Atheism is awesome

jesusisGod777

My phone's about to die. I'll actually put a whole lot of effort into why atheists worthless.

I request a formal debate on this subject in this post as the primary opponent to atheism.

I additionally request an exhaustive explanation and argument  argumentcovering cosmologicalall known scosmological arguments, ancient arguments to modern current arguments.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

Atheism sssssssssss*

auto correct.

TKDB

Athiesm.

The first anti religious conversation, that I was educated on by the Internet.

It's an ideology of verbally abrasive words, thoughts, and reactions, regardless if a religious individual, is in church or on the internet? 

Religious parents who teach their kids about Religion, is basically equal to child abuse?

@Idheinz, is the anti religious instructor, who began my internet education on the very subject of Athiesm.

jesusisGod777

First and foremost, your argument stems from fallacy as atheism is defined as:

atheism: 1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," 

Since, your argument denies moral obligation, in the general sense, it denies the existence of moral conscience.

If, you deny the existence of a moral conscience, you deny the capacity of moral awareness.

Which is to say humans are not morally aware or what they are not conscious of.

If someone is not conscious of morality, they are logically unaware of it or in sense of the argument do no have a moral capacity. If they do not have a moral capacity they are incapable of making a distinction concerning morality as there is no distinction to be made between a capacity they lack and suggestion of a capacity they do not have, much less that anyone would even argue morality to begin with as no action is credibly moral in a world that lacks the capacity for morality.

When you are specifically talking about consciousness, and awareness, you have to define both terms to identify why your argument is fallacy.

Awareness is define as , a conscious capacity. to be consciously aware of your enviroment and self-aware as someone who recognizes their individuality as someone capable of thought.

Since matters of consciousness deal with a person, the aspects that influence consciousness are based on an innate cause.

Everything that you are consciously aware of is based on your consciousness and in matters of morality a conscience by which someone is aware of what is right and wrong in order that they understand morality.

To suggest you owe no sense of moral obligation to a supreme person insinuates no one is supreme and no one is owed any degree of moral treatment.

When you are discussing base terms, you can not suggest that something can not be objective as objectivity specifically defines the cause of morality.

If you state that objectively there is no cause for morality you suggest morality is not a concept someone is consciously capable of.

If you suggest that nothing is specifically objective, which as an atheist you must, your entire consciousness is not subject to anything at all. As nothing is ever objectively determined when everything is suggested to be randomly cause and lacking any source of knowledge or cause.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

If you insinuate people are not moral, they are completely immoral and as a result are morally incapable and unaware of morality.

If everyone is equally morally unaware the are equally morally incapable.

I'll cut it short because these types of debates are inane. The reason no one likes a jerk is because everyone shares the same moral sense hes a jerk.

AlofRI

@Vaulk ;
I'm an atheist and I disagree with just about everything you said. SOCIETY defines morality. Society doesn't usually stand up for ANYTHING ccruel or disgusting whether they are religious or not.
John Adams said: " The government of the United States is, in no sense, founded on the Christian religion." The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written with the basic feelings of society at that time, in mind. Many of the founders WERE NOT "Christian believers", many had run from the cruelty of the churches in Europe, FROM the taxation that supported the Christian leaders that wrote their OWN "morality". That Constitution even says that" ….. NO religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Humanity, in the majority, does not condone cruelty. Why would they? They do not want to see their own, or their friends, tortured or abused, stripped of their earnings or property or even killed for not following the church, synagogue or mosque's orders. Religion (s) have shown to be as cruel as any tyrants in history …. until SOCIETY turned against them. Atheism has NEVER waged a war "in the name of any "god"". Even though a tyrant IS a non-believer in ANY religion, the vast majority of atheists are against him/her. 
Galileo once said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Sense, reason and intellect are what society uses to decide "morality", NOT the Bible or the Koran or any other religious doctrine.

"Morality is doing right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right."

MayCaesar

The existence of objective morality is false even from a theist's perspective, if one is intellectually honest. A god is just a being that has his own views, and just because the god wills something, does not mean that it makes that something morally objective.

On the other hand, an intellectually dishonest atheist can believe in objective morality, by associating it with some fundamental laws of nature. Ayn Rand (who I immensely respect, but with whom I disagree on quite a few things) called her philosophy Objectivism and claimed that pure rational reason allows one to come to the objectively right set of morals - however, the presumptions made at the very beginning of her logical reasoning are not objective, and hence everything derived from them is not either.

