Atheism on the Rise

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

I can assure you that no born again child of God has ever asked anyone that question.

---

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy?You know better than that.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Son writes:

quote:

---

What i meant is that we already have non-religious charities. (Unicef and stuffs like that). It's just that when an atheist will create a charity, he will only reference what they do, not what they don't believe in because it wouldn't make sense to say:"atheist organisation for children", they would just say:"organisation for children". Whereas a religious one will usually reference his beliefs to gain converts.

---

Along those lines, Johns-Hopkins Hospital was established in part because of religious issues at hospitals. That is, most hospitals of the time were financed by religious organizations. Good in general, but it often meant that you got a dose of religion along with your care.Johns-Hopkins was established, in part, to provide a non-sectarian medical facility.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

Mankind is hardwired with the knowledge of good and evil

---

Ooh! We're back to one of those questions I always ask and never get an answer to:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?One is good, one is evil. You, ICANT, who have "hardwired knowledge" of good and evil, surely know which is which. So which is it?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Taz writes:

quote:

---

According to Asimov, different robots would develop different personalities through experiences. But their beings always operate under these 3 laws while some other laws may be added later on.

​

Are you suggesting that we all started out with the same basic moral structures and as time goes on people develop new moral ideas based on their varying experiences?

---

The thing is, ICANT doesn't agree with his own god's direct statements about what is good and what is evil. Of course, god can't seem to figure it out for himself, either. This leads to a problem:If not even god knows what is good and what is evil, how are we mere mortals supposed to know?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

Without God laws of morality there is no reason for morality to exist.

---

And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves this to be false.Or are you claiming atheists have no morals?

quote:

---

I think Gould said it best in, "In the Mind of the Beholder", when he stated that "no factual discovery of science can, in principle, lead us to ethical conclusions, or to convictions about intrinsic meaning."

---

Indeed, because science is not philosophy. There is a philosophy of science, but that isn't the same thing.Morality and ethics are derived from philosophy. Science can inform your philosophy, but it isn't philosophy in and of itself.Religion is philosophy, but do not make the mistake of reversing that arrow. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.Are you saying atheists have no morality?And on a side note, your claim that a baby crying to be held is "lying" is ridiculous. The baby cries because it wants something and the only way it knows how to get attention is to cry. That isn't lying. That's "communicating." Since when did crying mean only either "I'm hungry" or "My diaper needs changing"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Are you saying the mere existence of atheist is a reason for morality to exist?

---

Since atheists have morality, yes, I am.Or are you saying that atheists have no morals?This is pretty much the same argument that Miss Manners has regarding etiquette: It's "restrictive," people cry. And yet, everybody seems to get upset over rude behaviour. They may not follow all the rules that traditional etiquette has, but they certainly have ideas about what is rude and what isn't and get reliably miffed when those rules are violated.Since atheists have morality and since atheists have no god, the idea that god writes morality on people is proven false by the mere existence of atheists.

quote:

---

I am saying mankind has decided what was good and what was evil since the first man ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

---

But atheists prove that wrong.Or are you saying atheists don't understand their own philosophy? That you know better than they do about where they get their philosophy?

quote:

---

You are what you choose to be.

---

You realize you just contradicted your own claim. If we are what we choose to be, then god has nothing to do with it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

So why does atheist existing have anything to do with morality existing?

---

Because atheists have morality without god. Thus, the claim that god is solely responsible for morality is proven false.

quote:

---

The question's I have is why does morality exist?

---

Because people, being cognitive and social beings, have systems for handling their social interactions.

quote:

---

Where did it come from?

---

People make it up. That's why there are so many different moral codes out there.

quote:

---

Why did it begin to exist?

---

Because people, being cognitive and social beings, developed a system to handle their social interactions.

quote:

---

There is no scientific reason for morality to exist.

---

Huh? Why not? Why wouldn't a cognitive, social group of creatures develop a system for handling their social interactions? It would certainly seem to provide a selective advantage.After all, humans aren't the only ones with moral codes.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.