patrick.net

Nazi Germany also put "Free Thinker" societies -- athiests -- to the wall too.

They wanted to indoctrinate people into their new social order, not have people maintain their own individual perspectives and intellectual communities and external allegiances.

curious2 says

There aren't any prohibitions against homosexuality per se until you get to Paul

Actually I think there is a pretty harsh statement about it in Leviticus somehwere, which is very early in the bible.

Patrick, you've quoted me out of context, which isn't really fair. If you look at what I wrote in context, and at what Leviticus actually says, you'll see that the condemnation isn't necessarily of homosexuality per se. Read literally (and fundamentalists claim to beleve the Bible literally), it actually condemns bisexual orgies:

curious2 says

BTW now that we've mentioned adultery and the 10 commandments, it may be worth remembering that Leviticus condemned bisexuality (possibly only threesomes), not homosexuality per se. An earlier comment mentioned the link between promiscuity and HIV. If you look at the statistics, a majority of people with HIV are women and children. The women tend to get it from their cheating husbands, and most of the children were born with it. If there is overlap between Biblical rules and disease (remembering that the germ theory of disease was not understood during Biblical times), then disease might be one reason for the repeated prohibitions against adultery. There aren't any prohibitions against homosexuality per se until you get to Paul, who by his own account disagreed with nearly everybody, especially the early Christians.

Here are the two references from Leviticus:

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind....

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman....

If you ask Google to define "as," you get the following:

Read literally, which is what fundamentalists claim to do, it says man shall not also lie with mankind at the same time as with womankind. (If you read "as" more broadly to mean "to the extent or degree" then it might apply to bisexuality, but still not homosexuality per se.) There are other condemnations in the Bible, including condemning women wearing men's clothes (e.g. trousers) as noted by Thunderlips, but those aren't about gay sex per se. There are also plenty of other "abominations" and restrictions in Leviticus, e.g. eating pork or shellfish, handling pigskin (football), wearing clothing of mixed fiber, and Jews dining with Gentiles. Leviticus mainly differentiates the Jews from the Gentiles, so it is a misuse to cite it as a source for broader morality or laws of general application. Some people mistakenly call all of Leviticus' prohibitions "laws", but most are not laws per se; to the contrary, Leviticus says you must have one law, both for yourselves and the stranger who lives among you. Leviticus is like telling the Amish or the Hasidim to dress a certain way and renounce certain things so they'll stay separate; it isn't intended as a law on everybody, and it would defeat the purpose if everybody then dressed the same way and renounced cars in favor of horse-drawn carriages. The only express prohibition in Leviticus against everyone is child sacrifice, which applies both to the Jews and everyone in the area; Muslims violate that literally for their "honor killings" and other denominations ignore it figuratively when they cut off kids who leave the faith or otherwise transgress against it. Many people claim to follow the Bible, but they don't really; for example, they wear clothing of mixed fiber, cut the corners of their beards, and ignore other prohibitions from Leviticus, but then fixate on their misreading of Leviticus 18:22 for reasons of their own (Bap).

Dan8267 says

The Spanish Inquisition lasted 356 years from 1478 to 1834. That's 356 years of torturing and killing people. It is estimated that several thousand people died, and that's just the ones we know of.

The Spanish Inquisition was a court, sic. It was bad, it was torturing and killing people, but it never did mass killings. There are other examples, like crusades, Bartholomew's night etc, but they are unrelated to the Inquisition.

In 356 years it killed about 40,000 people and each case was documented. Yes, that's horrible, but we talk about 356 years and the area much bigger than just Spain.

During their suppression of Vendee revolts French revolutionaries killed hundreds of thousand of civilians. Apparently it was the first genocide in modern history and it was commited by the first atheist state in modern history.

As of the 30 years war, which indeed started as a religious war, interestingly enough, so called Catholic France fought more on the protestant side, thus proving that the religion was more or less a formal pretext for the war, while real reasons were political, social etc.

