Interesting, but not surprising. It make sense because there are far more "distractions" today keeping youth from "finding faith". In the same token, the research still says that the group holds strong opinions and thoughts on "spirituality" and "things unseen". Seems there is still a genuine human need to be fulfilled... and right now "distractions" are stifling that need. The most surprising find was that this group actually holds that there needs to be a "moral" code. How in the world can anyone find "morality" -- when they are indeed being influenced more than any other demographic -- by the very "Hollywood" distractions which this group claims has no effect on their "morality"? That makes no sense at all.

Thank you pattycakes for giving us all a perfect example of why the delusional mind cannot grasp reason and logic in facing the realities of life. If people start out searching for a god, they always seem to find one, and that is their flaw and limitation.

The thing I find interesting is that despite having less formal contact with organized religion many young adults still seem share similar views on many spiritual issues. It does make one wonder about organized religion.

Why is it always Hollywood who's destorying the youth of tommorrow , How about bad parenting dare I say, Teaching the youth of tommorrow that they will be rewarded in the so called after if they dot all of their I's and cross all of their T's they will live forever or The latter would be being punish by some invisible boogy man If they don't dot all of their I's and cross all of their T's is more then likely why kids today have their own thing going on and older adults are not invited , Helping hands or Praying lips, Faith or Reason and Logic who is to say. All I can do is just watch .But stop blaming Hollywood or at least turn the tv off.

Satan basically is in charge of this world now so why should we be surprised of the poll results? What the poll doesnt show is the millions of young people who are on fire for God and how they are involved in assisting God in helping people change their lives. The bible says that most will not choose God in a true sense. Believing in standards of right and wrong doesnt get people to heaven.

Clay,

I am confused. If Satan is "in charge," how can there be "millions of young people ... on fire for God"? Seems to me, if I were "in charge," I'd do something about legions of people arrayed against me.

But, then again, if the tables were turned, and your omnipotent, omnicient benevolent God were in charge, don't you think we'd see just a little less pain, suffering, greed, and cruelty?

Interesting that the poll indicates "Millennials are no less convinced than their elders that there are absolute standards of right and wrong." What the poll doesn't say outright (but seems to imply) is that young people acknowledge standards ... but that those standards have changed and no longer include, for example, the marginalization of Gay folk.

Many people are on fire for God. That doesnt mean that the devil isnt in control of most people in the world. Do you think that he doesnt attempt to do something about the legions arrayed against him? That he doesnt want teens to have sex, do drugs, listen to violent music, etc? He does it all the time. He even whispers to us that if it feels good, do it, including same sex relations. Many people listen.

Clay--

I'll try this one more time. I'll have to do it without any reference to Satan, though.

Straight folk (and I presume that includes you) are not tempted to indulge in "same-sex relations." It becomes easy for some straight folk to think of romantic/erotic same-sex connection as disgusting, evil, wrong, unnatural ... because it is so foreign from their desire.

Gay folk (that includes me) know that "same-sex relations" are the *only* way to obtain complete physical intimacy with another human being. (Which, on the face of it, is a good thing, no?) Most gay folk have tried to live as straight folk (this includes me). Put another way, we have succumbed to the temptation to live a lie (which I believe is a sin, no?).

So ... it is not a matter of "if it feels good, do it." Trust me, gay sex feels very good. Straight sex, for me, does not ... and I am not tempted. Just as you are not tempted by Gay sex.

Something for you to think about, Clay ... if you are able.

Back to the subject of the blog posting: I am encouraged to hear (and this is not the first time) that the rising generation has figured out that homosexuality is not intrinsically evil and that there are many issues much more deserving of religion's attention.

I will try this once more. If God thinks that these relationships are not good, then we should think that they arent good also, regardless of how we feel. Thanks.

God used to think that the sun revolved around the earth. His church killed people who thought otherwise.

God used to think the Bible shouldn't be published in English. His church killed people who thought otherwise.

God used to the the earth was flat. His church killed people who thought otherwise.

God used to think slavery was good and right. People who thought otherwise died for their beliefs.

God used to think that white men shouldn't marry black women. People who thought otherwise died for their beliefs.

I think he'll come around on this issue , too. Give him time. So far, only a few people have had to die believing otherwise, killed by good Christians.

