Get Over Your Fear of Atheism

You write those sites. You tell your story and warn them about what they're doing to destroy the faith of Christians. Most of their victims just walk away, so their congregations never hear their stories, never know what they're doing to destroy their religion, to drive people out, to keep people away.You'll get a lot of hate email for your efforts and most of what they accuse you of will have absolutely nothing to do with what you have written. You will be villified. But since you're a Christian they will have a harder time ignoring you -- they've actually declared that, as an atheist, I have absolutely no basis for calling them on their gross hypocrisy for serving their "God of Truth" through lies and deception.My site is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/index.html. I had started rewriting it; the pre-beta version is atNo webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html. Check out my quotes and links pages through the new_index page. Also check out a typical email exchange that I had and have HTML'ized at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/email.html; it was a fairly comprehensive statement of just what my position is.To me, those "good Christians'" are zealously witnessing that Christian depends on lies and deception and that morality does not matter. I happen to believe that truth and morality are important that their witness only serves to inform me that that is one religion that I'll never want to have any involvement with.To my mind, the problem is not about God or the Bible. It's about these people's theology, their Man-made theology. Evolution doesn't disprove God nor the Bible, but rather their Man-made theology. And it's their fallible Man-made theology that demands that their YEC interpretation be true (which it is not even remotely) or else the Bible is false and should be thrown in the trash and God does not exist. Rather than believe that and become atheists (Christian atheist, the worst kind since they've also been taught lies about atheists and atheism, plus they have a lot of anger against their former religion that had lied to them and betrayed them), shouldn't Christians instead question that Man-made theology?It's late and I'm getting tired, so I apologize that this is unpolished and imcomplete. But to repeat my quoting of Conrad Hyers (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#HYERS):

quote:

---

It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it.

---

Atheists do what is right because it is the better way. When making moral decisions, we consider what the impact of our actions would be on others.I've been an atheist for over 40 years, ever since, at around the age of 12, I started reading the Bible and found it so unbelievable that, unable to satisfy the perceived Christian requirement that I believe the Bible (which I discovered I couldn't), I left. Years later as I learned more about Christian theology and history, I found that I had made the right decision, but for the wrong reasons.I've only had sex with one woman in my life, my ex-wife with whom I had been married for 28 years. I was completely monogamous in that relationship. Before I was married, on two separate occasions two older married women to whom I was very attracted offered themselves to me and I had to turn them down because it would not have been the right thing to do to their husbands, one of whom I knew but the other I had never met.OTOH, I have been told by several Christians that they would become total hedonists and would commit unspeakable acts if God did not exist to threaten them with punishment for such acts. I also have the testimony of a YEC activist who tells the story of having been an atheist -- in reality, he was only pretending to be one, as he had confessed to me in saying that he prayed to God every night. He explicitly states in his story that he "became an atheist" in order to become a hedonist without guilt. If Christians teach their children that they could do anything they want just by saying that they're atheists, then they should at least have the common decency to not act so surprised when their kids declare themselves to be atheists and then race off to party, party, party.