This is my last post on the matter: as I said you take all Nazi related staff out of context. Since I think you are smart enough to understand that you do not look for the truth but only look for supporting arguments, IMO there is no use to keep talking about it.

michaelsch says

This is my last post on the matter: as I said you take all Nazi related staff out of context.

Heavens, no! we would not want to take any of this "out of context":

And of course we would only want to use full "context" when discussing why Hitler would want to re-institute using a cross (yes the same cross that originated with the Catholic order of Teutonic Knights) for the highest military medals:

Here is a fun site of pictures of Nazi's going to mass, celebrating Catholics, etc.

It goes without saying that we should not take it out of context:
http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html

Nazis were crypto-muslims, TOO

actually, they were just recruiting shitheads of all creeds.

except the Joos. But they Jews had the answer for that -- if the Nazis hadn't surrendered so soon.

Bellingham Bill says

Dude, the actual Inner Party SS stuff was explicitly anti-Christian.

What the Nazi insiders actually wanted was to forge a new religious movement, with paganistic Germanism at its center.

Bormann to his gauleiters: "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable."

Perhaps, but Bormann was also a brown-noser and somewhat of an "outsider" when it came to the Nazi inner-circle.

Yes, there is a lot of evidence that Hitler and Nazi's engaged in occult types of activities. Of course no one today as any vested interest in trying to distance themselves as far as they can from the Nazi movement, and paint Nazi's a devil worshiping pagans. What is it they say about who gets to write history...? Also, we know that no true Christian would do anything that a Nazi would do (Just ask Bap).

Could the endgame of the Nazi leadership have been to morph from Christian to paganism? We will never know (Thank god), but certainly the Neo-Nazi movement is still very staunchly Christian.

Anyway, could have-should have-would have...it is relatively immaterial because Hitler sold Nazism to the German public as a Christian movement and right up till the end Christianity was the official religion of Germany. I assume like many politicians and preachers he did not believe fully, but given his interest in the occult he did believe in some sort of spirituality. Who knows...he was never caught snorting meth off a male prostitute (like *ahem* other christian leaders) so we don't have a lot of "hard" evidence as to his true beliefs concerning the bible.

There was also been a very strong anti-communist strain among conservative Catholicism.

Cardinal Spellman finding Diem and getting us to defend his little kingdom against the Viet Cong for years and years.

So the Nazis did get on the good side of some Catholics by taking on Stalin, who was Satan as far as many Catholics were concerned.

And, yes, the Teutonic Kaniggits were a propaganda model for the Nazis.

of ye olde Germanic Christendom winning lebensraum from the stupid Slavs.

(that is actually the German National Party, but they coalitioned with the Nazis)

Bellingham Bill says

Nazi Germany also put "Free Thinker" societies -- athiests -- to the wall too.

Yes, pre-Nazi Germany had the largest atheist/humanist organizations in the world at the time. One of the first things that Hitler did was seize the assets and dissolve these groups.

"For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
-- Hitler, 1933

One has to thoroughly have their head in the sand to think that the Nazi movement was atheist.

Back to the original question.
"Why is homosexuality immoral?"
I think the question should be two parts:

IS homosexuality immoral?
and
Why do you think so?
With further subcategories of
What is the morality of the natural world ('self-evident' morality, rights, etc)?
to subcategorical questions, "What is self-evident good and self-evident evil in the natural universe?"
If you really want to piss them off: "How does God decide what is right and wrong?"

Personally, I think there is one best way to define "evil": "Any action taken based on unquestioned belief".
Ergo, any religion that discourages questions would be considered evil.

In the long run of the universe, I go with Schroedinger's "life as anti-entropy" to define what is good (moral) in the natural world: anything that contributes more usefulness to the future than it consumes in resources (hence, anti-entropy: localized thermodynamically, of course).