God does seem to have a history of changing his mind...eventually.

Clay's preoccupation with Satan borders on the obsessive. Clay, Satan knows that you are the closest to him on these blogs--you think about the devious guy all the time. It is a comfort to know that a century from now the religious, as we know them on these blogs, and their prejudices would have been annihilated by the grim reaper--Pattycakers, Clay and all the rest of the religious who fulminate and go ballistic or pedantic about gays, abortion and so on would have been lifted aloft by the god they devoutly bow to and the young will march on--their hearts more open and their minds less parochial about what god wants--may be these youngsters who believe in evolution, will actually evolve and dare to consider that the great one exists only in their imagination or if He exists He has cut out and cares not one whit about our bedroom and bathroom antics-- science is having an effect and is growing on the young-- one day the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita--will all recede and take their place as history from the ancients--a century from now --the likes of Clay will be no more than ludicrous shadow puppets in shows written to mock and parody the religious as "good riddance to bad rubbish" idiots.
Ravensfan Anon

Satan's preoccupation with destroying us is more than obsessive. Unfortunately, it is a reality. If we dont realize that he is trying to influence us then we are at a disadvantage. One thing he does is to tell people to tell others that he doesnt really exist. I dont worry about him because God will protect me. Will God protect those who believe that believing in satan is obsessive? Only if those people accept God. Thanks.

Clay,

I notice you had no response to my take on the evolving (sorry...it slipped out) thoughts of God. Hard to refute history, isn't it?

This Satan god that the Christians like Clay believe in, must be a fairly powerful god to be able to hold his own against the main, and supposedly, all powerful god. Why doesn't their main god just squash Satan like a bug and get it over with, or is their main god only semi-all-powerful universe spanning entity, with a deep and personal interest in our sex lives?

Mr Littel - You try too hard to understand God in limited human terms. That is why it seems foolish to you. Clay gives Satan far too much credit for sins committed by us himan beings. Satan is allowed to exist for now and we have the choice to follow God, him or whatever other path we might choose.

I'm going to assume the poster above who has the name "Mr Littel" at the end of their post , doesn't have even the slightest grasp on the concept of sarcasm.

Assume what makes you happy. I'm not here looking to please nonbelievers. I'm here to profess the truth. Accepting it or rejecting it is up to you. Peace.

Looks like we have a brand new Clay in the personage of the above signed "Mr. Littel", or perhaps a childish attempt to get my goat by the original Clay taking my last name to continue his spew. Absolutist religionists have NOTHING to back up what they call ultimate truth, so their feigned air of superiority is just pathetic to say the least.

I wouldnt take someone else's name for all the money in China. Why should I when I can just say what I want as myself? It would undermine what a Christian is supposed to do. Unless someone else has the same name then they arent doing the right thing. It is childish and too much like many of the postings here.

Robert,
It is just unbelievable that Clay has resurrected himself with your last name--I suppose he is trying to play god to your Satan. That said, tongue in cheek, I can almost see the pandemonium this will cause in the poster called Concerned Citizen--he will crop up and accuse you of writing posts to rebut your own posts Robert--Clay, by assuming Robert's last name, I suggest you have succumbed to Satan--your God has fled you my man and mischief is afoot in your heart. What a triumphant day for Satan! And Bankstreet, except for Ravensfan who is a pestilential and persistent poster-he rebuts logic with illogic or deceptive logic, and Pattycakers who will cake you with what appears to be brilliance at first reading but is actually pure bilge on closer inspection, the religious on these blogs do not retort to anything resembling common sense--it will be a cold day in hell before you receive a reply to your factual post--or if you do, a devotee of the god creature will write back to mock you about the atom bomb, an invention of science, not of the church--then a litany of bad things science has done to men and mice will be posted and you will be at a loss for words. But the religious architects of those techniques are far cleverer than Clay who forsook cleverness for the lord when he was reborn.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon,

I am seldom at a loss for words.

I do find it amusing when Clay is not able to respond to a point I make (his oblique invocations of Satan seldom hit the target, so don't count), but I much more enjoy an exchange with an equal.