OK, consider these two cases: both of two individuals, both Christians, discover that something that they had deeply believed is wrong and as a result they lose their faith in God. The first Christian believes (as you have expressed) that the only reason to be moral is to obey God's commandments, so if God doesn't exist that means that he can do "whatever the hell [he wants]". The second Christian realizes that all his actions have consequences and that there is a deeper reason for morality, that it is what enables us to live together and to work together and to keep from us from tearing each other apart. The first Christian sheds his morality as quickly and as eagerly as possible and launches himself into a life of self-destructive hedonism, whereas the second Christian retains his morality because he realizes that its importance is not dependent on the existence of God."Atheists have no "moral fence" around them, except consequences."? What more does anyone need? The consequences of our actions, the simple fact that all our actions affect all of us either directly or indirectly, is the very reason why morality is so vitally important! And that vital importance does not in the least depend on whether any particular supernatural beings exist or not. And it is inconsciable to insist that morality is only meaningful if a particular theology about one particular god is absolutely true. And it just boggles our minds that anyone could seriously hold that belief, let alone realize that large numbers of people absolutely insist upon that belief.Consider what that belief says about your god. That belief says that those are arbitrary rules that are meaningless except that God said that you are to obey them. Why would a loving god burden you with completely arbitrary rules that are meaningless and are a burden to adhere to? What kind of tin-plated megalomaniacal martinette would do such a thing? Who would ever want to have anything to do with such a despicable god? That is what that belief makes your god to be.Consider this alternative: morality is vitally important, so God lays down those rules so that you will do right. Not because He's on some power trip, but rather because it is so important for your own benefit and well-being, for everybody's benefit and well-being, that all of you follow those rules. Now, how is this view inconsistent with a loving Christian God?The first Christian had believed in the tin-plated megalomaniacal martinette of a god, and so was misled to forsaking morality in favor of self-destructive hedonism. The second Christian believed in a loving caring god who had given us morality for our own sakes, and so he retained his morality.I became an atheist around the age of 12 when I started reading the Bible and quickly realized that I could not believe it. Early in college (circa 1970), the "Jesus Freak" movement appeared and close friends converted, so I received my fundamentalist Christian training as a "fellow traveller" -- I was skeptical at first and I became increasingly skeptical as I learned more and more about what they believed. Part of that fundamentalist training was the doctrine that you had expressed, that without God you are free to do whatever you damned-well want to do. I toyed with the idea for short while, but very quickly saw it for what it is, absolutely ridiculous.BTW, it was the fundamentalist sister of my close friend who was the first woman to offer herself to me -- I refused because I knew her husband and I could not do such a thing to him (even though I didn't much like the guy). I told her that I couldn't because it would be wrong, and she challenged that, saying that as an atheist I couldn't say that, but I had put myself in his place and I knew that I would not want it to happen to me, so I could not do it to him.Rather than trivialize morality and God, wouldn't it be better to teach why morality is so important -- precisely because of the consequences -- and to thank God for giving it to you? Receive it as that precious gift that it is, rather than view it as an annoying burden?

With all due respect, Mark, it certainly looked to me like you had stated, repeatedly, what Nator summarized there.Could you please set the record straight, then, and explain what it was that you had actually said and in what manner you believe that Nator had misrepresented you?

No, it's not in the least bit a "pointless exercise". Nor is it really an issue of "Christian morality vs. atheist morality".Rather, the real issue is what Christianity teaches about morality. Or rather what it misteaches about it -- a secondary and relatively issue is what it also misteaches about atheism and atheists. You have already discovered Christianity's misteachings about science and the lies it propagates through "creation science", as well as the destructive effect those teachings have on the faith of its believers. Well, Christianity's misteachings about morality and about atheism also are also destructive for its believers, more so than "creation science's" destruction of their faith, because the misteachings about morality and atheism can destroy their lives, sometimes literally destroy their lives.Mark, you yourself very nearly fell victim to those misteachings about morality and atheism. You more than most should realize that this is no mere academic prattling, but rather a vitally important issue. Through your websites, you are trying to warn Christian congregations of how they are destroying Christians' faith so that those congregation will turn away from the lies of "creation science". It is even more important to warn them of how they are misteaching morality.Have you read my posts in this thread. If not, then please do so and think about it. I'll quickly summarize here in very limited time (I'm writing this on the fly during lunch).You have repeatedly expressed the standard teachings (which I've repeatedly heard fundamentalist Christians insist on for over 30 years) that if God doesn't exist then morality has no meaning, because God is the source of morality and being moral requires us to be directly responsible to God. That atheists have no God to be responsible to, therefore they have no responsibility to be moral. Furthermore, the teaching is that atheist become atheists in order to escape responsibility for their actions.The consequences of those standard teachings is that any Christian who is faced with loss of their faith puts mself in a position where he also must abandon morality. That is precisely what you describe yourself as having gone through. That is precisely what all those fundamentalist Christians for more than 30 years have insisted would be the result should they ever lose their faith. Furthermore, those teachings present morality as being little more than an onerous burden, arbitrary rules that serve no discernable purpose, such you end up longing to be rid of them. And those teachings also present a way to be rid of that burden and they gift-wrap it up in an extremely tempting package: you can free yourself of that burden, do whatever you damned well want to, and not be responsible for anything that you do; all you need to do is become an atheist. And I have read the testimony of "former atheists" who described their loss of faith in precisely those terms; creationist Bill Morgan being a prime example (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/aolcreat_doc.html):

quote:

---

Eventually I made it to ninth grade. While in a Biology class, the teacher was teaching us about evolution and placed the same chart up on the wall. I still remember it. I sat there and studied that chart for a long time. It was on that very day that I recognized a major conflict existed between what this teacher was saying and what the Bible taught. Should I believe my science teacher, who is teaching man has ascended from ape-like animals, or do I believe mommy, daddy, and that book (the Bible) that says God made man instantly from the dust of the ground?" I reasoned that this teacher is a scientist after all, so this must be valid information.

​

I had a choice to make that millions of people world wide are faced with. Do I believe the Bible or what is taught as science (please note I did not call it science).

​

In ninth grade I chose to go with the science teacher, and considered myself to be an atheist for about 14 years. I took many more science classes in high school and in college (I am a Mechanical Engineer), and none of these classes changed my beliefs, if anything they reinforced my atheist beliefs.

​

I assume the majority of you are in college now. Do you understand my story? I am pretty certain you have had several hours of your education dedicated to the teaching of the Theory of Evolution. I would love to hear how this affected you. Has it done anything to your faith? It obliterated mine!

​

Question! Why in 6th grade did I think the drawings were ridiculous, but in 9th grade I believed them?

​

Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word...hormones. In 6th grade I did not have much temptation in my life. Perhaps my biggest sins were a lie here and there, throwing snowballs at the school bus and riding my minibike where I shouldn’t.

​

But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong, but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of man. I felt excited.....and decided the Theory of Evolution was for me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first page!! I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no problem, I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning a system of beliefs built on faith) that allowed me to sin without guilt.

​

It was not the data that made me an atheist, it was the conclusion, a belief that made me the judge of right and wrong. Those cartoon drawings of ape men did look sharp, but I wanted to believe them emotionally, more than I really believed them intellectually.

---

Was it evolution that had made him decide to become an "atheist" (it turns out he was only pretending to himself to be an atheist)? No, it was his religious training that had done it. What needs to be done to prevent the same thing from happening to others? Obviously, the religious training these Christians are receiving needs to be corrected. And that's not going to even begin to happen if Christians like you, who know that a grave problem exists, runs off and hides his head in the foundation of sand that he's built his house upon.Previously in this thread, I presented two Christians going through the same crisis of faith. The one saw morality as arbitrary rules depending on the existence of God and having no other meaning and of himself being reponsible to God and to God alone for his actions; when that Christian lost his faith he abandoned his morality, took the path of self-destructive hedonism, and perished. The other saw morality as an integral part of human life that is vitally important, the rules from God not as a burden but as a precious gift that steer us to morality, and that we are responsible for our actions not only to God but also to ourselves and everyone else; when that Christian lost his faith he retained his morality and he thrived.Morality is not just arbitrary rules. It's what enables us to live and work together, to get along with each other, and to take proper care of ourselves and of others. Morality exists because we and our societies exist; morality depends on the existence of God just as much and in the same way as we and the world and everything in it does -- ie, if God exists, then morality was created by God along with everything else in the universe; if God does not exist, then morality still exists and functions the same, just as everything in the universe still exists and functions the same.Teach the truth about morality and you will prevent Christians from abandoning it when and if they lose faith in the existence of God. Duh??Footnote: an interesting thing about morality and responsibility. This was in our textbook for developmental psychology. Children go through certain stages of development. This also holds true for moral reasoning. Young children especially start off with rules-based morality, in which rules are laid down by an authority (eg, parent, teacher, policeman). Questions of right and wrong are decided solely by whether or not it breaks one of the rules; in the classic scenario of the man stealing medicine without which his sick wife would die, he was definitely wrong because the rules say "don't steal". The child's responsibility is to obey the rules and he is responsible to the authority figure who made the rules. Furthermore, if any harm is done by obeying the rules, it is the authority figure who made that rule who is responsible, not the child who had performed the harmful action in compliance with the rules.That last one is an interesting side-effect of rules-based morality. In effect, rules-based morality is a way to escape responsibility for one's own actions.The next stage of development is moral reasoning, in which the child learns to look at the motives for the actions and their consequences. At this stage, the child takes into consideration that the man is stealing the medicine because if he didn't then his wife would die -- a person's life is at stake; which takes precedence, a human life or property? And the child learns to accept responsibility for his own actions.The former stage, rules-based morality, is descriptive of what we see in the Christian teachings about morality, whereas the latter stage, moral reasoning, is descriptive of what we see of an atheist's morality (and also of a mature Christian's morality, a Christian who has risen above mere rules-based morality). The rules-based Christian accuses the atheist of trying escape responsibility for his actions, whereas we see that the situation is actually reversed -- which has also been verified to me many times over the decades by the outright dishonest actions of far too many creationists with I have tried to discuss their claims).So it is not "Christian morality vs. atheist morality". Morality is morality. Rather it is an issue of how Christianity is misteaching morality and the effects that has.BTW, it's not just the Christians who lose their faith who are endangered. Nor is it those of us who will take on collateral damage when they self-destruct as their religion has taught them to do. Rather, many non-believers in the general population will hear those false Christian teachings about morality and, because the speaker sounded so convincing (the hallmark of creationist scholarship is how convincing the claim sounds, not whether it's even true or not), they take him at his word and accept that they can do whatever they damned well want to and they aren't responsible to anybody.Hello?