Now, in the context of any human actions, we can see that any one particular action may be good (useful) or bad (consumptive) in a limited context, but overall, the species itself is basically acting consumptively at this point in time. We know that it didn't always act thus because the species evolved in a natural environment, where it would have had to contribute something (if only extra offspring) to be able to continue to survive over generations in a high-risk, symbiotic environment.
Morality in the 'civilized' sense (intentionally created and legally written) rests within an artificial environment.
Anything goes in this imaginary context because the whole point to civilization is to isolate humans FROM the natural world and its tooth/claw risk-based mutation selection process (morality of those fitted to the environment).
Religious morality is basically a Johnny-come-lately idea based on some past experiences that worked in a human-dominated environment, and has evolved liberally to become blind faith in gods, gurus, government and guns (Might is Right). The latest version is the Invisible Hand Job: a philosophy that allows people to run Open-loop until the environment crashes the resource flow. Somewhere in the near future, humanity will either collapse upon itself to some extent or (less likely) step up to the Responsibility plate and truly become intentional and useful to the universe in a generous way, rather than 'living on Mom nature's handouts'.
In the context of diversity of the species and a robust distribution of variants, I don't think one variation of some humans (homosexuality) is really going to be all that much of a problem either way.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

But you know what, this whole discussion has become a red herring anyway. It has nothing to do with the still unanswered question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?".

I gave you my answer, you didn't take it. You simply changed it to an absolute and called it wrong.

You gave several answers to why gay sex is immoral. I demonstrated that each one was flawed by logical reasoning and counter-examples. If the counter-examples follow the rule and you cannot accept the counter-example, then the rule must be flawed. If the facts contract the predictions of the rule, the rule must be flawed. If the reasoning is circular, it is flawed.

I'll repeat your reasons and my counter-examples. If you think that any of my counter-examples are not applicable, feel free to explain why.

1. Homosexuals can't bear children

1.1. If choosing to not bear children is immoral, then those who abstain from sex must be immoral. Chastity and abstinence would be immoral.

1.2. This premise does not imply that homosexuality is immoral or that homosexual acts are immoral. It actually implies that the lack of heterosexual activity is immoral.

1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature therefore indicating that natural selection favors having some homosexuality in various species.

1.4 If having sex that cannot lead to procreation is bad then it would also be as immoral as gay butt sex to

a. Have heterosexual sex after menopause.
b. Have heterosexual sex with an infertile partner.
c. Have heterosexual sex with a woman not in the fertile period of her cycle.
d. Have heterosexual sex with a condom or any form of birth control (that will be great for HIV, but lousy for our species).
e. Have heterosexual oral sex or any heterosexual sex act that doesn't deposit the sperm in the vagina.

1.5 In an overpopulated world, not having children is a far superior moral choice than having children. If anything threatens peace, prosperity, and the continuing existence of our species, it's the ecological collapse brought about by overpopulation.

2. Homosexuals would have long ago died out as a species due to lack of proper human breeding.

a. Homosexuality is rampant in nature. The lack of reproduction clearly has not deterred homosexual sex in nature. Furthermore, the theory of kin altruism is sufficient to explain how homosexuality can be genetically advantageous.

b. Homosexuals are not a separate species. Nor do there existence in any way threatens our species or countless others in which homosexual sex takes place.

2. Homosexuals create a terrible example because at a certain age children do everything they see.

2.1. Seeing gay sex won't turn children gay anymore than seeing adults do the dishes will make kids want to do that.

2.2 At most this says that having gay sex in front of children is immoral, but not that gay sex itself is immoral. One could argue just as well that having straight sex in front of children is immoral for exactly the same reasons.

2.3 This premise is circular and therefore meaningless. If homosexuality is not immoral then encouraging other people to participate in it cannot be immoral either. This premise could not possibly justify that homosexuality is immoral because it assumes that homosexuality is immoral in the first place.