Anon - pestilential and persistent poster? Coming from someone who posts as much nonsense as you that is a bit hypocritical don’t you think? What's next are you going to accuse me of trying to silence you from shining the light of your wisdom on all us poor deluded believers? I haven't seen anything logical from Robert or you just a laundry list of assorted logical fallacies. I found your comments on the religious not retorting to anything resembling common sense a bit hollow coming from someone busy personally attacking Pattycakes and myself. Maybe you should consider practicing what you preach sometime or do atheists have different rules. Before you respond accusing me of being doing what you were expecting keep in mind had you not chosen to attack me more than likely would have not responded to your little irreverent and nonsensical post.

Reavensfan Anon - Isn't it amazing how delusional absolutist religionist dogmatists deny the monopoly of reason and logic that Atheists employ when they search for truth, and are not so egocentric that they cannot live with the knowledge that all is not going to be revealed to them in their short taste of living sentience? I feel so sorry for people like ravensfan, who must have a delusional rationale to give meaning to their pitiful lives (pitiful because it is wasted in its non-use), or like a moth flitting around an open flame (Clay types) who give meaning to the idea that ignorance is bliss. If ignorance is bliss, people like Clay must be suffering never ending explosive orgasms, which explains why they cannot make a connection to reality as they dive into the consuming flame they ignorantly confuse with enlightenment. They cannot grasp that it is no sin to say "I Don't Know.....YET!", which after all, is our only crime.

My dear Rfan Anon, you are the witty one aren't you -- how correct your prophetic postulations are of what a "believing soul" would meet BankStreet's "scientific" listings with.
Yes, one could indeed revert to matching these enigmatic points with a plethora of things science has done to "men and mice", but why Rfan Anon? So that " your will be done"? I'm sure BankStreet will forever be indebted to you and the loving way you make him aware of the tactics used by the faithful in such "battles". However, BankStreet is "seldom at a loss for words", and I am sure he is fully capable; a well spoken advocate for logic, reason and the sciences who already knows in his mind that going "blow for blow" with listings of what vices "science has done to men and mice" says just about nothing. So why then am I going to provide a list of my own? I guess I don't need to. Your frontal and temporal lobes are already doing the work for me...

Robert - You sound like quite the absolutist with comments like " the monopoly of reason and logic that Atheists employ when they search for truth" Calling a religion with principles like love your neighbor, do unto others, and not judge others egocentric shows how truly little you know or understand on the subject. Egocentric people have incomplete differentiation of the self and the world, including other people and the tendency to perceive, understand and interpret the world in terms of the self. Considering your intolerance for the views and beliefs of others and need to attack those who see things differently I would have said egocentric is an excellent description of you. Reading your post I felt an extreme sense of pity for you. You are truly the epitome of a blind man trying to show someone else how to find their way. By the way none of us have all the answers despite whatever nonsensical dogma you’ve bought into on religion.

Some questions for Atheists:

1. Is there such a thing as morality?
2. What is morality?
3. If there is "morality", how do we measure it?
4. Are these means logical?
5. Why are they logical?
6. Are these means meant to better human existence by a)promoting responsibility b)accountability c)fairness d)compassion e)human perfection?

Commenters seem to have missed the point I was making with my litany. I was not speaking to a faith vs. science dialogue; rather, I was making the point -- in response to Clay's adamant and persistent references to what God "says" or "thinks" -- that the so-called "eternal teachings" of God seem somewhat fungible when viewed across the centuries. And that the Church has asked a very high price of those who have the prescience it itself lacks. Sad.

PattyCakers,

http://mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm

A good place to start answering your questions.

I do think the categorical imperative serves as a pretty good moral framework, without the need for metaphysics. Works for me.

Hi there BankStreet,

So there IS "morality". This "morality" has been defined by your link as being based in empathy. Empathy defined as: The intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another. I would agree empathy is one of the emotional components affiliated with morality, however it is not arbitrary. People are able to feel or empathize with another, sure, but that does not address whether or not something is moral. Morally speaking, I cannot question my feeling of empathy towards another being before knowing objectively that the effect in question is contrary to what is "in good standing" or "correct". Otherwise, all you are doing is "blindly empathizing"; we can understand each other, but what do we do with that understanding? Your link says:

"Empathy is an inherently subjective emotion. We feel empathy to different degrees according to our relationships with people; mostly for our families or those with the closest emotional bonds to us, then to other members of the 'tribe', and finally to outsiders."

