"Precise" ? Go science, the study of what we are , G-O-D ....  

Hi again! Wow quite a few people responded to the original post. I was wondering if you may have missed my questions ( or perhaps I missed your answer) here they are again: 

"Moral absolutes? Can you post your definition of what those are?

AND

How do Christian theists Defend moral absolutes? What do they cite to do this?"

Thanks!

Why, I wonder, do theists always simply ignore difficult questions? Well, that's a retorical question itself since I'm fairly sure I know the answer - they don't have any answers, only assertions.

This discussion has been a case in point.

A person comes to the messageboard and, as an opening remark, posits an argument which hinges on his assessment of the comparitive worthlessness of atheism compared to theism. This assessment is summed up with the following assertion:

"Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

To which Renee Obsidianwords makes the pertinent rejoinder "This would infer that an atheist isn't moral" and asks of the person who made the assertion "Define moral, without citing the bible."
 

By way of a response (though of course it doesn't even pretend to anwer her actual request) she gets this assertion in reply.

"The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory."

Which, sounding like it's a serious charge, merits Renee's immediate follow-up questions "Moral absolutes? Can you post your definition of what those are?" and "How do Christian theists Defend moral absolutes? What do they cite to do this?"
 

To which she gets no answer at all.

But that doesn't mean that her correspondent is simply hoping everyone forgets he ever made the assertion. Later, when another correspondent states logically "Moral absolutes do not exist" he is immediately countered by the person who brought them up with the interrogative;

"Are you absolutely sure?"

So, it seems he is willing to back up his assertion after all. Reasonably, Renee asks again just what this assertion actually means simply by repeating her earlier unanswered queries; "Moral absolutes? Can you post your definition of what those are?" and "How do Christian theists Defend moral absolutes? What do they cite to do this?"
 

We're still waiting. In fact we're still waiting for an answer to Renee's very first query regarding how the theist defines "moral" at all, let alone "moral absolutes".

When will theists ever learn that unfounded assertions expressed with force, while being terribly impressive and convincing to impressionable minds encouraged never to think rationally, simply reveal the asserter to be the blustering deluded victim of indoctrination he is to anyone who prioritises logic and reality over superstition and fantasy?

In this case of course it simply means that the OP has lost his argument, if he ever even had one. If an argument is contingent on an assertion that is apparently so unproveable that even its originator abandons it almost as soon as it has come out of his mouth, then it was obviously wrong.

And so is he.

Hi Nikolaj

I've never brought it up since to be honest I don't regard Norway as an atheist state - far from it, though religion is thankfully in decline - and my experience of Sweden and Denmark is insufficient to speak authoritatively regarding the state of play there. You do it better.

But you did ask a good question and directed it to someone whose assertions contradict your experience so they at least should have the decency to respond, whatever about apologising for making claims which exceed their ability to back them up.

Personally I think he's blown whatever chance he had of being taken seriously and knows it - hence the silence when asked to justify his assertions. Which is not to say he won't be back with even more assertions (that's what they tend to do), but don't hold your breath waiting for answers (I assume poor Renee has already keeled over blue-faced under the kitchen table waiting for answers to hers).

Hi Nikolaj,

I had wondered about the OP statement as well upon first reading.

Half way through my answer to it, it occurred to me that the OP intent of the "religion is winning" phrase, might not be meshing with what I thought he meant. But I finished my answer anyway.

Now that I've had more than just a couple of minutes to reflect/answer, I can say that my original feeling about the question may have been wrong. I was assuming by 'winning' he essentially meant that religion has been more popular than atheism since, well... either the dawn of time or the dawn of religion v sciences....take your pick. I would say the latter though, as I think when the first humans became aware enough to comprehend existence it was likely they were Atheists, and religion developed shortly thereafter...much as the fact that we are all born Atheists until we are taught or learn otherwise.

Now let me qualify by saying that religion "winning", in a strictly popular sense, would not include those regions of the world where religions, by determination of the powers that be, have no opportunity to "play the game" to begin with.

So by my accounting, religion where freely available, so to speak, is winning in the sense that there are more theists than Atheists. Yes, over the last few years I have looked up the information but no I'm not here to begin hunting down and providing sources to back my accounting.... my laziness and lack of time prevents that anytime soon.

Let me state what I've said indirectly before: 

Winning is a temporary state and there are valid reasons to think that Atheism is gaining ground in this, for lack of a better term, "contest". 

If I was wrong about the OP's intended meaning of that phrase, then I would ask him to clarify further so I can answer directly to said meaning.

Incorrect. Sagan is implying that because the Earth is so special to us (See: Pale Blue Dot), it instill the illusion of divine creation for us. The illusion quickly dissipates once we awaken to the fact that the Earth is a very humble speck against the bastion of the universe, in no particularly special place, and is quite vulnerable.

We have nowhere else to call home at present, and for a world and universe supposedly designed just for us, this seems like a rather poor set-up.

This is the same statement as the one you just made.

Correct. How could it not be? There are billions upon billion of stars and worlds in the great expanse of the universe; humanity, on the scale of the cosmos, amounts to - effectively - nothing. Life on Earth has only been around for a few hundred million years - humans far less than that. Merely retreat as far out as our nearest planetary neighbor and our entire civilization becomes invisible against the scale of it's environment.

Right now, as far as the universe would be concerned, we are inconsequential. Perhaps some day we'll be something more - but it'll be science carrying us to such a height, not your precious deity.

...Why you felt the need to repeat yourself three times is rather vexxing.

Gibberish. By 'philosophical naturalism' I presume you mean 'materialism'? And if so, yes, this is the domain of science. As has been repeated a few hundred times by now, science strictly deals with what is natural and what is material. It does not entertain you fantasies about 'immaterial' things because such things could never be tested, and are not properly defined.