3. No parent wants their kids to see gay sex.

3.1 No parents want their kids to see straight sex. That doesn't make straight sex immoral. Same applies to gay sex.

3.2 Parents may not want their kids to experience many things like rock-n-roll and dancing, but that doesn't make it immoral.

4. Homosexual sex destroys family values that binds our nation together.

4.1 Any set of family values that demonize a child and remove him from the family because of his sexual orientation is no family value at all. Eventually one of your descendants will be gay. When that teenager comes out to his or her family, is it family values to ridicule and condemn the child for being in love with a person of the wrong sex?

4.2 America is a melting pot of cultures and values. Changing values does not destroy out country, but makes it what it is.

4.3 Acceptance of homosexuality does not destroy any good value any more than acceptance of interracial relationships did.

4.4 What really binds our nation together are beliefs in the principles of equality of law and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which demands acceptance of homosexuality.

4.5 Regardless of what happens to the "binding of our nation", this is not a justification for calling homosexual sex immoral. After all, immorality isn't defined as what fractures America.

5. Morality is what we as society agree on. Slavery was completely moral at some point.

Somehow I missed this one the first time around. My counter-example to the first sentence would have been slavery, but if you actually believe that slavery was completely moral at some point in American history because most of society accepted it (well, the most that was in power, at least), then I doubt I can convince you otherwise. By that logic, rape would be completely moral if most of society (at least those in power) accepted it. Heck, even child rape would be moral if most adults in a society were for it. I don't accept that this is how morality works. Morality isn't a popularity contest.

FortWayne says

Both sides are doing the vote buying with our money. And I'm afraid our political system will collapse on itself. Sometimes AF's well humored advice, doesn't seem so far fetched.

That's true, and the solution is to run elections the way they do in Britain. The elections are publicly funded and there are no television ads or ads of any kind. Take the money out of politics and you get better politics.

With regards to the whole Nazism thing, Christians want to white wash history by removing the collaboration between various Christian churches including the Vatican with the Nazis and the fact that Nazi bigotry had it roots in Christian bigotry against non-Christians (Jews, atheists, Muslims, gypsies) and homosexuals. This is much like the American south trying to white wash slavery and claiming that the Civil War was about economic issues as stated on the U.S. citizenship test (what bullshit!).

At the same time, communism, an economic philosophy that has nothing to do with belief in god and everything to do with who controls the means of production, is somehow intrinsically atheistic. I guess someone should inform Cuba, a communist state that is highly religious. Also, I don't remember anyone at the last atheist orgy and satanic bacchanal promoting communism. Nor is there anything about atheism that supports (or opposes) any kind of economic system, empiricism, or tyranny. Put simply, communism and atheism do not have any intrinsic connection.

In contrast, the Spanish Inquisition, the slaughter of Native Americans, and the ethnic cleansing by the Nazis do have deep roots in religion and religious thinking. The bigotry, the sense of superiority to subhuman people, the righteous disregard for the rights of others is very intrinsic to religion. Just listen to the phrases: the chosen people, the master race, god's on our side, god bless our nation. Religion is very tribal and territorial.

leo707 says

Here is a fun site of pictures of Nazi's going to mass, celebrating Catholics, etc.

Love of Nazis and a desire to bring back something of an Inquisition continues in Castille today.

Great pics there. In the West, coverage of Croatian atrocities against both Bosnian Muslims and Serbian Orthodox was underreported in the Balkan Wars; the Serbs were held up as the "Bad Guys", when ALL the parties engaged in slaughter and genocide. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the first ethnic cleansings were carried out in Croatia against the Serbian minority there. Hence the Serbs calling the Croats Ustashi and "Nazis" in their propaganda.

Could the endgame of the Nazi leadership have been to morph from Christian to paganism? We will never know (Thank god), but certainly the Neo-Nazi movement is still very staunchly Christian.