There are also pseudo-moralities, such as ones @AlofRI exhibits: that morality is whatever a group of people consents on. Or that morality does not exist at all and everything is a fair game. And so on and so on.

My moral system is based on two assumptions: people strive to be happy, and people are naturally freedom-loving. From these two assumptions, I derive everything else and arrive to a very individualistic and voluntaristic system. My moral system is subjective, but it would be what it is even if I was religious. There are things I believe in so deeply, that even if I knew for sure that there was a god who disagreed with me, I would only be glad to have a debate with the god and show him the errors of his ways - but my personal moral ruleset would not change.

Dee

With Atheism we have the necessary justification to claim that Morality, as with all things on Earth, is constantly evolving and therefor all the horrible things that were done by people in the past are simply representative of the state of Moral evolution at the time or in that particular region.

Morality is constantly evolving and does so from society to society worldwide ,we do (mostly)  agree that slavery is wrong because morally we have evolved,  you guys in the U S who call yourselves a “Christian “ nation segregated  blacks right up to the 1960’s unless you wish to claim that a 90 per cent Christian nation actually disapproved of this.

It takes religious belief to carry out some of the worst atrocities ever carried out on humans as believers claim they did such in gods name and like cowards hid behind a religious book to demonize and victimize others slavery is totally supported by the Bible and was used to justify it. 

Atheism is position on one question only and regards morality I learned what’s right or wrong as a kid  just like everyone else does and this changes in every society and does so with believers also

Believers do not have an “ objective moral “ code and never had one , what was held as objective moral truths by believers 100 years ago is totally shunned today by the religious 

How do a god let believers know about “updates “ in his objective moral code and hows it objective if it’s changing down the ages?

Why should anyone accept a moral command from a god because he / she says it’s moral? 

To suggest one should obey such is actually immoral as it’s tyranny.

Don’t fret anyway as I know you won’t reply because you stated before asking questions are not a “fair way to debate” unless  Christians are asking them 

 

Plaffelvohfen

Morality is inherently subjective and the only possible measure of "objectiveness" we can attain will be framework dependent... For some this framework is God, for others it's human well being, for others it it might be "sentient life" well being, etc. Morality can only be said to be "objective" with regards to specific frameworks, but it will always stay inherently subjective and will never be objective in the purest sense of the word...

So when discussing the issue, the contextual framework is important...

TKDB

Oh boy, the Athiest conversation, blooms again, like algea blooming in a body of water. 

ZeusAres42

I think some people tend to confuse objective morality with absolute morality; two different things really. Morality cannot ever be absolute in Atheism. And the only way it can be absolute in Theism is if God is amphomorphic. This amphomorphic God would have to create all human beings to be absolutely moral though according to his own self-created definition in order for morality to be absolute. With that being said, if this amphomorphic God didn't create everyone to be absolutely moral this amphomorphic would still be the authority on morality and would be the ultimate objective authority, given that you're assuming the premise of this kind of God being existent. However, I don't see any good reason to believe in a God that is basically like a human being but with superman features.

I find the idea of a God that is not amphomorphic far more plausible, while also at the same time keeping in mind a healthy dose of scepticism. And if there is a God that isn't amphomorphic then absolute morality still probably cannot work either.

TKDB

The problem with some humans, they self justify various ways of treating others as they see fit to.

Like some of the ways that the anti religious, view religious individuals?

And then listening, or reading how some of the anti religious, pushing their rhetoric, about how they helped to push the Pledge of Allegiance of of schools, because of what some of the words said in the Pledge?

Oh, but the anti religious will cry foul, and call others out, for being prejudiced or biased against the anti religious, when religious individuals go about defending them selves from the various onslaughts that the anti religious go after them with?

It's sad, to protest Religion on the internet, or label religious parents, as child abusers, because the religious aren't doing anything wrong, according to the laws of the United States?

But not one anti religious individual, has ever made the Nationwide news coverage, because they got brave enough, to go to any religious building, or the religious people inside, and call them out face to face, over their choices to be religious individuals, and have a face to face debate or conversation, over how the anti religious, view the religious individuals, in a real life news covered Public conference?

I haven't seen that type of a conversation, or a debate yet.

Probably because there is the privacy of having an internet debate, and the anti religious individual, can maintain their anonymity that way? 