As a subjective emotion, empathy is a result of our differing degrees of psychological and sociological "conditioning" -- someone brought up in a closely knit family is taught to cherish family and will be more "empathetic" towards family the more they grow in the family unit. The key here is the "closeness" of the family which makes empathy more probable. Through empathy, comes mutual understanding, however it does nothing for the conditioning of morality unless there is a foundation or structure of "guidelines" from which to build upon in the context of empathy. To keep this brief, I will respond to the sub-headings on your linked page:

1. "From wherever they think best"
- This could be the most vague statement yet. As I see the potential good to come from this, it leaves too much risk on the down side. I'll give an example of a parent telling a young child "take the candy from whoever you think is best hunny". This is not objective and not a good model for society.

2. "Where does the moral tendency come from?"
- Empathy is not objective. Empathy is not morality.

3. "Why do we feel empathy?"
- "Human beings are society animals; we are tribal, fundamentally speaking, and it is this which forms the basis of human morality. It also forms the idea of justice; through our empathy for other humans, we seek to mete out punishment to wrongdoers on the same level of seriousness as the crimes they have committed."
- a) We are not animals b) Justice needs to be relative to the crime committed. c) Morality could keep people from leaning towards committing crimes. d) "From whatever is thought best" does not give any grounds for morality or justice or classifying the seriousness of crimes.

4. "What other reasons can an atheist have for acting moral?"
- "Enlightened self-interest" is suggestive of selfishness; it seeks tangible rewards to better the situation of ones self. By contrast, true Christian charity puts others first, ourselves last REGARDLESS. This is a spiritual and mental offering that puts the well-being of the other before ones own self; it asks nothing in return; it is life giving and simple. The key to this is the intent.

5. "Ways of acting moral"
- The "golden rule" is a simple starting point. We could expand on this simple line to some profound depths, however it tends to become subjective and is rarely used other than for face value. The "categorical imperative" is an interesting concept. It gets a person to think about his/her actions and consequences, although how it objectively conditions ones morality may be debatable. In other words, if I think to myself that "having sex with a condom is wise because if it were a universal law and everyone did it, it is safe and therefore moral", I still leave much to be desired. It is not the worst scenario in the world, but it is not the best either. This is not striving for moral perfection, it is compromising and endangering due to the temptation of rationalization and subjective formation. Unless there were even minimal absolutes, humanity would not have survived. Therefore, "theism" or religious faith offers real absolutes to take humanity further; it strives for perfection in all areas of human character while having the underlying goal of SERVING OTHERS at it's heart. This is one universal law that no one should have to think about.

"How you make your moral choices is not important, but the fact that you make them at all is. No matter what your reasons for choosing a particular moral stand, you should always remember that no morals are absolute, and that you always have a choice."

This is all backwards. More emphasis needs to be put on the HOW as opposed to the SHOULD. Once you get rid of the "how", everything is left up to chance and "the empathy of others who HOPEFULLY have the same morals as you". That said, yes, we do have the choice to develop morals or not and this is most important. As far as your link goes, if this is what atheism offers? then no thanks; you are being cheated of real freedom and truth and the compromising nature of the constituents is shafting it's followers out of fully developing as responsible, "enlightnened", humans. That you cannot see this BankStreet is the real travesty here. Hope is what everyone has in common though, so cheers! to hope!

BankStreet - Aren't we heathens lucky we discovered the social contract to develop our ethics, so that we do not have to depend on a make believe god creature holding the hammer of eternal retribution over our heads to make us adhere to narrow inflexible morality concepts". Religionists, like the wordy, but pithy, pattycakes, are just so clueless.

PattyCakers,

Somehow I don't feel the lack of an externally-imposed moral code.

Your concern that I am being "cheated" and "shafted" by my lack of something for which I feel no need is ... amusing.

Mr Littel, religionists aren't so much "clueless," as they are content to rely on arcane, much-translated texts and ambiguous fables -- all from one cultural source -- for their moral grounding.

Anonymous - That " they are content to rely on arcane, much-translated texts and ambiguous fables -- all from one cultural source -- for their moral grounding", is the definition of clueless.

Littel & Anonymous - What exactly do you subscribe to for moral grounding? If you want to bash others let's here what your alternative would be? It takes a true intelligent enlightened and logical person to suggest the alternative and support it as opposed to simply resorting to reductio ad ridiculum.