Every Western country that became Fascist by itself (without invasion from foreigners and puppeted with a government like Quisling's in Norway) was Catholic.

Italy, Spain, Germany, and Austria. Poland also had a Fascist streak, as did Croatia. Portugal too. Were there fascists in England, Scandinavia, Serbia? Sure, but they were a tiny group outside the mainstream, far from the levers of power, even if they had a few VIP supporters, with no chance of taking over.
Dan8267 says

With regards to the whole Nazism thing, Christians want to white wash history by removing the collaboration between various Christian churches including the Vatican with the Nazis and the fact that Nazi bigotry had it roots in Christian bigotry against non-Christians (Jews, atheists, Muslims, gypsies) and homosexuals.

Nobody mentions the tens of thousands of people slaughtered by Franco, many of whom died building this monstrosity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valle_de_los_Ca%C3%ADdos

This is the second largest Church in Europe, and made a Basilica by the Pope in 1960, built with slave labor after the Coup against the Spanish Republic. It is basically a monument TO Fascists, and is to this day a site of pilgrimage for Francoists and Ultraconservatives. It contains the tombs of Franco and de Rivera, two bloody ultraright dictators beloved by Spanish Ultraconservatives. It marks the victory of the "Cruzada" to destroy the Spanish Republic, and crush liberals and anarchists and reds, and most especially Catalan and Basque separatists.

Attempts to turn it into a general war memorial are rebuffed by the Spanish Conservative parties, including the so-called moderate right PP (of which former PM Aznar and the current PM are members).

I'll find a video that shows what Castillanos think about the Valle de los Caidos, how God 'saved' Spain by killing hundreds of thousands...

Edit; In another thread because I'm helping derail this from Gays.

thunderlips11 says

Nobody mentions the tens of thousands of people slaughtered by Franco, many of whom died building this monstrosity:

Yes, James Franco, aka the Green Goblin, is one of the most evil persons in history. Here he is posing with a bear, which as we all know are godless killing machines.

In retrospect, I'm rather surprised that it took over 500 posts to bring a topic about gay sex to James Franco. That's more than average.

Dan8267 says

Here he is posing with a bear

And of course we all know "bears" are a gay sub-culture, so there you have it.

Dan8267 says

Any set of family values that demonize a child and remove him from the family because of his sexual orientation is no family value at all.

Does this means you support any type of rape, insest, necrosex, beastality, sex with trees, sex with door posts, and sex with cars, and any other type of sex desire that a "child" is "born with"? You (and society) must be able to use a common baseline from which to judge healthy from unhealthy, good from bad, just from unjust, and moral from immoral. Birth defects should be treated, and your system just demonizing people that suggest it, by suggesting "all actions done by anyone in the name of sexual gratification must be accepted" is absurd, and harmful to society and the individual that is being abused.

Dan8267 says

Bellingham Bill says

Hitler was in no way a Christian

You're right. Hitler was a Catholic, not a Christian. Hitler was as much a Christian as the pope.

This is 100% correct. Those on here trying to say Nazi's are Chistian are absurd. But, those saying that Catholics were used by Nazi's to pull their crap, and exterminate Hebrews with the help of good German people, yep.

Bap33 says

sex with trees, sex with door posts, and sex with cars

Sure, why not? Although cars are more commonly used as an aphrodisiac to get into the mood, not as sex objects per se. It's unhealthy (and already punished by the law and tried to cure with therapies if possible) as soon as another person is forced into it.

Dan,

http://gaynazis.com/

Hitler was a sexual deviant male/male sodomite, and the Nazi's were too. They did it for fun, and dominace, not just for coupling. Kinda like prison.

And please explain how you use Hitler and Nazi as if they mean the same thing. And, please, exaplin why you post the writings (supposed) of Hitler or Nazi's with an acceptance of them being honest and true. Why do you believe:
1) that what you are reading is from Hitler or Nazi's?
2) that what you are reading is what they really felt/meant.???
These folks never lied?? But, Moses, Abraham, Solomon, David, Luke, Paul and John did??