But Richard Dawkins, he did the opposite, and put himself before how many news cameras now?

Hes written books, and has a plethora of quotations, that both the anti religious, and the religious can educate themselves on

So thank you Mr. Richard Dawkins, for publicly expressing your anti religious views.

Because, you educate the Public in general, the correct way.

And because you wear your anti religious opinion, publicly.

He's the best source material, to be educated on by, when it comes to the anti religious messaging.

So Richard Dawkins public approach to teaching both the internet public, and the Public in general, is an amazing way to be educated on the Athiest, or anti religious ideology.

Good job, Mr. Dawkins, I appreciate your Public teaching approach. 

Vaulk

AlofRI said:

@Vaulk ;
I'm an atheist and I disagree with just about everything you said. SOCIETY defines morality. Society doesn't usually stand up for ANYTHING ccruel or disgusting whether they are religious or not.
John Adams said: " The government of the United States is, in no sense, founded on the Christian religion." The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written with the basic feelings of society at that time, in mind. Many of the founders WERE NOT "Christian believers", many had run from the cruelty of the churches in Europe, FROM the taxation that supported the Christian leaders that wrote their OWN "morality". That Constitution even says that" ….. NO religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Humanity, in the majority, does not condone cruelty. Why would they? They do not want to see their own, or their friends, tortured or abused, stripped of their earnings or property or even killed for not following the church, synagogue or mosque's orders. Religion (s) have shown to be as cruel as any tyrants in history …. until SOCIETY turned against them. Atheism has NEVER waged a war "in the name of any "god"". Even though a tyrant IS a non-believer in ANY religion, the vast majority of atheists are against him/her. 
Galileo once said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Sense, reason and intellect are what society uses to decide "morality", NOT the Bible or the Koran or any other religious doctrine.

"Morality is doing right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right."

I'll try to address this sequentially.  Firstly, let's just say that you're right and Society defines morality.  To say that "Society doesn't usually stand up for ANYTHING cruel or disgusting whether they are religious or not" is simply untrue from a historical standpoint.  There exists literally thousands of years of historical documentation to prove that society not only allowed cruelty but indeed stood up for it and supported it through cultural adoption and legal enforcement.  A classic and solidified example of this is Slavery.  I think we could all agree that Slavery, at the very least, is cruel however, society not only condoned it but enforced it as law.  So your statement that Society doesn't "Usually" stand up for anything cruel is incorrect and in the scope of all time, we have more instances of society standing up for cruelty than we have examples of the opposite.  That's a fact.  Even if we JUST went with the United States as an example...slavery existed under law in the U.S. for longer than it has been abolished.  We have more history of slavery than we do of equality.

Therefor I conclude that, in your first point, you are wrong.  The facts not only don't support your conclusion but they directly contradict it.

Secondly, the idea that the Government of the United States isn't founded on Christianity or the "Christian Religion" is simply untrue.  I'll explain why.

The highest court in the United States is the United States Supreme Court.  This is incontrovertible.   
The highest form of Law in the United States is the U.S. Constitution.  This is incontrovertible.
The highest court in the United States hold jurisdiction over determining the application of the highest form of law in the United States.

I think at this point I've established the above well enough to continue with the full explanation. 

The Declaration of Independence is held by the United States Supreme Court as being the thought and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  

The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'

Now all of the founding Fathers agreed that the ONLY BASIS FOR SOUND GOVERNMENT was the principle that "All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

This means that ALL of the founding fathers agreed (And signed) that the BASIS (The beginning, the foundation, the support) for a sound Government was an idea that's ROOTED in the acknowledgement of something that our founding fathers believed was so obvious that they don't need further proof.  This foundation, this basis for our government was the belief that our liberty, freedom, and life are God given and can't be taken away by anyone.  

Therefor I conclude that, in your second point, you are wrong.  The SCOTUS as well as our founding fathers have established (And it's very well documented) that our Government IS IN FACT founded upon Christian principles and the acknowledgement of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Citations are as follows:

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
The first official action of this nation declared the FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. NO DUTY RESTS MORE IMPERATIVELY upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Here again in a Supreme Court ruling, they determined that the Constitution is merely the body and the letter and the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit.  They further conclude that there is no greater duty on the court than to enforce the constitutional provisions that secure the equality of rights established in the Declaration of Independence which they reference at the beginning.  