That last "Anonymous" was me. Sorry for any confusion.

BTM2, I refer you to the link I sent Pattycakers. He did quibble with it, but it seems to sum up my values and moral source.

BTM2 - Try ethics based on common sense and the notion of the social contract. The rational perspective is far superior to the "eternal retribution" type of fear driven behavior that has led religionists throughout time to kill others in an effort to demonstrate the superiority of their moral precepts.

Robert – Among the flaws with social contract theory is that far too many people lack common sense or a sense of the common good and I see even less in the law and the government so I see no benefit in it. That you refer only to retribution and not the actual moral concepts also leave little to be desired. In fact many concepts in most religions would be in any social contract anyway. Concepts like treating others as you wish to be treated, not steal or killing just to name a few. You make no case for the claim of your "rational perspective" being far superior. If you honestly think that this would end or even reduce the senseless killing in the world then you know little about the real reasons why people commit such deplorable acts.

ravensfan - That you need a myth driven delusional superstitious superstructure to give you a moral code that is in many ways (alluded to in my last post's nature of religion) inferior to that which can be subscribed to by rational beings being reasonable, only illustrates why religion is just so much archaic baggage that we should have unloaded long ago.

Robert - You have yet to even attempt let alone support your ego driven claims of superiority. Your lasts post was the same as ever other one lot's of biased opinion and little substance to support it. It's kind of ironic that every now and then you make the accusation of those religious needing to feel superior yet the only person I read making claims of superiority is a self proclaimed rationalist like you. Can I infer that humility isn’t part of your social contract?

ravensfan - It is always the same with you. I make statements about the topic at hand and in answer (in as much as you cannot refute the assertion) , you go after my character. I make no bones about the fact that I find myth and superstitious driven value systems to be flawed to the point where they represent a clear threat to our specie's development and survival. I make no bones about my disdain for those who cling to archaic absurdities and wish to spread them further, to satisfy ends that I also find have no real value in a rational world.

I know what your side is capable of and that you have a fair number of whacked out people who believe institutionalized beliefs based on a fear driven ignorance without question, and that they are every bit as stupidly motivated as any bomb ladened idiot from one of the other "Great" ultimate truths. Unfortunately, the effort to cleanse us of our superstitional past, by raising our understanding through education, will galvanize the ignorant masses that are too lazy to think for themselves, or too unwilling to embrace change because what is is the easy path to take, even if it leads us to extinction. We are a pitifully underdeveloped species, that religion teaches us is the apex of an invisible god's creation. We are not, of course, having yet to climb out of the pit of stupidity that still allows us to justify killing each other over the minutia in our lives, we prove our barbarity especially when we kill in the name of a god, any god. If anyone is ego driven, it is those who stand up for the perpetuation of these valueless and dangerous myths, not those who point out the fatal flaws.

Robert – It would appear the delusional one is you my friend. You did make a statement about a topic (common sense and social contract). You also held them out as far superior without any justification. I then pointed out what I saw as flaws with your logic and solution as well as your failure to prove your claim. You responded by your usual appeal to ridicule against religion using the same incomplete and inaccurate rhetoric or dogma. Then when I called you on it you accuse me of a personal attack on you. We’ve been down this road before. When you paint yourself in a corner you try and play the victim.

You lump all people of all religions as the same and assume we all function the same. That is pretty much biased and bigoted. I’m sorry you consider the truth a personal attack. That, however, is entirely your problem not mine. Humans kill for personal and group gain period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. We have and will use God to try and justify and rationalize it. However, if we lived in your rational world we would still find reasons to justify killing since it is done because of things like greed, envy, lust, bigoted hatred of those different. That makes your entire assertion that religion is the cause invalid. You also make the equally wrong assertion that to believe in God means one has to check their intelligence at the door. The fact that you haven’t been able to do it doesn’t make it impossible. In the end you are no different than those you mentioned as you would force your own ultimate truth, yes you have an ultimate truth, on any who oppose you. Your ultimate truth is that what you just preached in the second paragraph and have preached in some form or another on these blogs. The sad part is you are too caught up in your own dogma to see it.

