What is science? Science is facts observed. Science can never make moral judgements or ethical ones, science is simply not in that field of play.
When we listen to science we get thinhs such as : the post war doctor trials for the experimentations in concentration camps.
Testing on humans,ruthless testing on animals,unethical reasearh, etc.

This being said, is it reasonable to banish religion, one of the biggest and strongest sources of morals to humankind.
My question to the atheists here: is there a moral that we get fom a place that is in no way inspired by at least one religion or more religion?
Please no : indians in the jungle have the moral not to kill themselves while not being inspired by religion, for this is not moral.

Il advance the hypotesis that morals cant exist without religion.

Why are you posting a thread on what science is, Hubner?

Notice how you've put it in the Theism subsection? I think you've shown your cards already.

Why are you claiming that morals can't exist without religion when science has shown us precisely the opposite?

Any billygoats in the house may want to bypass this bridge.

Show me one moral act undertaken by a religious person that could not have been done by someone who doesn't believe in God.

paraphrased from Christopher Hitchens.

Fenrir wrote:Show me one moral act undertaken by a religious person that could not have been done by someone who doesn't believe in God.

paraphrased from Christopher Hitchens.

Sure: giving thanks for life where thanks needs to be given. Cant be undertaken by someone who dosent believe in god.

J Hubner wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Show me one moral act undertaken by a religious person that could not have been done by someone who doesn't believe in God.

paraphrased from Christopher Hitchens.

Sure: giving thanks for life where thanks needs to be given. Cant be undertaken by someone who dosent believe in god.

Oh deary me - that's 'moral' is it?


Anyway, I have thanked my mum and dad before.

Next idiotic claim, please.

**I am going to stack the deck to make morality centre round gods, and then claim that morality therefore is necessarily religious**

I can't think of many people more unqualified to set out a 'hypothesis' on science, let alone address morality. You, Lion, ispoketoanangel... it will be like the 3 stooges.

Not more of this 'religion teaches good morals' rubbish, surely! Have you ever read the book you use to support your ridiculous nonsense?

That's it! His hypothesis has been debunked. It took 4 fucking replies New record?

Can we lock this thread now? It will save the website servers from having to host another 50 page marathon of religious wackjobs (once again) attempting to dig themselves out of another massive hole.

Fallible wrote:Not more of this 'religion teaches good morals' rubbish, surely! Have you ever read the book you use to support your ridiculous nonsense?

Im afraid it does, regardless of imoral acts that are inevitable among the human specie.

I'm sorry to say this to my fellow rational skeptics, but it has become glaringly obvious that we are only able to attract the utter dreck of theist proponents here. Not one well-considered argument amongst them - just thinly veiled, bitter little rants expressed in a thoroughly idiotic fashion. I know there are believers with a high level of sophisticated discussion and interesting ideas - I've talked to them, they're friends. But this endless rehearsal of bigoted prejudice is so fucking tiresome and self-serving. If you want to masturbate in public - can you go and do it on a blog, or something?

Spearthrower wrote:I'm sorry to say this to my fellow rational skeptics, but it has become glaringly obvious that we are only able to attract the utter dreck of theist proponents here. Not one well-considered argument amongst them - just thinly veiled, bitter little rants expressed in a thoroughly idiotic fashion. I know there are believers with a high level of sophisticated discussion and interesting ideas - I've talked to them, they're friends. But this endless rehearsal of bigoted prejudice is so fucking tiresome and self-serving. If you want to masturbate in public - can you go and do it on a blog, or something?

You attack my person and call me prejudiced, but did you awnser my question in post 1?

J Hubner wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Show me one moral act undertaken by a religious person that could not have been done by someone who doesn't believe in God.

paraphrased from Christopher Hitchens.

Sure: giving thanks for life where thanks needs to be given. Cant be undertaken by someone who dosent believe in god.

I see. So basically, you get to be more "moral" you have to make up stuff that others who do not share your beliefs would not even consider to be immoral in the first place? Cunning.

ETA: Though it is worth not in here that you are still wrong. There are various ways that even an atheist might express gratitude to those who did actually bring them into this world, namely our parents.

Although whenever anyone does manage to dig up statistics on things that might be more universally acceptable, your side never seems to set a great example anyway. No true Scotsman typically ensues.