Bap33 says

http://gaynazis.com/

The US Holocaust Museum website disagrees with that Geocities-like crap website.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/homosexuals/

Under Paragraph 175 of the criminal code, male homosexuality was illegal in Germany. The Nazis arrested an estimated 100,000 homosexual men, 50,000 of whom were imprisoned.
During the Nazi regime, the police had the power to jail indefinitely—without trial—anyone they chose, including those deemed dangerous to Germany’s moral fiber.
Between 5,000 and 15,000 gay men were interned in concentration camps in Nazi Germany. These prisoners were marked by pink triangle badges and, according to many survivor accounts, were among the most abused groups in the camps.
Nazis interested in finding a “cure” for homosexuality conducted medical experiments on some gay concentration camp inmates. These experiments caused illness, mutilation, and even death, and yielded no scientific knowledge.

thunderlips11 says

Bap33 says

http://gaynazis.com/

The US Holocaust Museum website disagrees with that Geocities-like crap website.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/homosexuals/

Yep, Bap's utter rejection of the Nazi anti-gay, pro-Christian agenda is a perfect example of this...

michaelsch says

Since I think you are smart enough to understand that you do not look for the truth but only look for supporting arguments...

Your rejecting the undeniable anti-God, pro-male-sodomy, Nazi historical record is sad, funny, and matches what you just said about me, exactly. I think there is some irony in here someplace.

Dan8267 says

5. Morality is what we as society agree on. Slavery was completely moral at some point.

Somehow I missed this one the first time around. My counter-example to the first sentence would have been slavery, but if you actually believe that slavery was completely moral at some point in American history because most of society accepted it (well, the most that was in power, at least), then I doubt I can convince you otherwise. By that logic, rape would be completely moral if most of society (at least those in power) accepted it. Heck, even child rape would be moral if most adults in a society were for it. I don't accept that this is how morality works. Morality isn't a popularity contest.

Frankly, I wanted to completely exit this BS discussion, but here is something interesting. "Morality isn't a popularity contest." -- Really? So, I ask you again: what is morality for you an atheist? You did not answer it yet. You gave some examples, some synonyms. Does it exist independently of a social ethics?

Is it anything more than just maximum benefits for maximum individuals? Needless to say that majority of people do not know what is good for them, so maybe a superhero like Dan8267 should decide for them? Or other ones, like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Trotsky, Mao, or that Austrian guy you like so much?
Just jocking, do not take it seriously, of course these dictators were immoral, only Dan is our real super-hero.

So is there anything more than what Dan like/dislike in the term morality?

Bap33 says

Your rejecting the undeniable anti-God, pro-male-sodomy, Nazi historical record is sad, funny, and matches what you just said about me, exactly.

No, sorry Bap it does not.

There is a huge amount of clear evidence that the Nazi movement was bought and sold on a pro-Christian and anti-gay platform. There is no need to search for obscure websites that have a clear agenda in order to get this info. There are plenty of speech excerpts, historical records, Nazi legal code available on "normal" history sites that show the pro-god (and anti-gay) connection. Hell, just read Mein Kampf; that alone should be enough to convince anyone of the pro-Christian agenda pushed by Hitler.

Could Hitler and the Nazi leadership have secretly been violently self-loathing homophobes that writhe in delightful disgust while in the embrace of a same sex partner? Sure, and how is that different than so many American staunchly Christian anti-gay conservative political and religious leaders? Well, other than Hitler was never got caught tapping his foot in a men's restroom stall. That does not make their message any less pro-Christian and anti-gay.

Bap33 says

I think there is some irony in here someplace.

No, just the pathetic frantic scrambling of someone trying to find something anything that will distance themselves from the Nazi party platform.

