we have to fashion such standards ourselves. So they evolve as our lives unfold.

And I love the circularity of your 'argument', that " .... If humans did not exist until God created them .... " (your premise) " ....then there never was a time that there was human morality without God." (your conclusion). The problem is that, to be 'logical', not necessarily valid, of course, merely logical, it should include another premise:

"Humans cannot develop a sense of morality on their own, they need a god."

If one doubts each of your premises, or either one, then the whole thing collapses, doesn't it ?

Of course, the truth is that gods did not exist until us humans created them. We are alone in the universe ;)

Scary, isn't it ?

Cheers,

Joe

"The simple fact is that - by your own admission, not by my speculation - you will be spending your time bitching and moaning about religious groups, and their activities."

With good reason. Just because you are not outwardly affected by religious privilege does not mean others are not. The convention is testament to that. Equating it to terrorism tho? ludicrous and deceitful. But throw all the mud you like, the response was what was intended by the article being posted here. Enjoy showing up exactly what was intended to be displayed, the intolerance of those that dare be vocal about their disbelief ;)

"You really cannot grasp the fact, can you, that you (collectively) are doing the rest of us atheists a serious disfavour, by your slavish imitation of the way in which the religious folk conduct themselves."

Oh codswallop. If you haven't got anything to complain about with the way religious people conduct themselves, then what are you doing complaining that atheists are doing the same?

I don't see atheists claiming tax exemptions, or atheist chaplains in schools teaching atheism while religious kids sit in the hallway, or asking and getting exemptions from anti-discrimination law. What a furphy. I see atheists calling for equality, for the religious not to impose their beliefs on others and folk saying 'Oh don't rock the boat atheists! you are doing us all a disservice!' what a load of hoo-harr. Just bigots hamming it up, just like you did.

violence! terrorism! would be funny if your attributions were not so sad. Atheists speak out and it's militant, but takes a religious person to kill for them to be so. I must be a militant a-santaist too. *rolls-eyes*

"Richard Dawkins is not an Atheist." - Atman

Agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism and is about knowledge.

Atheism is the opposite of theism, and is in regard belief.

They are different logical spheres. I am gnostic atheist to the abrahamic god, and agnostic atheist to the wishy washy deist god.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

post limit.

Luciferase,
I asked Matt to expand on the goals he alluded to that he and the AFA were working towards.
The response confirmed for me, at least from Matt’s point of view (and I’ve gleaned as much from D Nichols), that my surmise in my original post was correct: that there is “no larger agenda or vision for reformed humanity”. In other words you’re happy with the world the way it is; you just want to get rid of theistic influences on government, education and morality. As I said, I support this. But the AFA push is just another form of identity politics, the only difference being it’s conservative rather than radical, and that’s what I despise.

One again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
My latter comments were in response to Matt, who after his preliminary profundities said, < I want my children to go to school without interference from preachers, to be able to marry whom they wish, and to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology.>

My response was: <Respectively: [this means I’m itemising]
All teaching is preaching. [hence the full-stops]
Why do they need the [religious] institution [of marriage]?
Sovereignty--no accountability--tends to tyranny and indifference
Would you have a society of sovereigns?>
The fetishistic delusion of individual sovereignty is beloved of neoliberals—the most dangerous sect of all that is rapidly becoming an institution! Not that you Galahs have a clue, or give a damn, probably.

I’ve written many times on the separation of church and state and getting RI and chaplains out of State schools, but this doesn’t amount to serious reform—as I said, “secularism presupposes a religious cauldron”—and leaves the real inequality our society is founded on unmolested, indeed renewed! The reforms you advocate are merely idealistic and superstition remains rife; the new atheists become just another sect, and the government happily deals with society in the abstract.
But I shouldn’t have to endure the tedium of dumbing down what I’ve already said so you can understand it.
Btw, nowhere in this thread have I used the word “nihilism”.

With the 2012 Global Atheist Convention nearly upon us, I really haven’t the time to enter the fray but I feel I should make one comment.

Only the poster(s) who is/are guilty of supercilious twaddle will respond to this.

Thank most of you for your comments, it has been somewhat interesting, although a little bit predictable, but please don't let me interfere with this discussion continuing .

David