Well, it is obvious that saying "all morality stems from belief in God" is false. It's not in the least bit true. Every single human society that exists or has ever existed has had morality. Of all those societies, a miniscule fraction has believed in your god, YHWH, and even fewer has believed in your Christ. Morality exists in all human societies regardless of which gods are believed in, if any. Just as a social hierarchy exists, and some kind of political system. Of course, most of those societies's morality differ with other societies' moralities in their details, though they also have many of the same basic concepts; eg, rules concerning marital fidelity, protection of property, murder, codes of conduct, the showing of respect.So of course "Christians should STOP teaching that all morality stems from belief in God." It's a false teaching, so it should stop.

quote:

---

EDIT:
Here is a paragraph from my post to which you are responding:

dwise1 writes:

​

Morality is not just arbitrary rules. It's what enables us to live and work together, to get along with each other, and to take proper care of ourselves and of others. Morality exists because we and our societies exist; morality depends on the existence of God just as much and in the same way as we and the world and everything in it does -- ie, if God exists, then morality was created by God along with everything else in the universe; if God does not exist, then morality still exists and functions the same, just as everything in the universe still exists and functions the same.

​

Perhaps I need to be more explicit. Morality exists as part of the universe. To one who believes in God the Creator of the Universe, then, yes indeed, God created morality. It's obvious. God also created Dog and everything else. If we determine that God does not exist, does that also mean that Dog does not exist? No, such a conclusion would be sheer idiocy, since we can directly observe that Dog exists. It would just mean that Dog had come about by some other means, such as through natural processes. The same thing with morality; if it is determined that God does not exist, that does not also mean that morality does not exist. We observe directly that morality does indeed exist. We can even observe directly that Christianity and Christian doctrine also do indeed exist and they would continue to exist if we were to determine that God does not exist -- that would only mean that they had come about by some means other than God.

​

So really concisely, if God created the Universe and everything in it, then God created morality. And if God did not create the Universe nor anything in it (eg, if God does not exist), then the Universe and everything in it came about by some other means, as did morality. In either case, whether God exists or not, the Universe does exist, as morality also does exist.

​

Did that clear it up for you?