Bap, you are better than this. You should evaluate your views on how they impact yourself, your family and society, not on who believed them in the past.

michaelsch says

I wanted to completely exit this BS discussion

OK, um...
...thanks for letting us know?

Bap33 says

Does this means you support any type of rape, insest, necrosex, beastality, sex with trees, sex with door posts, and sex with cars, and any other type of sex desire that a "child" is "born with"?

No, because rape, incest, necrophiliac sex, bestiality, and sex with inanimate objects have absolutely no more in common with homosexual sex than they have with heterosexual sex. In fact, your argument equating homosexual sex to these things is exactly the same argument that racists made equating interracial sex to these things. It was wrong, stupid, and bigoted then, and it is wrong, stupid, and bigoted today for the exact same reasons.

Bap33 says

http://gaynazis.com/

I am well aware of the porno you stared in. I don't need to watch it again.

Of course, this site is utter crap. There's a difference between using a reputable source and using any crap you find on the Internet. One can clearly distinguish between the two with minimal effort just based on the content.

The Nazis made it illegal to be homosexual and put gays to death sometimes torturing them. To argue that the Nazis were a gay organization is just plain retarded. You're thinking of the Spartans.

Oh, and 300 was a toned down version of the Spartans.

thunderlips11 says

Bap33 says

http://gaynazis.com/

The US Holocaust Museum website disagrees with that Geocities-like crap website.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/homosexuals/

You beat me to it. Well said.

michaelsch says

So, I ask you again: what is morality for you an atheist?

Here is an atheist article on morality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

You may find it interesting, or perhaps just not read it and continue to cling to your preconceived notions about atheists.

I for one would prefer an atheist's morality over the bible's "morality." My guess it that most atheists could write a 10 "law" moral code that would kick the 10 commandments ass on morality.

If I was to write a moral code, to be followed by generations over thousands of years, I would probably first include:

1. Thou shall not kill kids (the bible on the other had give parents instruction on when it is there duty to kill their children)

Quickly followed by...

2. Thou shall not rape kids (mysteriously absent from the bible).

leo707 says

You may find it interesting, or perhaps just not read it and continue to cling to your preconceived notions about atheists.

Thank you, reading it now.

michaelsch says

So, I ask you again: what is morality for you an atheist?

The same thing it would mean if I believed in a god or multiple gods. Whether or not I'm an atheist is irrelevant to what morality means. Morality is the a prior concept, not the deity. Had Satan created the universe, would his will constitute morality?

Morality is a set of principles guiding behavior to avoid and resolve conflicts of interests in social entities (typically biological but not necessarily) in a way that maximizes cooperation and happiness of all individuals while minimizing harm to any individual.

Morality was constructed by evolution, not god. And thought, not unquestioning belief in some arbitrary religious doctrine, is the only thing that can advance and refine morality.

In places where there are multiple options with varying trade-offs, different moral systems will pick different options. Some moral systems work better than others and that can be understood in detailed by examining those moral systems rationally and understanding what the real rules being enforced are as opposed to what the marketing people say the rules are.

In other words, morality is a field of engineering. You build morality like you build a bridge, using absolute mathematics and science, but with creative freedom. An illogical design will yield a bridge that collapses in the same way that it will yield a moral system that collapses. Both are failures. Both are avoided by using the same tools: math, science, logic, and rational thought. In other words, good engineering.

michaelsch says

So is there anything more than what Dan like/dislike in the term morality?

The fundamental difference between you and I is that I believe the messenger is irrelevant, and all that matters is the messenger. My morality has nothing to do with me. It is entirely objective.

You, on the other hand, see the entire universe as revolving around you and your beliefs. And that is why you can't even imagine that another person doesn't think this way.

I see myself as utterly insignificant. I see all of mankind as utterly insignificant compared to the vastness of the universe. If our species never even existed, it would have no impact other than the thin, small sphere of radio waves we've transmitted. However, I value the lives of sentient beings, natural or artificial.

