Atheists are having it too easy.

[ibis]

Are you seriously suggesting that no code of ethical and societally benign behaviour is possible without a slavish reference to supernatural authority?

It's a pretty standard theistic viewpoint.

[SideysGhost]

It's a pretty standard theistic viewpoint.

*ponders*

Then it would seem to follow that theists have a seriously negative view of the capabilities of humanity?

[Gadjodilo]

Sucks to be you, so. Seriously, though, the difference would be that it's very rare for a religious person to publicly take a moral stance that isn't "god-backed" according to that person. Atheists obviously cannot do so, so in attacking that "god-backed" stance we're doing nothing more than continuing the central argument on a level playing field. If the Pope, or Pat Robinson, stands up and says "of course I condemn the wearing of funny hats, but, hey, that's just a personal thing, and I doubt God gives a toss", then he's on the level playing field - and atheists will, I suspect, simply say "fair enough".

I don't think that's true. I'm a vegetarian and a strong believer in animal rights. I didn't get that from Christianity. Theists are capable of drawing on more than one value system.

The only thing that makes a moral comment from someone like Pat Robinson of interest is the implicit or explicit claim that the person is delivering the judgement of a god. Hubris may not always breed nemesis, but it can't avoid snide comments.

If Pat Robinson calls for the murder of Hugo Chavez (I believe he did a couple of years ago), then that doesn't mean that the Judaeo-Christian injunction in the fifth commandment to not kill is flawed. It means that P. Robinson is flawed.

Otherwise, I think it's perfectly valid for theists to (for example) point to the disastrous policies of atheist leaders in the Eastern Bloc and imply that somehow atheism was to blame.

[ibis]

*ponders*

Then it would seem to follow that theists have a seriously negative view of the capabilities of humanity?

We're a sinful and fallen lot. Apparently.

[Almanac]

Are you seriously suggesting that no code of ethical and societally benign behaviour is possible without a slavish reference to supernatural authority?

No. But if there is no ultimate source of right and wrong then you have no grounds for criticising someone who believes stealing (or murder) is fine. You can say that you feel it's wrong, or you think it's wrong, but that's about it. And this person just has a different opinion to you.

[Almanac]

We're a sinful and fallen lot. Apparently.

Well you don't see irrational animals behaving like us. Did you ever meet an evil duck?

[ibis]

I don't think that's true. I'm a vegetarian and a strong believer in animal rights. I didn't get that from Christianity. Theists are capable of drawing on more than one value system.

I'm pretty certain I haven't suggested they don't. Are you the Pope, though, or have you otherwise made public pronouncements likely to be taken as indicative of divine authority for your position?

If Pat Robinson calls for the murder of Hugo Chavez (I believe he did a couple of years ago), then that doesn't mean that the Judaeo-Christian injunction in the fifth commandment to not kill is flawed. It means that P. Robinson is flawed.

Well, congratulations on your use of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. All you actually mean is that you disagree with Pat Robinson.

Otherwise, I think it's perfectly valid for theists to (for example) point to the disastrous policies of atheist leaders in the Eastern Bloc and imply that somehow atheism was to blame.

A lot of ink and pixels has been wasting making exactly that claim - but because atheism doesn't mandate anything, nor require anything other than non-belief, it's a ridiculous claim - in fact, simply another way of saying that lack of belief makes people bad. Again, let me ask you what effects your atheism in respect of Ptah has had? Or Allah. Or Hanuman. Or...well, the list is so long that there is no numerically significant difference between your atheism and mine. You choose to concentrate on the divisive fact that I don't share your belief in your god, whereas I prefer to emphasise our shared disbelief in thousands upon thousands of other gods. I'm like that, though - ecumenical to a fault.

[EvotingMachine0197]

*ponders*

Then it would seem to follow that theists have a seriously negative view of the capabilities of humanity?

Pretty much agree also. It comes down to one's own responsibility in the end.

Atheists don't get to blame god. Just themselves.

[ibis]

Well you don't see irrational animals behaving like us. Did you ever meet an evil duck?

Yes. Why?

[Almanac]

Yes. Why?

:mrgreen:

Oh, just curious.