---

Hmm. Well certainly Christians should incorporate moral reasoning, since they've already tried exclusive teaching of rules-based morality and that clearly doesn't work!But what's wrong with teaching that morality does exist in all societies? (or does the conflict with some doctrine? Christians certainly have no qualms about claiming that atheists don't have any morality, so do they explicitly teach that about other societies?) And pointing out that different societies have different morals, but God gave you this set of rules that point out which morals are the important ones.That's consistent with what I said. That morality exists independently of the existence of any gods (at least as independently as the rest of the universe exists -- hint, hint). And that what is dependent on the existence of your god are the rules specifically identified by your religion as being from God. And (very importantly) those rules are not morality itself, but rather they tell you which moral precepts are the important ones and they tell you to follow those moral precepts.Now, part of that religious teaching should be to examine the particular moral precepts in order to see why they are important. Yes, this starts to get us into moral reasoning. Rather than being given a bunch of disjointed arbitrary rules and being told to obey them and don't even try to understand why, you are learning that this rules are important in and of themselves, gaining some idea and appreciation as to why they are important, and some idea of what the consequences are of obeying them and of not obeying them.Think. With the rules-based approach, you say that disobeying these rules will lead to God punishing you. After you die. But that's not how morality works. Every one of our actions has an effect, all our acts their consequences. We don't have to wait until after we die to reap the consequences of our acts; we're going to feel them in this life. So what you could teach would be that good behavior will have beneficial effects and bad behavior will cause trouble that we'll experience in this life, and then after you die you also need to answer to God for not following His rules.What problems do you have with that? I already gave you examples from my own life. The two married women who propositioned me and whom I turned down because I had put myself in their husbands' place. I wanted to take them up on their offer, but I couldn't because it wasn't right.I'm living proof. And I'm not alone.Now of course, there are many people who do need an external force to keep them in line, fear of punishment to make them behave. I never claimed that there weren't. Nor would it be true to claim that that is the only way that morality can work.But the issue at hand is more specifically the claim that you keep repeating, that without God we can do whatever we want to. That is an utter false belief. Morality exists, regardless, and the consequences of our actions are very real. So why oppose teaching the truth?Regarding your two students. The Christian student arrived at his conclusion because he had been taught that false teaching -- and I know that this is taught explicitly -- that morality does not exist without God and so without God he could do whatever he wanted to. The non-Christian student is a different matter. He was raised by his non-Christian parents in whatever their faith system is. Judaic, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Unitarian-Universalist, Humanist, Atheist. Those all teach morality -- yes, even the Humanists and the Atheists. Now if his parents had not bothered to instruct him (and some don't for fear of indoctrinating their kids), he could very well be swayed by what he hears the Christians preach all the time and accept the same false teaching. Remember that I did write in the post to which you just responded (bolding added):

quote:

---

BTW, it's not just the Christians who lose their faith who are endangered. Nor is it those of us who will take on collateral damage when they self-destruct as their religion has taught them to do. Rather, many non-believers in the general population will hear those false Christian teachings about morality and, because the speaker sounded so convincing (the hallmark of creationist scholarship is how convincing the claim sounds, not whether it's even true or not), they take him at his word and accept that they can do whatever they damned well want to and they aren't responsible to anybody.

---

So false Christian teachings can ruin both Christians and non-Christians. I already told you that. Whoever says that it's an atheist moral code? Atheists will normally follow the prevailing moral code of the society, the same as most everybody else. They'll tend to be more enlightened about the morality they practice, but it's essentially the same as everybody else's.Except, of course, the Christian atheists. They're the ones who still believe the lies they were taught when they were Christians, that atheists have not morals and are free to do whatever they want. And as long as Christianity continues propagating false teachings, it will continue to produce Christian atheists.(HINT: you should be able to do a forum search on "Christian atheist" to see what it means.)Teach that which is true. Don't teach that which is false. Where's the problem? It's neither rocket science nor brain surgery.Edited by dwise1, : added the "EDIT" section

Well, if you are correct, then obviously the Bible is wrong on this matter in that, by the interpretation you present, it is making a contrary-to-fact statement.Edited by dwise1, : added italics

