But since your worldview is based on what seems to be a faulty premise… (emphasis mine)

Obviously it either is or it is not. You have not proven that it is not, so the rest of this sentence is just bluster trying to mask itself as intelligence.

Your last sentence is great comedy. The purpose of this blog is to stand in the gap against the culture with a Christian message to be sure. The question is “who is the intended audience?” If I were truly trying to “stir up strife”, I’d be hunting down atheists sites to comment on, not writing posts about families and visiting Christian sites.

You came to me, remember. I did not seek you out.

As far as religion and science, most of the time it’s scientists playing catch up.

I agree. And one is religious and irrational and the other is scientific and rational.

“However, the logic contained inside the worldviews are sound.”

Well, maybe. But since your worldview is based on what seems to be a faulty premise, sound logic inside that worldview is irrelevant.

“because of your stated desire to do nothing but stir up strife”

But it seems to me that the purpose of your blog is to “stir up strife” by making religious assertions. So yes, it is very kind of you to allow me to post my non-religious assertions that are contrary to yours. Yes, religion and science have often been in “strife”.

Rationality as it comes to personal experience is certainly the place where our paths appear to be at an impasse. This is what I term “worldview”. We will continue to look at the world and interpret the data based on that worldview. However, the logic contained inside the worldviews are sound.

If you’re copying from the Atheist’s blog I referenced, then you’re absolutely right in your jest, but wrong in that I do not term you a troll because of a degree of rationality or irrationality, but because of your stated desire to do nothing but stir up strife. Your declared intent has labeled you, not your opinions.

“They are not here to learn but to argue, and the nature of their argument is irrational.”

But I am not a troll because my arguments are rational.

You go put your “arguments” on his blog and you will see that he will quickly label them as irrational.

Just like the comment policy at Atheist Revolution, I recognize that there are some people around the blogosphere that don’t get staying on topic, the basic flow of a blog, and are only here to cause strife. And since Atheists have this policy, and recognize it to be true, it must be, eh?

But that’s not actually an argument - it’s a ridiculous religious assertion.

“have instead opted to attack my argument”

No, since you have not presented any argument, there’s no way I can attack your argument. But since you have made ridiculous assertions, I can point out how ridiculous they are.

“This is a philosophical discussion about the foundations of a moral code”

Well, you can have an irrational religious foundation or a rational irreligious foundation. Pick a philosopher and he is likely to pick one or the other. Pick a scientist and he is almost certain to pick the rational choice.

“nor is it coherent which point you are trying to make”

My point is that philosophy is for dreamers that don’t actually have to live in the real world.

“If you want me to write something about practical application of morals…”

What? You might write something about reality? Nah. Your religious mind is made up and you could not possibly write anything about reality that I might find interesting.

This discussion is getting wildly out of hand– not because of the topic (per se), but more the forum for the discussion and the constant wandering off topic. That, and we’re saying pretty much the same things that have been said from the beginning of this discussion.

This is a philosophical discussion about the foundations of a moral code, and where talking with you about laws, about where right and wrong come from, etc. is interesting, the conversation has not gone anywhere. You have not proved your point– nor is it coherent which point you are trying to make.

You have not proffered a coherent counter argument, but have instead opted to attack my argument. Sure, it’s been fun, but since you’re not willing to address the bigger thoughts of my arguments, but simply address them with “Riiight”, I’m not that inclined to continue our conversation.

If you want me to write something about practical application of morals– since that’s where you seem to be stuck because you can’t seem to grasp the more esoteric and philosophical aspects of rational deduction and existential truth, then I can see what I can come up with.

“But, then, who cares about harm in a world without moral absolutes?”

This statement belongs to a well-known creationist nutjob. Do you agree?

“Probably because of the fundamental truth in what Steven Weinberg once noted: “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.””

I don’t think you know what a quote-mine really is.

“How do we know if any given thing is truly right or wrong is foundational to the discussion, but probably not in the way that you think. It’s foundational because this post and my part of the conversation have been about the philosophy of a moral code, and the need for it to come from an outside source in order to be rational.”

Ok - but what outside source? Your holy book or society’s thousand+ years of experience? Aren’t parents and teachers supposed to teach their children the difference between right and wrong? Do they have to use your particular book?

“If there is no outside source,…

Not interesting.

“Hence the answer to your question is, it’s only right or wrong if God says that it’s right or wrong, else there is no basis for determining an absolute right or wrong.”

Well, that’s your assertion and obviously you’re sticking to it. Do we really need an “absolute” right and wrong? I think it’s silly to try to have such a standard. God doesn’t actually make societal laws and enforce them, so you’re only going to get people to do your right actions if you scare them with treats of hell? But you don’t care if they do wrong as long as they know that they are doing wrong?