In summary, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the foundations of the Constitution, the Constitution was built upon these fundamental principles and our founding fathers established in writing that these principles were the only basis for sound Government.  If the Constitution and our Sound Government are founded upon principles that are established as being given by God...then how can you conclude that our Entire Country isn't built upon Christianity?

jesusisGod777

To cite a supreme Court case as justification when, you suggest morality of other people's determinations are not objective is fallacy.

100% perfect of your argument should be ignored based on your own reasoning.

Explain to me how you are correct about morality when there is no such thing as objectivity concerning morality?

LOGICALLY FAILING ARGUMENT.

Doesn't even realize your wrong based on your own standards.

Jesus is Lord.

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

then how can you conclude that our Entire Country isn't built upon Christianity?

I will take the words of the authors over anyone's...

This from Thomas Jefferson in an April 11, 1823, letter to John Adams: " The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding...."

John Adams said “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

The facts of our history are easy enough to verify. Anybody who ignorantly insists that the US is founded on Christian ideals need only look at the four most important documents from its early history — the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers and the Constitution — to disprove that ridiculous religious bias.

Declaration of Independence (1776)

The most important assertion in this document is that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Note that the power of government is derived not from any god but from the people. No appeal is made in this document to a god for authority of any kind. In no case are any powers given to religion in the affairs of man.

U.S. Constitution (1787)

This one is easy, because the Constitution of the United States of America makes zero reference to a god or Christianity.

The only reference to religion, found in Article VI, is a negative one: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” And of course we have the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Federalist Papers (1787-88)
While Thomas Jefferson was the genius behind the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (publishing under the pseudonym “Publius”) were the brains providing the intellectual foundation of our Constitution. As with the Constitution, at no time is a god ever mentioned in the Federalist Papers. At no time is Christianity ever mentioned. Religion is only discussed in the context of keeping matters of faith separate from concerns of governance, and of keeping religion free from government interference.

The founding fathers could not be clearer on this point: God has no role in government; Christianity has no role in government. They make this point explicitly, repeatedly, in multiple founding documents. The US are not a Christian nation.

You could absolutely make a point for Deism, yes, but definitely not for Christianity... 

TKDB

The conversational concept of debating Atheism in Public, like Richard Dawkins does, is amazingly educational.

He doesn't mince words, and he in a sense, wears his Athiest opinions, out in the public view.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

If you're impressed by Dawkins you should look up Christopher Hitchens (a personal favorite), you will not find a more resolute and percutant militant...

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen
I'm also being educated by you.

@Vaulk
I'm also being educated by you.

Along with Mr. Dawkins, (I'm not impressed by his Athiest ideology, I'm impressed, that unlike some, he's publicized his Athiest opinion.)

From you about Mr. Hitchens:
"If you're impressed by Dawkins you should look up Christopher Hitchens (a personal favorite), you will not find a more resolute and percutant militant."

@Plaffelvohfen

So Hitchens was a forceful militant Athiest then?
Is that, what you meant?

"God Is Not Great affirmed Hitchens's position in the "New Atheism" movement. Hitchens was made an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Internationaland the National Secular Society shortly after its release, and he was later named to the Honorary Board of distinguished achievers of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.[105][106] He also joined the advisory board of the Secular Coalition for America, a group of atheists and humanists.[71] Hitchens said he would accept an invitation from any religious leader who wished to debate with him. On 30 September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett met at Hitchens's residence for a private, unmoderated discussion that lasted two hours. The event was videotaped and titled "The Four Horsemen".[107] In it, Hitchens stated at one point that he considered the Maccabean Revolt the most unfortunate event in human history due to the reversion from Hellenistic thought and philosophy to messianism and fundamentalism that its success constituted.[108][109]

That year, Hitchens began a series of written debates on the question "Is Christianity Good for the World?" with Christian theologian and pastor Douglas Wilson, published in Christianity Todaymagazine.[110] This exchange eventually became a book with the same title published in 2008. During their promotional tour of the book, they were accompanied by the producer Darren Doane's film crew. Thence Doane produced the film Collision: Is Christianity GOOD for the World?, which was released on 27 October 2009. On 4 April 2009, Hitchens debated William Lane Craig on the existence of God at Biola University.[111] On 19 October 2009, Intelligence Squared explored the question "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?".[112]John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe argued that it was, while Hitchens joined Stephen Fry in arguing that it was not. The latter side won the debate according to an audience poll.[113] On 26 November 2010, Hitchens appeared in Toronto, Ontario, at the Munk Debates, where he debated religion with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a convert to Roman Catholicism. Blair argued religion is a force for good, while Hitchens argued against that.[114]