Questions:Does your new faith depend on holding beliefs that are contrary-to-fact? Specifically, we are talking about the claims of "creation science".Do you support or propose using lies and deception to serve your god? Again, we are talking about the claims and practices of "creation science" and of those congregations and denominations that have incorporated the false theology of "creation science" as an essential part of their doctrine, such that they actively teach that if "creation science" turns out to false (which it is) then the Bible is a lie, Christianity is false, and God does not exist.Do you believe that if you were to stop believing in God, then you would be free to do whatever you damned well wanted to? Ie, do you believe that atheists have no morals? That morality only exists as your responsibility to obey God's rules?Those questions are what this thread has been about. Mark suffered his crisis of faith because he discovered that his religion, which was strongly/strictly "creation science", had been lying to him his entire life. In his first or second post in this thread, he posted two URLs of websites that he is creating. He is trying to call Christians' and Christian churches' attention to the grave problems that they are creating by embracing and teaching the lies of "creation science".BTW, I have come across the testimonials of many ex-Christians and near-ex-Christians who had gone through precisely what Mark was going through. It is an all-to-common event in far too many people's lives.Now, when faced with the prospect of becoming an atheist, he believed that it meant that he would be free to abandon morality and be able to do whatever he damned well wanted to do. I have argued that that is a false belief; atheists are just as responsible for their actions as Christians are and morality is just as real and binding for them as it is for Christians. I have been pointing out that that belief, which he has expressed repeatedly, is yet another false teaching that Christian churches propagate and that it does even more damage than "creation science" does. In effect, these evangelical and fundamentalist Christian churches are hell-bent on destroying the faith of their followers -- as well as to keep many people away from Christianity -- and then, once their faith has been destroyed, they are then intent on destroying those individuals by teaching them to self-destruct through a new life of self-destructive hedonism.Even though he had faced that prospect himself, Mark continues to cling to that false teaching about morality; I do not understand why.So, where do you stand?

In response to your proposed topic, "Morality or else!", that does demonstrate that fundamentalist ministers do indeed preach and teach what Mark had expressed fear of, that atheists have no morals and are free to do whatever they damned well want to.

quote:

---

Where do you get your morality? If there is no God, if I am simply complicated ooze, then the truth is, your life doesn't matter, my life doesn't matter...If like is just a random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality - it's survival of the fitest. If survival of the fittest means me killing you to survive, so be it.
(Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, Newsweek, 09 Apr 2007)

---

Of course, as atheists we know that's yet another false teaching. As I point out in this thread, all human societies have morality regardless of belief or disbelief in any of the gods. Indeed, all human societies need morality in order to function at all. We observe it to exist just as we observe anything else in the universe to exist -- if someone wishes to quibble that it's an intangible, then so is language, abstract thought, and social/political systems. For anyone to claim that morality would magically go away simply because we stopped believing in one particular version of one particular god (yet language, et al., would not) is idiotic, ludicrous, ridiculous, and just plain false. And yet we see that they do indeed teach that.That teaching does immeasurable harm when Christians do lose their faith because of the other lies they are taught (both the lies of "creation science" and the false teaching that if "creation science" is false, which it is, that they are required to abandon their faith and become hedonistic atheists who lack any morals), since it instructs them to launch themselves into a short life of self-destructive hedonism. They have no idea what atheists are nor what atheism is because they're just taught a false stereotype that's to serve more as a boogyman than anything else. And it so scared Mark that he consciously chose self-deception over becoming an atheist: "I considered the possibility of becoming an atheist, and realized I'd rather be a (potentially) self-deluded follower of Christ, than to walk away from the faith." (as quoted by crashfrog).They lie about science and the real world. They lie about morality. They lie about atheism. And they describe themselves as serving the Truth?BTW, if you think Rick Warren's extreme, you should see some of the other gems down here in Orange County. I have several friends at Saddleback and they shake their heads in disbelief and disgust at how highly dogmatic the followers of Chuck Smith are. Indeed, many fundamentalists denounce Rick Warren for being far too liberal and "unbiblical". I once stumbled upon a Christian forum in which they are loudly denouncing Rick Warren. What was his terrible crime? Allowing his singles ministry (where my friends are) to hold a dance.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Real short, because I'm busy preparing for a code review right after lunch. Not what I've been saying.The belief I've been refering to is the belief that morality only has meaning and should be practiced if you believe that God exists, and that as soon as you no longer believe that God exists then you are released from any and all moral obligation and may do whatever you want with no limitations. That is the false teaching I've been refering to.And while Christians do indeed preach that false teaching wilfully and zealously, that does not necessarily mean that they realize that it is false. I'm sure that they themselves believe that it is true. But that does not negate the fact that it is not true, that it is indeed a false teaching.I've noticed in an earlier post that you paint the issue as being whether or not God created morality. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not morality has an essential purpose in any human society, whether it would exist and need to be followed even if God does not exist. Obviously, if God the Creator exists, then God created morality along with the rest of the universe. And if that god does not exist then morality originated by the same means as the rest of the universe, along with dogs and language and everything.There is no problem with believers in God the Creator teaching that God created morality. The problem arises when they teach that if you stop believing in God then you must abandon morality and are free to misbehave to any extent you can imagine.I don't know. Is that still not clear? Really running out of time now.The only honest position is agnostic: we simply do not know. From there, you have to operate on assumptions.Christians assume that a detailed construction of what the supernatural is and how it operates is true and so they proceed from there.Atheists say that such assumptions are unwarranted and cannot be trusted. And so they do not tread down that path.