The bottom line is that there are no contradictions in my morality, which is more than you can honestly say about yours. Furthermore, my morality would not be any more or less acceptable to me if my entire life was different including if things were changed like my nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and even my species. You most certainly would be less accepting of your own morality if your nationality, sexual orientation, or religion were different.

leo707 says

michaelsch says

I wanted to completely exit this BS discussion

OK, um...

...thanks for letting us know?

I assure you that he's not the only one who wants him to completely exit this discussion.

michaelsch says

leo707 says

You may find it interesting, or perhaps just not read it and continue to cling to your preconceived notions about atheists.

Thank you, reading it now.

Oh, sorry. Now I feel bad about my smart ass comment suggesting you would not read it.

leo707 says

Here is an atheist article on morality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

Atheism, whether you are talking about the lack of belief in gods or the explicit disbelief in gods, doesn't itself say anything about morality. There is no "atheist" morality or doctrine.

That said, people who are atheists are so for some reason. The most popular reason is simply that they are intelligent, knowledgeable, and rational, which is why most scientists are atheists or at least closeted atheists calling themselves agnostics.

Rational, thinking people consider the question of god or gods existence and, being rational and objective, look at facts and reasoning rather than making arbitrary cultural assumptions based on where they were born and raised. Atheism is simply a conclusion, not a premise like religion. If evidence or reasoning pointed to a god or multiple gods or a giant blue penis creating the universe, then the rational person would accept that. It just so happens to be that all evidence and reasoning points to there being no possible god and that all gods including the Christian one was made up by assholes trying to gain power, wealth, and pussy.

The rationalist applies rational, objective thinking to morality as well. Since most atheists are rationalists, most atheists will apply rational, objective thinking to morality. It is no wonder than that most atheists will reach the same conclusions on morality just like they would reach the same conclusions on physics, chemistry, mathematics, and bridge building. Furthermore, it should be no more surprising that such rational people use scientific and engineering approaches to solving problems of morality. After all, this tool set has successfully solved almost all problems thrown at it, and the remaining are in the process of being solved.

When many independent thinkers come to the same conclusion with less than 1 part in a million difference in the details, chances are they are on to something. For example, if a hundred people all independently reach the same conclusion to the question, "What is the one billionth prime number?", then they are probably right.

leo707 says

Here is an atheist article on morality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

In February, I spoke at the 2010 TED conference, where I briefly argued that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.

Essentially that was going to be the thesis of my rant on morality that I didn't get to during the weekend I wrote my rant on abortion. The one difference in my thesis and the one above is that I would have used the term "engineering" rather than "science". Yes, there is an underlying science, but that science must be applied as an engineering discipline.

Bridge building is engineering based on science, but not science itself. Same for morality. Yes, bridge building does yield interesting physics, but it's still mechanical engineering. Same for morality. It's based on biology and game theory, but is a kind of engineering, most closely related to software engineering.

leo707 says

michaelsch says

leo707 says

You may find it interesting, or perhaps just not read it and continue to cling to your preconceived notions about atheists.

Thank you, reading it now.

Oh, sorry. Now I feel bad about my smart ass comment suggesting you would not read it.

Nevermind. The most interesting in the article is the author's need to have a scientific universal foundation for morality. As far as I went his refutation of Carroll's points seam not very convincing. It would be interesting to see what will be results of his efforts.

Certain things he writes seam very questionable: for example, "Do monkeys suffer more than mice from medical experiments? (The answer is almost surely "yes.") If so, all other things being equal, it is worse to run experiments on monkeys than on mice." You necessary run into such things, when you base morality on a measurable well being. The next step would be discovering that kids being killed suffer less than adults, so it's less immoral to kill kids. Based on your previous post you most likely would feel it's wrong.

Well, the article is very interesting and I need much more time to read all details it it several times. As I said the most valuable is that the guy feels there is a question that requires research and some kind of theory we do not have today.