Atheist morality

Understood.

quote:

---

So presuming you’re a heterosexual male, how long do you have to go without sex before you’re attracted to 12 year old girls? Considering that girls tend to go though puberty before boys, perhaps it would be fair to ask you about 10 year old girls?

---

Actually according to some studies about 25% of all males experience attraction to children:

quote:

---

A person is not necessarily a pedophile simply because he can be sexually aroused by children. Pedophiles must have their primary sexual attraction towards them. There is evidence that at least a quarter of all adult men may have feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children (Freund & Costell 1970, Hall et al. 1995, Quinsey et al. 1975).

---

Pedophilia - Wikipedia/Soren

Just the diversion. You represent atheists, right DHA? We are talking about morality: moral conduct or virtue.
virtue \ver-chu\ n 1 : conformity to a standard of right : morality 2 : a particular moral excellence 3 : manly strength or courage : valor 4 : a commendable quality : merit
To DHA and others who profess no such beliefs, what do you see as the basis for morality? Is morality a learned trait? Is it a biologically evolving survival mechanism? My question to you is this: If we as a species are evolving, are we getting any better morally than we were 2000 years ago?Or are we becoming less vulgar and more efficient at killing?Consider: Good Chimps? Is there a type of morality for chimps?

Nope. I lost the election, Dan Carrol is, I think, the current athiest pope. LOLHave to go to work, but will have a more detailed answer to your interesting post later.Thanks. Just couln't resist.

Only if "getting better morally" than humans are now would have a survival/reproduction benefit. Evolution doesn't have a direction towards "better", only "more fit" - if improved morality doesn't improve our fitness, then it won't improve. Frans de Waal, a leading primatologist, seems to think so.Suggested reading: Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals

The "spritual awareness" that you are not aware of having is your conscience.At the risk of getting a bit off topic, I would like to mention a few things while being brief about it:1. I am a Christian2. A non-Christian (I prefer pre-Christian) can be of solid character and perform many righteous acts or good works; however, your good works will never get you to heaven. The bible teaches that righteousness is accounted to one by faith in Jesus Christ alone. (Man's sin separated him from God, and God, wanting to restore man to himself, was required to clear the holiness of His character by requiring punishment for sin. He accomplished this through the atonement of the cross, and as such, God himself determined the manner in which we are to be restored. The method of redemption was never ours to decide (that is why our righteous acts will never "earn" our way into heaven), just as a convicted criminal does not does not have the authority to determine the nature of his punishment nor the manner in which it must be satisfied.3. Faith in Jesus Christ is not just an intellectual assent to a creed, and...4. Christianity is not a life insurance policy where one confesses by mouth in a church that Jesus is your savior and then you go right back to doing what you always did.5. If your theology is not producing fruit in your life, then what good is it to you?How can those who have been touched by the power of God in Jesus Christ go about their lives day after day, week after week, year after year, with little or no discernable change to those around them? The answer is - They can't! The bible is very clear about this.Empty, powerless religion brings a reproach upon the name of Jesus, and it is all around us. The church may be blind to it, but the world isn't and most people here know what I'm talking about. You can see it, whether you're saved or not.However, all of the lies, hypocrisy, and deceit of man will never bring the truth of God in Christ Jesus to no effect.This message has been edited by satrekker, 04-02-2005 02:05 AM

Athiests have no theology. post-christian actally. Can't imagine how it could, God being infinite and all.

So am I. Texan too by GOD! I apologize for mentioning that last, I feel bad when I force others, even unconciously, to come to the realization they are NOT Texans. Nonsense. Not a subject for this thread but I'll be happy to once again discuss why that's totally false in yet another thread on yet again that same worn topic.Points 3,4 & 5 are but more of the same.There is nothing that says an Atheist is immoral. They don't believe in Heaven or Hell so even bring such things up is pointless.However, unlike many Christians, most Atheists are truly committed to reason and evidence. If they were shown absolute proof of the existence of GOD by coming face to face with the evidence, GOD herself, they would immediately admit their error and change their belief.That is in stark contrast to so many Christians who when faced with proof that the Bible is NOT to be taken literally, take their fingers out of their collective butts and stick them in their collective ears.In that major regard Atheists generally are far more honest than Christians.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am assuming you were replying to my use of "pre-Christian." That should have been left out. I was trying to convey a sense of my hopefulness for others, but I don't think it came across and was extraneous. Really? Can you support this with evidence, your personal experience and generalizations aside? Do you believe that it is possible to compile absolute proof as to the existence or non-existence of God? If not, do you believe that this is an appropriate example to support your prior assertion? Please, point me in the direction of this proof. I would like to read it.

Nope, that wasn't what I was refering to at all. I simply think it's far more likely that the average Atheist will be saved and go to heaven than the average Christian. That they are more committed to reason? Certainly. Show me an Atheistic YEC? Only once, when you die. Either the IPU will greet you or not. But if an Atheist died and was greeted by the IPU, he or she would certain accept the fact of existence of the IPU. That's not an appropriate subject for this thread but this board is filled with discussions on just that subject. Please come join one and be informed. Or if you want the short course, read Genesis and Exodus for more than sufficient proof.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'll ask yet again. Where is your proof? I didn't ask to begin a discussion on the topic. I only requested that you point out to me where I can find this proof, but instead of providing the requested information you pointed me to Genesis and Exodus.I think that you should examine your use of the word "proof."

LOLWell come on over to one of the discussions for additional proof but Genesis and Exodus are certainly proof enough.Start in "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" and in "Faith and Belief" then wander down to "Geology and the Great Flood". Love to have you join us there. The fact that there are no Atheistic YECs IS proof.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

one could also see him as an enlightened individual.ever see the Jefferson Bible?
The Jefferson Bible

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

mentioning this point to a YEC is either meaningless or viewed as evidence of atheists as being less reasonable.

Let me point out that being bound by {rational behavior and the ethics and morality that can be logically derived from first principles and the rule of universality} is not limited to atheists, but also includes agnostics and deists and some theists, before getting into dictatorial religions that claim to have a code.Man is a social animal, and morality is the basis for his interaction with other people.Anything a person does off by himself that has absolutely no effect on any other person is neither moral nor immoral but amoral."Treat others as you would like to be treated" is derived from first principles, it is a pact (a "Social Contract" as Rousseau said), that I won't hurt you because I don't want to be hurt, and we can agree to mutual co-existence. Different forms of this principle are found in all cultures, as it is universally applicable to the social condition. See Variations on the familiar "Golden Rule" (click)This brings us to universality -- whatever is right (or wrong) in one situation is right (or wrong) in any relevantly similar situation -- from last link: For example, any (every?) judgment that claims it is okay and proper for {A} to live with {B} and get a document that gives them cultural preferential status -- on such things as tax breaks, health benefits, choosing how one's mate is treated in a hospital, etc -- but that it is not okay and proper for {C} to live with {D} and get such a document, fails the universalizability test, and thus it actually is not a moral judgement but an immoral one.Atheists, agnostics, deists and many theists will understand this as part of their core beliefs, and thus they are more likely to think and actually behave in a moral and ethical manner than someone looking for a cookbook recipe to morality and that doesn't understand the basis of true moral behavior. This "cookbook" type of thinking has lead to the belief in some that it is morally okay to kill homosexuals and blacks and Indians and .... the list is extensive and unforgiving in its morally justified indictment of this kind of thinking."Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife" is another example of a cookbook rule that is not universalizable.Let's see if this kicks your topic into high gear eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}