Uh, no. It is abundantly clear that that is not "essentially an academic argument, with little if any consequence in real life." It is instructing Christians to take a tragically wrong and destructive path when they lose their faith. How could you possibly say in any degree of seriousness that that would have "little if any consequence in real life." You are instructing them to do evil! That is no mere academic argument, but rather booby-trapping them to fail utterly. If Christians were instructing their followers thus with full knowledge of what they were doing, then their actions would rightfully be deemed monstrous. You yourself were faced with the effects of that teaching.I was wanting to add to my last quick post in the section about agnosticism being the only truly honest position, in the paragraph about atheists deeming theists' massive leap of faith (ie buying into an elaborately detailed theology which has no basis outside of their being told that it's so) to be unwarranted:
And then when the Christian camp comes out with outrageously wrong and false teachings (eg, "creation science"), AKA "howlers", then the atheists know that they had made the right decision to not make that leap.Mark, that teaching that atheists have no morals and that a Christian who loses his faith must also abandon morality. That is a howler. That is one of those things that comes out of Christians' mouths that make the rest of us drop our jaws (in astonishment that someone would actually believe such nonsense) and that makes us wonder about you. And make us oh so glad that we are not of like mind.I keep feeling that same reaction when I try to explain this to you as clearly as possible and yet you keep not understanding it. Misinforming and misleading people on a massive scale is not mere academics. Destroying lives is not of little or no consequence. How can you keep saying that it is? Blatantly false. You yourself expressed the fear that as an atheist you would be free to do whatever you wanted. Baptist minister Rick Warren, as quoted in another thread which quote I repeated in this thread, explicitly said that his atheist debate opponent should be free to kill him, because he had no moral basis not to.Mark, is morality important? Why is it important? The real, honest reason why it is important. To everybody. Not just to Christians, but to atheists, to Jews, Hindus, Muslims, mainstream Christians (who are not of your world). Why is morality really important? And what reason does Christianity have for not teaching about it?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Mark, I've been fed that line by fundamentalist Christians repeatedly and consistently for the past 37 years. Not only that, but when questioned they would insist emphatically that it is true. You've even fed us that line.So now you are tell me that all of you, including yourself, were just lying to me? Or at least were just kidding. Not likely.As you described earlier, you've set yourselves apart, off in your own little world, so to speak. When our two worlds intersect and we have opportunity for discourse and exchanging ideas and gaining some understanding of each other, it really would help if you'd come out and say what you mean, rather than just jerking our collective chain.You really should talk with some ex-Christians to find out what they went through and what their religious training was and what the impact of that religious training was. And what it took them to overcome it. Just as you should talk with some atheists to find out what they actually think and believe. Though you've demonstrated that you already "know" all that beforehand and that you're too cock-sure with your blinders firmly in place to be able to hear what they tell you. Plus, I doubt that you would make any such attempt. I have extremely little spare time, but I will start visiting ex-Christian sites to gather such testimonials.Mark, have you ever served? I ask, because discipline is kind of analogous to morality.The military depends on its troops being disciplined. A military unit that lacks discipline cannot function, especially not in combat situations. Much of basic training is an effort to instill discipline in the recruits.Now, for most people who have never served, discipline means Sarge standing over you yelling at you all the time to get you to do what you need to do. That couldn't be further from the truth. If that were really the case, then that military unit would fail miserably. Sarge can't afford to waste his time micromanaging the troops; for one thing, he's got all those junior officers to train. And if discipline was only Sarge yelling you telling you every single thing to do, then the moment Sarge isn't there everything would stop.For discipline to work, it needs to be internalized. Remember what I said earlier? "Much of basic training is an effort to instill discipline in the recruits." That means that the DIs, TIs, and CCs are trying to get the recruits to learn to discipline themselves. So that the recruits learn to take responsibility for themselves and for their gear and to take care of both in the manner in which they are trained to. That way, Sarge gives the troops direction -- and maybe an occasional reminder -- and the troops move themselves. Even when Sarge isn't there. That's the only way a military unit can function effectively. Of course you will have some troops who lack sufficient discipline; those get to enjoy some special attention from Sarge in the form of extra military instruction, until they do finally shape up or get discharged on an undesirable or less-than-honorable. But it's a grave mistake to assume that discipline can only be imposed from above.The same thing holds for morality, it needs to be internalized. Like discipline, it cannot be imposed from the outside, but rather it must operate from within. True, those in whom it has not yet been instilled would need special attention from the authorities, including law enforcement. Unfortunately, there's not much choice in what to do with those who fail or refuse to straighten up and fly right; we can't exactly kick them out and back into civilian life, because they're already there. But still, it's a grave mistake to assume that morality can only be imposed from above. Well, we are animals and we do act like animals. We are of the species of animal called Homo Sapiens and we do behave in the manner of that species. Our animal behavior is called "human nature". And so we act like humans. What did you expect? Feathers? What else do you expect us to act like? And please explain why you would have expected that.And it is not our intellect that demands we be moral creatures. Rather, it is our social systems and our gregariousness. We are social animals, which means that we need to have the natural inclination to form into groups and to want to function within those groups. Part of that is learning the behavior norms of the group and wanting to conform to those norms.That is what drives us to be moral. To internalize morality. And to do what is right. All of us. Including Christians, as much as they try to disprove it.I'm running out of time again. Here's a link to an essay I wrote on the subject many years ago: "AN EVOLUTIONARY BASIS FOR MORALITY" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/religion/morality.htmlOne of things about specific moral codes is that, because our actions all carry consequences, the effects of specific moral codes do too. If a new moral rule is tried and it has detrimental effects on the society, then either it will get dumped or changed, or that society will deteriorate as a result. If a new moral rule is tried that has beneficial effects, then through the success of the society that rule will establish itself and continue. Thus morality effectively evolves through a form of "cultural evolution".It would be a mistake to believe that a society can safely make its own arbitrary rules. Any society that attempts to do so will suffer the consequences. The same applies to individuals.OBTW, that thing about ritual human sacrifices. That's a "religious rules handed down by the gods" thing. That's your schtick, not ours.