“You can hold to your opinion of my opinion, but you have provided no grounds to determine this opinion as irrational, and yet I can prove my view is rational.”

Riiight. You’re going to prove that your supernatural being has given your religion the one true moral code (trademark and copyright pending). How are you going to do that? Don’t go to Saudi Arabia or Iran to do your proselytizing.

“If X = TRUE …”

Riight.

“Similarly, if two people … and if there is no external operator …”

Well, society is an external operator.

“However, if there is a Higher Power that determines that it is wrong, then the person that believes abortion is wrong has the right moral view.”

Tell that to the Supreme Court. Humans make laws and humans enforce them and society is the product of humans. You say you don’t want a theocracy, but if you actually wanted the correct “results”, it seems to me that a theocracy is the way to go. Not to mention a “police state” that watches everyone all the time.

“It does not matter what society believes, thinks, etc.”

Well, it might well determine whether or not you go to jail for your actions. What about “assisted suicide”? Lots of actions are legal in one society and illegal in another.

“In fact that is exactly the point. Without a moral code anchored in something bigger than society’s opinion, right and wrong are up for grabs.”

I agree. So what are you going to do about this dreadful situation? Elect people to go towards a theocracy? Ignore it? Scare people by claiming they will go to hell?

“Take slavery, for instance….”

Why was it abolished? Because your holy book said so? Or because one society thought so and managed to win the Civil War? Why were segregated schools abolished? Because your holy book said so? Seems like it took a long time for people to realize that. Or maybe our society evolved and it became clear that it was the right thing to do.

“If all people are equal free-moral agents, and all can have an opinion of whether a given act A is right or wrong. Since we’re all equal (unless you’re arguing that some are more equal) then all opinions about whether A is right or wrong are equal. If you define a moral code as the opinions about whether acts A, B, C, … are right or wrong (or collection D), then all collections D (D1, D2, D3) as representatives of different people’s views must be equal.”

Yes. Different societies could have different moral codes. How terrible. What are you going to do about it?

“Therefore an atheistic philosophy must consider all codes as equal, regardless of why a person believes A, B, C, … may be right or wrong.”

There’s no such thing as an “atheistic philosophy”. But there obviously are theocratic societies - and every one of them thinks that its moral code is the right moral code. Maybe some are more rational than others. So what? Why is your moral code better than theirs? Why is your holy book better than theirs? And very few laws in the US are both based on Christianity and irrational. A member of this US society better live within those laws or else - regardless of what religion they may practice (polygamy?) or no religion at all.

“Obviously it’s irrational, but that goes back to my point. Atheism is based on all sorts of irrational assertions that when exposed have to be defended by throwing around names like “strawman” and deflecting criticism by not presenting any evidence.”

You seem to be confused. Atheism is the completely rational opinion that there are no supernatural beings out there messing with reality. I don’t believe in UFOs, astrology, fortune telling or unicorns either. Atheism doesn’t need to present any “evidence”. Those with extraordinary claims like supernatural beings, UFOs, astrology, etc. are the ones that need to present their evidence for their extraordinary claims. What “evidence” do you have that a supernatural being exists? Why isn’t the evidence for UFOs much stronger?

“Atheism attempts to deflect from its irrationality by focusing on Christianity and attempting to make fun of what it doesn’t understand by name calling, poisoning the well and dismissing out turn the arguments that make sense…”

There’s focus on Christianity because it seems that Christianity is the main threat to the proper teaching of evolution in the public schools. Or because Christian evangelists seem to have too much influence over the Bush Administration’s “war on science”.

“America recognized the equality of all individuals.”

Because that’s been part of your holy words for a thousand years or because society finally realized that it was the right thing to do?

“… this was a country bathed in Christianity and dedicated to exalting that Higher Power.”

Quite true, but maybe we will outgrow this silliness in another few hundred years.

“And as for the military combatants, they did see a judge.”

Riight. A completely unbiased “judge”?

“All the Supreme Court did was given them the rights of full American citizens.”

Was this right or wrong? Why? Because your holy book said so? Where is your “absolute” moral standard?

“I said that the opinion of the moral code would be corrected, but not about actions.”

I say that actions are more important than opinions. Is this a “quote mine”?

“I do not claim to be without sin. What I do claim is to know what sin is.”

Riiiight. Your holy book is such a reliable indicator of exactly what is a sin and what is not he said sarcastically. And it seems very clear that adultery is a sin. And the punishment is? Death by stoning? Shunning?

Well, you may know what a sin is, but it does not seem to be anything that’s guaranteed to be useful for avoiding jail or not avoiding jail. I think a lawyer might make a better “moral” reference point compared to a pastor.

So, religion versus freedom from religion. Moral absolutes versus moral relatives. Wishful thinking versus reality. Everyone can chose, but some are indoctrinated when they are really too young to make a wise choice.