J Hubner wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I'm sorry to say this to my fellow rational skeptics, but it has become glaringly obvious that we are only able to attract the utter dreck of theist proponents here. Not one well-considered argument amongst them - just thinly veiled, bitter little rants expressed in a thoroughly idiotic fashion. I know there are believers with a high level of sophisticated discussion and interesting ideas - I've talked to them, they're friends. But this endless rehearsal of bigoted prejudice is so fucking tiresome and self-serving. If you want to masturbate in public - can you go and do it on a blog, or something?

You attack my person and call me prejudiced, but did you awnser my question in post 1?

You don't have a fucking question, you have a limp wrist you're proudly vibrating.

J Hubner wrote:When we listen to science we get thinhs such as : the post war doctor trials for the experimentations in concentration camps.
Testing on humans,ruthless testing on animals,unethical reasearh, etc.

Poisoning the well much, J?

J Hubner wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Show me one moral act undertaken by a religious person that could not have been done by someone who doesn't believe in God.

paraphrased from Christopher Hitchens.

Sure: giving thanks for life where thanks needs to be given. Cant be undertaken by someone who dosent believe in god.

So, using that same strategy:

If I tell everyone that a giant turnip is responsible for giving us zoomirflesnog and that the fact that we have been given zoomirflesnog means that we should thank the giant turnip every day, then this is a moral act that can't be performed by anyone who doesn't believe in the giant turnip.

That is about the infantile level your example reached. If you were making an honest attempt at arguing your case, you would have accepted that you needed an example that did not require the existence of a god in the first place to be taken seriously.

Oh, and I thought you said you had had enough of us and were going away?

Spearthrower wrote:

J Hubner wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I'm sorry to say this to my fellow rational skeptics, but it has become glaringly obvious that we are only able to attract the utter dreck of theist proponents here. Not one well-considered argument amongst them - just thinly veiled, bitter little rants expressed in a thoroughly idiotic fashion. I know there are believers with a high level of sophisticated discussion and interesting ideas - I've talked to them, they're friends. But this endless rehearsal of bigoted prejudice is so fucking tiresome and self-serving. If you want to masturbate in public - can you go and do it on a blog, or something?

You attack my person and call me prejudiced, but did you awnser my question in post 1?

You don't have a fucking question, you have a limp wrist you're proudly vibrating.

My question to the atheists here: is there a moral that we get fom a place that is in no way inspired by at least one religion or more religion?

J Hubner wrote:What is science? Science is facts observed.

Science is also the descernment of causal relationships between things, the act of cutting away false or missleading knowledge and the building of larger theoretical models into which facts fit. It's not just a list.

Science can never make moral judgements or ethical ones, science is simply not in that field of play.

Absolutely, one cannot derive moral obligations from observations about the world. Science can, however, inform us about how best to act on our moral inclinations and it can say plenty about how these moral preferences originated.

When we listen to science we get thinhs such as : the post war doctor trials for the experimentations in concentration camps.
Testing on humans,ruthless testing on animals,unethical reasearh, etc.

...Vaccination, medical care, the alleviation from drought and famine, protection from natural disasters, family planning, the proliferation of information worldwide, the means for nations to develop, the infrastructure for all communication...

Cherry picking the Nuremburg trial and vivisection is myopic thinking even for you, Hubner.

This being said, is it reasonable to banish religion, one of the biggest and strongest sources of morals to humankind.
Which morals are these?
My question to the atheists here: is there a moral that we get fom a place that is in no way inspired by at least one religion or more religion?
Please no : indians in the jungle have the moral not to kill themselves while not being inspired by religion, for this is not moral.

Il advance the hypotesis that morals cant exist without religion.

I think that any moral system that has outlasted it's welcome should be discarded. People of sound moral judgement do not follow their religion to the letter because it often ends in conflict or the need to commit attrocities. Most religious people live by the ethical principles of their society and cherry pick parts of their religion to fit their intuitions.

Hubner, you're presuming that religion is the source of morality when it's far less clear than that.

Paul Almond wrote:
Oh, and I thought you said you had had enough of us and were going away?

Exhibitionism demands a public?

J Hubner wrote:
You attack my person and call me prejudiced, but did you awnser my question in post 1?

You didn't answer post 3. He asked "NAME ONE moral act undertaken by a religious person that could not have been done by someone who doesn't believe in God".

You said: "Giving thanks"

Spearthrower said: "I've said thanks to my mum and dad"

Therefore you're hypothesis is wrong and you need to start again. That is how science works. Give this nonsense up.