-Removed-Well then it was a very odd way of putting it. Its as if you think 'morality' is owned by your religion. So when you say 'morality' you mean 'the moral code which is laid down by god i.e. the relevant 10 commandments'.
Its also interesting that you restrict it to the 10 commandments. We clearly have very different understandings of the word.
And how did you decide which of the 10 commandments are moral code and which are not?
-Removed-I still want clarification as to whether you consider say the commandment not to make a graven image of God to be part of morality. If not, why not? It is not at all clear what your definition of morality really is.
I clearly stated that I do not consider atheism to be a philosophy nor do I believe atheism has contributed to the construction of our moral code. In fact I would go so far as to say you are deliberately misrepresenting me here. (I refer you to post 7 on page 2 of this thread).
That the Mosaic law documents some moral codes is not in dispute - which is why I dismissed it out of hand. Are you claiming that Mosaic law is the origin of these moral codes? What does the fact that Mosaic law documents them indicate? What is your actual argument?
-Removed-So what are your views on the Chinese and their morality? Did they too get it from your religion? Or are the Chinese largely immoral?
It is my view and my opinion;
But at least some of it is also a concrete statement about the world, and should, at least in theory, be verifiable one way or the other.
I have no doubt you disagree and whilst you are entitled to do so, your disagreement has no bearing on what I believe.
And if I present facts contrary to your beliefs? Will you simply ignore them?
I don't think atheism contributes anything at to society, let alone to morality and I accept that you accept the latter (at least).
I accept the former too. I do not believe atheism is a philosophy and do not expect it to contribute to society. Atheists on the other hand are another matter. I also believe that secular morality is superior to theistic morality and contributes more to society.
I also believe theism contributes both positively and negatively to society and that the overall contribution is negative.
1 edit
-Removed-So when you said "the 'common morality' exhibited today" you were really talking about predominantly Christian nations? Or possibly predominantly Muslim nations to? So maybe about 2/3 rds of the world?
I don't see why I should verify my view of the world to you or anyone else.
And nobody has said you should. Its really up to you.
I live a life inside the law of the land and within the social norms of the UK.
And I totally fail to see the relevance.
Perhaps you should provide some verification of your concrete atheistic position? Although I'm not really interested, I'm just making a point.
And I don't get your point at all.
I do think that atheism is or at least for some can be a philosophy.
It think it is entirely possible, but it is hardly widespread. I have never met or talked to anyone for whom it is.
you have still not addressed my evidence(4 times now) for this regarding posters here stating that they come here to convert theists and have done so and are proud of it.
What needs addressing? I fully admit that I would de-convert theists given a chance. I clearly stated in this thread that I believe theism is detrimental to society.
Surely this is a mind-set and proselyting philosophy.
Maybe so, but it is not atheism. If I convince you that Christianity is wrong, I am not preaching atheism nor proselytising atheism as a philosophy/religion, I am rather showing that the Christian religion is false.
I have a neighbor (teenager) who had been told by his pastor that the earth was about 6000 years old, and evolution was all lies etc etc. I explained some of the problems with young earth creationism. Several months later he said to me he had given it some thought and was considering 'believing in evolution'. My response was that I don't want him to believe in evolution. I want him to study science, and one of the things he will learn about in science is evolution. I don't even want him to believe his teachers when they teach it. I want him to understand it, and decide for himself whether it makes sense. If I am proselytising anything it is the scientific method and critical thinking.
But even if you convince me that my proselytising can correctly be called a atheist philosophy, it is still unrelated to my morality.
-Removed-
to believe that their is no god is to deny the moral code which is laid down by god i.e. the relevant 10 commandments and therefore we can make our own morality or indeed do as we please, whatever seems right to us.
No, to believe that there is no god is to believe that the concept 'god' is not instantiated; has no referent; fails to pick out anything actual. This implies nothing about morality.
Of course, an atheist will not have recourse to say that morality hinges on the existence of some god(s). But so what? If your claim is that any ethical theory that does not appeal to some god as an inherent feature is bankrupt, then you need to present an actual argument for that if you want to be taken seriously. As I mentioned in another current thread, though, this claim is ludicrous, as anyone with any educational background in secular ethics knows. As I also mentioned in the other thread, just the opposite is more likely the case (i.e., it is more likely that your theory that hinges on a divine agent is bankrupt), pace the Euthyphro dilemma.