JP
You are right - I don't expect anyone to take note of my preferences as sacrosanct only that they are allowed freely into the discussion along with the multitude of others.

My comment about atheists rejoicing was intended as to provoke some thoughtful alternatives of the author. ie. why such a rally against religion, when we are in a time of re-examining and broadening freedoms rather than inhibiting them.

Yes we can argue all night about morality or about who decides what constitutes freedom. Morality is by it's nature subjective no matter it's source. That is a complex and a never concluding discussion.

Hi JP,

When you write " .... if atheism is true then everyone is absolutely free to do whatever they like .... " we get a glimpse of the religious mind, what it would be thinking in the absence of any belief in a god. I don't know any atheist who would think like that.

Of course, in a state of nature, humans would have no sense of higher purpose. But that imposes an immediate obligation on humans who have no need to believe in gods, to try to devise such a purpose, and atheists certainly do that at least as much as people who let their lives be ruled by superstition and a belief in the supernatural.

In fact, it could be said that, from the earliest times, the great philosophers did not share the beliefs of their societies in the multitude of gods: were Heraclitus or Socrates or Eratosthenes immersed in such balderdash, or did they move beyond that to occupy themselves with trying to understand how the world really worked ?

As to whether atheists have much to talk about amongst themselves, think of it asa bit like believing or not believing in astrology, the influence on human lives of the movement of the starts and planets. If you don't believe in such rubbish, it's not as if you spend any time discussing it with other non-believers.

You just get on with the business of living as best you can, doing as little harm as you can and trying to leave the world a slightly better place than you found it.

A preoccupation with one's own welfare, with whether or not one, alone, was going to live forever and go to a heaven, and with whether - in one's egocentric world - one's preferred god would or wouldn't smite you for breaking some rule or other - these are hardly going to advance mankind. To think so much just of oneself is surely immoral ? To be 'good', just so that some god won't punish you, not for good in itself, is surely immoral ?

Cheers,

Joe

>> " .. if atheism is true then everyone is absolutely free to do whatever they like. We would be under no responsibility to care for anyone or to care if what we do upsets or hurts others. There can be no meaningful morality in an atheistic universe – the best there can be is just raw law." <<
Posted by JP, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 2:11:51 PM

That is simply one premise of a false dichotomy i.e. "reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to the absurd) as a strawman misrepresentation.

We have established "social norms and mores" via now long-standing traditions of ethics and morals from a number of backgrounds. Many argue that Christianity is a predominant one, but it is mostly a side-show - there are a number of non-christian, non-theological traditions that have shaped societies, including an overwhelming human desire for peace and human traditions of altruism and empathy.

Many argue Christianity facilitated the end of slavery, but Christianity stood by for most of its existence until slavery was dismantled.

Ahh all these comments are a great example of what atheists are up against.

I'm looking forward to the convention, bring it on! :)

'... that is not one of the strong points of people who not only live a life in perpetual cognitive dissonance but whose sole ambition is to make everyone like them. At this point, just pick your religion, as most have this purpose in mind.'

Does that exclude atheists and atheism?

'. Yes, we are trying to be reasonable and ask that you teach children about the main religions, that there is no evidence for them, inform them of the various effects of cultural programming and, then, when they are mature of mind, allow them to choose one or none for themselves...'

Errrr I thought religions teach all people that belief is a matter of faith and that they do have a free will. Isn't that true?

If it is indeed the case, then your request is stupidly uninformed.

'... or worse, a part of the problem.'

What problem?

G'day diver matt,
No, I'm not inclined to make Pascal's wager... but then again maybe yes.
I'm not going to profess a belief I don't actually have, nor do I see the point. If such a being exists, surely It would capable of seeing through such a shallow deception?
OTOH, I try to lead a moral life, in that I try to abide by the 'Golden Rule', and that really is the only rule I drummed into my children.
My terms and conditions for my customers are:
“Be nice, be kind, be friendly,
And try to treat others the way
you would like to be treated.
Unless you're a masochist or
a crazy person...”
I figure if God exists, and he has a moral code at least as high as mine, my ass is covered.

G'dayJP,
it doesn't bother me that you believe in God. What bothers me is that you think you are moral for doing so.
In secular Australia, we don't even practice the death penalty, or indulge in corporal punishment.
No whipping, no caning, no beating...
Your God condemns sinners to 'burn in Hell for eternity'. Not just for a moment, or an hour, or a day... forever.
If that's your idea of morality, please keep it to yourself.
Runner points out that Pontius Pilate was inevitably an agent of God.
So, therefore, must also have been Judas, who did play an equally pivotal and poignant role.
Indeed, if God is omnipotent, we can only assume Satan himself is just as much an agent of God.
Jesus' rather less likeable brother, perhaps?
Believe in God as you will. Just don't confuse him with any concept of morality, please.