Throughout these debates, Hitchens became known for his use of persuasive and enthusiastic rhetoric in public speaking. "Wit and eloquence", "verbal barbs and linguistic dexterity" and "self-reference, literary engagement and hyperbole" are all elements of his speeches.[115][116][117] The term "Hitch-slap" has come about as an informal term among his supporters for a carefully crafted remark designed to humiliate his opponents.[117][118] Hitchens's line "one asks wistfully if there is no provision in the procedures of military justice for them to be taken out and shot", condemning the perpetrators of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, was cited by The Humanist as an example.[119] A tribute in Politicostated that this was a trait Hitchens shared with fellow atheist and intellectual, Gore Vidal"

TKDB

More educational material, from other Athiests:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

"Samuel Benjamin Harris (born April 9, 1967) is an American author, public intellectual, blogger, and podcast host primarily known for his criticism of religion, and Islam in particular.[3] His academic background is in philosophy and cognitive neuroscience.[4] His work touches on a wide range of topics, including rationality, religion, ethics, free will, neuroscience, meditation, philosophy of mind, politics, terrorism, and artificial intelligence. He is described as one of the atheistic "Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse", along with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.[5] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

"Daniel Clement Dennett III (born March 28, 1942) is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.[8]

As of 2017, he is the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is an atheist and secularist, a member of the Secular Coalition for America advisory board,[9] and a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, as well as an outspoken supporter of the Brights movement. Dennett is referred to as one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism", along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens.[10] "

And apparently Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and the late Mr. Hitchens, were the Athiest Four Horseman?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse

"Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse"

"The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are described in the last book of the New Testament of the Bible, the Book of Revelation by John of Patmos, at 6:1–8. The chapter tells of a book or scroll in God's right hand that is sealed with seven seals. The Lamb of God opens the first four of the seven seals, which summons four beings that ride out on white, red, black, and pale horses.

The prophecy describes a period of time when a quarter of the population of the earth would be killed by a combination of wars, famine and disease. The prophecy describes the causes as 1) a conquering people whose weapon was the bow "I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest", 2) as people engaged in constant war "Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword", 3) high food prices leading to famine "before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!" and 4) disease "I looked and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him." These four are then summed up as follows "They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by the sword (war), famine, and plague and by the wild beasts of the earth".

Though theologians and popular culture differ on the first Horseman, the four riders are often seen as symbolizing Conquest[1] or Pestilence (and less frequently, the Christ or the Antichrist), War,[2]Famine,[3] and Death.[4] The Christian apocalypticvision is that the Four Horsemen are to set a divineapocalypse upon the world as harbingers of the Last Judgment.[1][5] "

So, who's Athiest idea was it to borrow the Four Horseman concept, that's in the Bible, and to, in turn, use it at the leisure of these apparent Athiest individuals?

It would be educational, to see, who's bright idea, that was? 

Vaulk

@Plaffelvohfen ;

I'd like to clarify that I'm not suggesting in any way that God has a role IN the Government, although he definitely used to.  I'm not saying that Christianity has a role in the Government, although it used to.  I'm not making the case that lawmakers are thumbing through the Bible while they write our laws.  That's not what I'm getting at.

What I'm saying, and I thought I clarified this enough, is that our Country and Government are "BASED" on Christian principles.

Example:

In order to create our freedom club, we need some founding principles.  We need ideas that we all agree on to serve as a guide to everything that we build from here on out whether it be rules or policies.  Let's go with the idea that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  Since that idea isn't original, we must acknowledge where it came from and since our Founding Fathers acknowledged its origin as being a God given right then so must we.  

In this example, the freedom club would be FOUNDED upon an idea that has been acknowledged as originating from God.  Therefor, by definition, the club would be founded upon a religious principle.  Now, this doesn't mean that the club itself is a Christian club...it merely means that it was FOUNDED upon Christian ideas.  

Also, to clarify some of my earlier statements, AFTER the declaration of independence and even AFTER the Constitution was ratified, the majority of the States had a State Church and more importantly...being a Christian and (In some cases) attending Christian Academy was a prerequisite for all government positions.  This was THE standard at the time of the establishment of the U.S. Constitution.  This go further to support the "Foundation" of the United States.  