So for the "rationalist", does your definition of morality leave a larger margin for becoming skewed or wrong depending on all your differing interpretations of morality? What say you BankStreet? Littel? Yes or no please.
(you could even use BankStreet's "Enlightened Self-Interest" notion or the "... if all the world were to adopt this as a universal law" to gauge how moral it is)

PattyCakers,

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, and fear my response may not be adequate, but here goes: I am more comfortable with a world governed by universal polity and mutual genuine self-interest (emphasis on both those qualities) than I am by with a world ruled exclusively by religious texts and their interpreters.

By the way, I think that is how, at the end of the day, we *are* governed. Fortunately, we are not a theocratic society; yes, "judeo-christian values" might be said to undergird our civil law, but our Constitution is heavily influenced by numerous non-theocratic sources, primarily John Locke, who was deeply suspicious of religion and its influence on governance.

Robert Littel - Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I agree with the concept, but if it works for you great.

Come on Pattycakers,
Are you suggesting that all the killers, rapists and marauders of this world are atheists and none whatsoever, people who nurse the Bible in their hands by flickering candlelight, perusing Leviticus and the New Testament according Matthew, John and Paul, for the fun of it, divining in its fables and proverbs, commandments-- to loathe homosexuality, to spread the word of the lord to inferiors in religious beliefs, to tell non believers that they will not be lifted up to be with the lord on judgment day etc etc--how moral is any of that crap from the bugle blowers of Christianity? Moral my left foot!

Pattycakers, your so called profound question has been asked before--by you--you always manage to sneak it in via the back door or the front--I answered this question, as I remember, appropriately and I remember you capitulating to the rather disturbing notion (for you) that it is possible to have a moral compass without surrendering to a god. Now you pop up again with the same question.

Do you not have friends, a few at least, who don't believe in god, with a strong sense of morality? This is simply a matter of not doing to others what you don't want done to you. No more, no less. If I don't want to be raped, killed or burgled, then I don't rape kill or burgle--I don't need a concoction called god to have a moral compass--my morality also teaches me not to sit in judgment over a man's preference for the type of sex hole that will bring him pleasure or what type of person will be lifted aloft on the day of the apocalypse versus what type of person will stew in boiling oil for the sin of not accepting Jesus.

The kind of morality the Christians are supposed to practice--as per your blab pattycakers---morality that "puts others first and oneself last
regardless"--I ain't seen it on these blogs" not from you.

Pattycakers--Bankstreet, who is gay, would love for you to put him first, tell him that his sexual existence is not a sin, he is not satisfied with your glib contradiction that you love him-- the sinner, but not his sin--his sexuality.
You would be putting him first and yourself last, true Christian charity and morality brimming in your soul, if you accepted him--his sexuality and all. But no sir, you have argued to the nth degree why you wouldn't, couldn't and mustn't do that. So, go pull out the big mote in your butt before you try to wipe off the specks of dust from the behinds of the atheists Pattycakers.

Your morality lecture about absolutes stinks absolutely.
Ravensfan Anon

Its very simple. God rules the world whether anyone wants Him to or not, and He is returning soon in the form of His Son.

Anonymous,

I don't need pattycakers' love, approval, or acceptance in order to be the sane and content Gay man that I am. I am concerned, though, for the untold other guys (especially teens) who could and would be harmed by his attitude. When I respond to his postings, I am not looking to change his ossified mind. Instead, speaking to those other guys, hoping that some of them are reading this blog; I don't want pattycakers to have the last word and anyone to think he has in any way convinced me of anything.

As to Clay...well...he is just...simple.

Gentlemen,

First off I do all of this "blabbing" out of concern -- yes concern and compassion -- for BankStreet, Rfan Anon, etc, who argue from the emotional constucts of subjective rationalization. I do not disrespect your thought, or your being; as a father educates his son after the son is lead "off the path" through no fault of his own. I can already hear the roar of laughter coming from the cubicles of BankStreet and Anon, and you may not yet be able to empathize with me on this morality issue so I will try and make this as simple as I can.

Rfan Anon, you have not addressed my question directly with a "yes or no answer". You have gone off in another direction as you have done before. This is why I may have asked it again. However, in response to your accusations of "un-Christian" charity towards BankStreet, I would say he is fully capable of understanding the intent of our dialogue; as he has stated, his opinion has not changed and he is respectful of others opinions in turn. This is by no means a crusade against the "sinner by way of the sin" as you would have, rather, it is my opinion based in what I and many others see as objective, logical, and reasonable thought on touchy issues facing society. When faced with such issues, logically there needs to be objectivity. Not emotionally fueled "wishy-wash". I would not be engaging if I did not think otherwise. This says nothing of "unfair condemnation" towards BankStreet.