My research into what ex-Christians went through and how their religious training, especially regarding morality, had affected that transition has started by registering on Ex-Christian.Net. I will compose my question and post it within the week (am busy with work, dance, taxes, and reserve duty).An apt thread there is "Irrational Fear of Atheism" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=16038. In it, the participants share how they had viewed atheists while they were still Christians and how differently they view atheists now that they are one. Rather than quote from there, you may go and read for yourself.When I first browsed through the site last night, somebody posted two Bible verses which I'm trying to relocate now. Those two verses (one is from Timothy is all I remember) appear to be the basis of much of the anti-atheist rhetorics we hear, in that (as I recall) they denounce atheists as wilfully denying God so that they may do whatever sinful things they want, etc. You know, everything that they keep throwing at us and we can't imagine where they got that nonsense from. I'll keep looking, though I'm sure one of the Christians here will be more than happy to volunteer them.I don't normally get into this aspect, but those two verses have it so incredibly wrong and are contrary-to-fact. I had just chalked most of it up to faulty interpretation (which is what most theology is, seeing as it's Man-made), but these two verses show that the Bible is just plain wrong. No wonder so many fundamentalists engage in autocolonscopy.

Nope. I get rid of smilies right after I'm done killing Clippy.So why can't we tell this stupid forum software to disable them by default?