Look we can ignore all day long the verbiage from our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and we can ignore the Supreme Court's rulings on the matter and pretend that the United States was never founded upon any religious sentiment at all and we can live like the fundamental principles of the U.S. aren't etched on our Money, on our Government buildings, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in our national Motto, in our inaugural oaths of office, in the highest and most supreme court in the country.  I mean c'mon, Congress STILL opens its business every day by praying to God.  All Federal Judges are still required under law to end their oaths of office with "So help me God".  Thanksgiving, a federal holiday in the U.S. was created by President Lincoln who designed to be a day to give thanks "to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

I'm not inclined to shove it down anyone's throat, but to lie to other people and suggest that it's not the foundation of our Country isn't in me either.  If anyone here wants to live their own world with whatever truths they like best...so be it.  For the rest of us, the truth is quite literally, in ever sense of the word, ALL AROUND US.  

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

I understand what you're getting at, but you're wrongly assuming that the "god" mentioned is the Christian one, nothing suggests it...  I would concede that it was founded on deism principles, but certainly not Christian ones... Deism was a very common position back then, most of the founding fathers were deists (Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc...)

Now that said, the fact that the US was indeed populated by a majority of Christians so far is undeniable, but it does not make it a Christian Nation...

Vaulk

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Vaulk

I understand what you're getting at, but you're wrongly assuming that the "god" mentioned is the Christian one, nothing suggests it...  I would concede that it was founded on deism principles, but certainly not Christian ones... Deism was a very common position back then, most of the founding fathers were deists (Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc...)

Now that said, the fact that the US was indeed populated by a majority of Christians so far is undeniable, but it does not make it a Christian Nation...

And again, I'm not and would not argue that we're a Christian Nation.  We have a multitude of Religions that make up a very diverse multi-cultural Country.  What I'm building on here is that the "Foundation" was Christian and still is to this day.  We are NOT a nation of Christians and we are NOT a Christian nation...we're heinz 57 mixture of all kinds but our Nation is BUILT upon principles that come from Christianity.

And just for grins, let's debate the idea that the references to "God" were meant to point to the Christian God.  So if it was the Christian God, then which one?

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

You mean as in which part of the Trinity or as in which denomination of Christianity? How many are we at currently, over 75 probably? That discussion would probably mess up some minds on here...   

But still, I would argue that the "christian" principles you're talking about, actually are older than Christianity... Jesus himself relied on and preached principles that predated him, those principle cannot thus be said to be Christian in themselves, think the Golden rule in Hammurabi's Code and all that...  Maybe we should try to list the specific "christian" principles you think it was founded on and examine them individually, pretty sure we'll find out that exactly none of those principles are exclusively Christian...   

Vaulk

@Plaffelvohfen

Fair point indeed, I suppose we can't really get down to the foundation of something without a specific reference.

I think that, in order to determine what God our Founding Fathers were referring to when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, we'd have to further cross reference with nothing less than the rest of our Founding Fathers' works.

The Declaration of Independence contains a theological teaching because the ultimate source of our rights and duties is God. There are four references to God in the Declaration:

• The "laws of nature and of nature's God" entitle the United States to independence.
• Men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
• Congress appeals "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."
• The signers, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence," pledge to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

http://founding.com/natures-god/

We could make assumptions here but one cannot safely say that, with the DOI exclusively, we can conclude that the Founding Fathers were talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Next I'd recommend looking at none other than your referenced Thomas Jefferson, a year after he finished the Declaration of Independence he drafted the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom in which he stated (And I'm paraphrasing to keep this short)

The Almighty God created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that it remain free by making it all together insusceptible of restraint.  Any attempt to influence someone by physical restraint or punishment constitutes a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion who is the lord of both body and mind.  

From what I've gathers, the Founding Fathers were divided into a few groups of varying forms of Christianity.  There were however, Deists among the Founders, but they made up the smallest demographic.  If you're interested, the supporting quotes from the founders are here.

If you don't look at any of those, you have to see this Supreme Court of The United States ruling, I had a VERY hard time believing that this existed until I read it.  It actually contradicts both of us.  Everyone else who wishes to avoid the slog, you can read below.

CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY v. UNITED STATES 143 U.S. 457 (12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226) FEBRUARY 29, 1892

"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, 'In the name of God, amen;' the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation".