Correct. And neither can any intellectually honest person.

You're repeating yourself again. Sagan did not imply that we were not, in some ways, unique to our region of the galaxy. He was illustrating that our vision of ourselves as a divine creation was nonsense.

FALSE. Sagan speculated that perhaps the process by which life arises and evolves is commonplace enough that there could be millions of technical civilizations. He did not 'literally believe' that this must be the case - he simply suggested that the possibility should not be discarded out of hand. Moreover, we do not yet have enough data about the universe to conclusively call such a speculation incorrect; do you know what a 'light year' is? Are you aware that our galaxy alone is roughly 100.000 light years across and roughly 1,000 light years deep?

We have no idea what lies in most of that space - even of what fractions of it we can observe, we're in many cases looking into the distant past. A million civilizations as industrialized as ours would indeed be very easy fellows to miss in that tremendous vastness.

...And do you want to know why I chuckle at theists like yourself? Even your writing is trapped by your taboos.

I've noticed your extraordinary reluctance to use the word 'atheist', as though as little as typing the word yourself might light a fire under your deity's ass. What wrong, abs? So fearful of burning forever and ever that even your own vocabulary must make some sacrifice to your censorship?

Why religion is winning?,

From where I live religion is not only losing it is in fact lost. The war is over rationality and the enlightment won. Gay rights is more of a political force than religious rights. Sure America is a few years behind but catching up.

Being a politican who admits to being religious is a bit like saying I'm a part time paedophile it just isnt a vote winner at least in the UK

I know he's going to say that you are saying it's a moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist - which would be a contradicion. However, it's not a moral absolute, it's a factual absolute that they don't exist - just like it's a factual (not moral) absolute that human beings can't survive without a functioning brain (though Christians can easily cause you to doubt this. )

Dude, have a little perspective:

Our important in the universe is to ourselves.  Obviously, our 'self-importance' isn't imagined, without ourselves, we wouldn't be here! It's our absolute importance that's an illusion. On a cosmic scale, we are of less consequence than even the smallest, shortest-lived star.

Why does insignificance offend the theist ego so?

Why does death become something be denied?

Fight to survive, to live as much of your life as you can, because it's all you'll have. Death should be the motivator for us to do something with ourselves, not hug ourselves tightly and say 'there there, it'll all be ok'. It won't be ok: YER GONNA DIE. And that should be your reason to waste not one single moment, because once gone, they can never be replaced, and you will never get more.

Theologically, yes. They're still working very hard to tell themselves that all the things they've denied themselves in life weren't pointless, that they'll see all their desires fulfilled in Heaven. It's hogwash. If you deny yourself something in this life, you should do it for good reasons, like not wanting to hurt someone else, or not wanting to be unhealthy, or not wanting to go to prison. Deny yourself what you must because it's the right thing to do, and then... and this is the important bit: Let it go.

Don't regret it. Don't beat yourself up over it. The past is the past. Be aware of it, but also be aware that nothing you can ever do will change what was done. Just factor in the consequences of what happened into the decisions you make from now on.

Be you. Live, and live now. If God made all this for you, then it's even more important. I've said it many times over, but I'll keep saying it: the theist insistence on 'heaven' or an immortal afterlife strikes me, from the position that God exists, not as naive obviously... but as horribly, horribly obnoxious.

If God made this world for you, gave this life to you... how dare you tell your God that that's not good enough? How dare you desire more?

Live. Live now. If you're very, very lucky... this world is all there is.

Geirj, I believe you miswrote a few times and put secular where you meant to put theistic.  Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  In this particular thread we all live in secular societies, with people both theist and Atheist.  I would have AbsoluteTruth contrsuct a new scenario with terms he understands.

Religion is not winning.  It's been getting curbstomped back to the Bronze Age for the last 500 years.

Not only is it losing the war, but it has been unable to win any single factual engagement. The arguments put forth by religion-- every last sorry stinking one of them-- are founded on utter fallacy.  They amount to constant dancing and retrograde actions trying to direct attention away from the fact that theists have zero proof of their asinine claims.

If this were true, one would expect the proportionate christian population in prison to be less than that of atheists, again proportionate to the population.  Instead, while 75% of the US is christian, and 75% of the prison population is also christian, only .2% of the prison population is atheist while atheists represent 10% of the general population in the United States.

One would expect that since the United States has the highest proportion of christians of any country, there would be less crime and violence here.  In fact, the United States has by far the highest murder rate of any country in the world.

So the implication of the Argument from Morality is that christians need an imaginary friend in order to prevent them from stealing and killing.  This utilitarian argument seems to tacitly presuppose that god may not exist: "well, even if he is imaginary, it's better to be religious because if we weren't religious we would raping people in the streets."

This is an extremely disturbing commentary on the TRUE morals of christians, as they see themselves.

It's also interesting that with all these moral absolutes, the christian church has made such an organized effort to defend so many pedophiles.

Since theists seem to place more validity in cracked logic than in genuine logic, here's a fallacy for you: Pedophilia is the most repugnant crime in our society, and pedophilia seems to be disproportionately represented in the christian priesthood.  Therefore, christianity must actually damage the morals of its adherents.  Right?

Yes a moral system is inconsistant because humans are all different.  But I have not had sex with little boys, I have not prayed on the week, I have not evaded taxes in the name of a belief,  I also have not instigated a war on the your god is different and commited genocide.  So how is the religious sects moral compass so much better than mine?  Because 75% follow it?  I'm sure that 90% of your serial killers were devout religious.  I will follow the rules of man, which have been updated for this decade.   how many amdenments does yours have?

Oh I also don't need your looking over your sholder jist to make me do the moral thing.   We all know that when you are all done dressing up for each other on sunday your talking about your fellow belivers at home and coviting something they have wife, or goods.