I don't necessarily agree entirely with this acknowledgement but...it's the SCOTUS...so it doesn't matter what I agree with.  If the highest court in the land says it...then it becomes part of case law.
 

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

Kinda sad that you're avoiding discussing the principles you invoked and what would make them "Christian"  but ok...

Regarding the case CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY v. UNITED STATES, here's what I have to say..

In the late 19th century especially, officials often promoted a de facto form of Protestantism. Even the U.S. Supreme Court fell victim to this mentality in 1892, with Justice David Brewer declaring in Holy Trinity v. United States that America is "a Christian nation."

It should be noted, however, that the Holy Trinity decision is a legal anomaly. It has rarely been cited by other courts, and the "Christian nation" declaration appeared in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not a mandate of the law. Also, it is unclear exactly what Brewer meant. In a book he wrote in 1905, Brewer pointed out that the United States is Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one.

A more accurate judicial view of the relationship between religion and government is described by Justice John Paul Stevens in his 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree ruling. Commenting on the constitutional right of all Americans to choose their own religious belief, Stevens wrote, "At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." 

There's a very important difference between a "Christian Nation" and a " Nation composed of a majority Christians"...

Vaulk

@Plaffelvohfen

I did indeed stray from the original point I was trying to make, my apologies, it was a late night and I admit I was easily distracted.

Because neither the DOI nor the Constitution makes any documented reference to Christianity specifically, I suggested that instead we must look at the specific wording to determine what "Kind" of God they were referencing.  Mentioning the phrase "Their Creator" is an indication of a singular entity, but we still have no set "Type" of God. 

Moving on to the end of the DOI we must look at the acknowledgement of "The Supreme Judge of The World".  Now this is more definitive for two reasons, first because this is again singular and identifies a singular entity that is in a position of supreme judgement over the entirety of the World and secondly because of the follow on statement that is conjoined with the word "And". 

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor". 

This establishes that all of the Founding Fathers relied upon the protection of Divine Providence for the Support of the declaration.  The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy holds that Divine Providence originates from traditional Theism, that God is the creator of heaven and earth, and that all that occurs in the universe takes place under Divine Providence — that is, under God’s sovereign guidance and control.  Mind you that this does not reference "A God" or "Some Gods" but "The God".  With all four references to a higher power being cross referenced and analyzed I believe we cannot say with complete certainty but with 80-90% probability that our Founding Fathers all knew that the wording in the Declaration of Independence was specifically identifying the Christian God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Further support of this probability is solidified in the fact that, prior to each proceeding of the Second Continental Congress to write and eventually ratify the Declaration, all of the Founders agreed to pray to the Christian God.  This is a tradition that still follows to this day.

The rest of my argument for Christianity as the culprit, if you will, is the categorization of the Founders in Religious ideology.  Recognizing that there was indeed a distinct demographic that were deists, they still comprised the smallest category of all the Founders as the majority were Presbyterian, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran ect...ect. 

These facts and evidence don't necessarily prove beyond all reasonable doubt that our Founding Fathers intended one God over another.  I don't believe at this point that we can reach that level of certainty as we cannot ask them anymore.  Instead I suggest that we uphold the standards of "Preponderance of the evidence" when deciding how to come to a decision.  With the probability standing so high, I believe it can be concluded justifiably that our Founding Fathers were referencing the Christian God.

jesusisGod777

@Vaulk

I've corrected your title to be what is should be.

Atheists a lie, and a hoax.

Jesus is Lord.

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree yet again...  

Vaulk

Back to the point of the original debate topic.  Morality. 

Let's do this one point at a time.

Starting with the idea that morality comes from Evolution.

Conclusion: If Morality "Evolved" as some (Not all) have suggested.  Then that means that Morality can change.  If Morality can change (If it's subjective) then we must be able to determine whether it's changing for the good or for the bad.  Herein lies the issue.  If we are to determine whether Morality is changing in a good or bad way then there must be a standard above these changes to judge them as good or bad.  

Premise: Powerful societies have a longstanding and rich history of enslaving different races of people, yet today slavery is condemned in most parts of the World.  Throughout history, slavery was just the way it was.  We can all agree that slavery was once accepted but was not therefor acceptable however, if you cannot make a distinction between accepted and acceptable then slavery is fine and you cannot criticize it from a moral standpoint.  If you CAN make the distinction between the two, then you're acknowledging objective morality.  

This is why the idea that Morality is a result of Evolution (Socially or otherwise) doesn't work as an explanation.  

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

If Morality can change (If it's subjective) then we must be able to determine whether it's changing for the good or for the bad.  Herein lies the issue.  If we are to determine whether Morality is changing in a good or bad way then there must be a standard above these changes to judge them as good or bad.  

This makes little sense to me... Notions of "good" and "bad" are subjective in nature, so you're just pushing subjectivity a step further here, not solving anything... That Morality change or evolves isn't either good nor bad, it just is and whether the changes are "good or bad" will be subjectively asserted, it will depend on who you ask... 

As I originally wrote : "Morality is inherently subjective and the only possible measure of "objectiveness" we can attain will be framework dependent... For some this framework is God, for others it's human well being, for others it it might be "sentient life" well being, etc. Morality can only be said to be "objective" with regards to specific frameworks, but it will always stay inherently subjective and will never be objective in the purest sense of the word..."

Vaulk

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Vaulk ;

This makes little sense to me... Notions of "good" and "bad" are subjective in nature, so you're just pushing subjectivity a step further here, not solving anything... That Morality change or evolves isn't either good nor bad, it just is and whether the changes are "good or bad" will be subjectively asserted, it will depend on who you ask... 

As I originally wrote : "Morality is inherently subjective and the only possible measure of "objectiveness" we can attain will be framework dependent... For some this framework is God, for others it's human well being, for others it it might be "sentient life" well being, etc. Morality can only be said to be "objective" with regards to specific frameworks, but it will always stay inherently subjective and will never be objective in the purest sense of the word..."

I hear you and I can respect the outlook or worldview that Morality is and always will be inherently subjective.  We can agree to disagree.  Also I wasn't intending on pushing subjectivity, I was showing how it's either one way or the other and the other way is inherently flawed.  If "Good" and "Bad" are truly subjective in nature as you say...then there is no such thing as "Good" and "Bad", there is only "I like" and "I don't like".

I think the only issue I see with this ideology is that if Morality is truly subjective, then where once slavery was accepted...it can be again.  Without moral objectivity we no longer have standards of right and wrong, instead we have variations of "I like" and "I don't like" regardless of how many people agree with you.  In the past, "Human well being" was determined by the majority of who benefits...this is how slavery worked.  I don't think human well-being is the standard for determining morality because of the two-part issue with it.  1.  Who's well-being is being used as the metric, considering that no single decision can positively affect everyone.  2.  Who's deciding on the well-being and what standard of well-being is being used for measurement?  

I think, setting aside the conflict in reason, I primarily don't like the idea of subjective morality because within its ideology exists the conclusion that I cannot say that certain things are right or wrong.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for example, our founders brilliantly established that these are God given rights and therefor nothing on Earth can take them away, this is an example of objective morality being that, in the case of Human Rights, what is right and wrong is established above us and beyond our say so.  Under the provisions of subjective morality, anyone could easily argue and justify that these rights are no longer valid for any number of reasons.

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

What I meant by "pushing subjectivity" is that you are using subjective standards (of good and bad) to evaluate the "objectivity" of the changes (or evolution) of an already subjective concept (Morality).

The important thing is that any measure of "objectivity" you can ever possibly attain will depend on the framework you use and the choice of any framework will be subjective in itself... I would argue that some framework are more appropriate than others according to the context in which these must be evaluated...

You are right, there is no such thing as "Good" and "Bad" in and of themselves, they need context, a framework, to have any sense at all...

I understand your apprehensions, for decades I tried to find a definitive objective framework for Morality because that would indeed make things a lot easier to manage but the fact that I'd like it to be objective doesn't make it so... I've learned to live with it...

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

A quick add-on...

"...established that these are God given rights and therefor nothing on Earth can take them away."

If you think about it every single right can absolutely be denied and taken away, no exceptions... For example, what is really stopping me from killing you? Certainly not the Law, I would obviously suffer consequences but I might just not care at all and you'd still be dead, I would have effectively taken away your right to life...

Vaulk

@Plaffelvohfen

You're mistaking "Right" with "Ability".  You may kill me, but my death nor your act changes the fact that I had the right to live.  I have the right to freedom, regardless if someone comes along and enslaves me or not...it's still my right.

Rights are entitlements.  Inherently deserving by standards of morality.  This actually creates yet another conundrum under the subjective morality ideology.  There would be no such thing as rights.