But even as a starting point, neither you, nor BankStreet have admitted the objective faultiness of -- I will use BankStreet's linked page as an example -- the subjective ideological thought process of "atheism" as defined by that page. As always you may retort to referencing the twisted minds of "religious" fanatics who are really doing nothing less then what you stubbornly advocate; THINKING THAT MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE and that there is no need for absolutes. So why are there no "absolutes" if the notion is "so great"? It is because we are free to think and feel however we want. Morality has become second class in peoples lives and when "touchy" issues arise, the lack of objective morality leads to nothing more then clashing ideas and "un-empathetic" dialogue. Heck, maybe even a terrorist attack or two.

What I am saying at the end of the day is: The world would be much farther ahead if we all freely chose to acknowledge some absolutes that only become apparent by turning off the TV and tuning out our human tendencies to desire and "act in self-interest". How? The easiest route for even an Atheist is through quite reflection at the end of the day through the lense of the "Golden Rule". When someone lives this often enough, the contemplation of a deeper meaning is inevitable which emphisizes objectivity through "something" much more beautiful. Something beyond human comprehension is truly there for us to say "YES" to; it is not selfish; it does not lie; it does not cheat; it does not lust; it is patient; it is kind... It is love. God is love and He wants what is true and best for creation.

pattycakers,

First, thanks, "Dad," I already had one of those. I don't need another. Your paternalism is most unwelcome amd a bit offensive.

Next Kant's Catagorical Imperative might be said to be a secular re-working of "The Golden Rule."

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Works for me.

I "tolerate" you. I accept that your sexuality is innately part of you, is intractible, and not something I should seek to change. I presume you are happy in it, unless you tell me otherwise. If you do tell me you are unhappy as a heterosexual, I will first urge you to work to accept who you are ... because changing one's innate sexual orientation is nigh unto impossible and extremely hazardous (such that atttempting to do will bring the censure of the American Pcychiatric Accociation apon any of its members who attempts it).

The universal application of that particular ethic seems OK to me. Want to try it on your self?

It's just that, while I can contemplate an ideal (your "God"), I don't need to assume it's reality (in any sphere) in order to strive to achieve it.

I am happy that you find the contemplation of the "holy" useful and meaningful. Truly I am. Just don't feel sorry for me, Dad, that I don't have the same need.

Pattycakers,
I have simply accused you of not practicing what you preach, not having the morals that you tout, not having the Christian compassion that you brag about --of subscribing to absolutes as moral necessities and human rescuers but becoming so absolute in that premise that you sacrifice the compassion part of Christianity and the adherence to truth which is also the Christian way. Instead you obfuscate your anti gay agenda and couch it in clever phrases and arguments that don't wash with me. I have answered your questions--moral absolutes often become moral imperatives for those who create them and when they turn subsequently into acts punishable by law or as devotees of religion would have it, punishable by divine law, then the moral absolutes themselves become corrupted to serve the human agenda for power, authoritarianism and yes, paternalism. Go suck a lollipop and practice what you preach--reflect.
Ravensfan Anon

BankStreet,

Your assumption that the "homosexual" state is a state not to be critiqued and documented for the precariousness and intrinsically damaging effects by which many have had their lives destroyed is interesting. I am also happy for you BankStreet -- your happiness, stability and the embracing of your sexuality is admirable, perhaps even bittersweet -- but would not the world be a different place if all homosexuals were as fortunate as you. It is none of my business the struggles you have had to overcome to arrive at your place, and these, I'm sure are causes for strength and joy in your life. I am indeed genuinely happy for you.

In a whole other context, what you find works for you, has not the foundation, nor the objective strength to be taught on a large, secular, pluralistic scale and be truly termed: "the best way". Since humanity strives for perfection in all facets of life and society, only by means of humbly acknowledging something bigger than ourselves can we chase "the best way" for laying the most comprehensive framework of morality and absolutes by which EVERY other thought and action can be weighed. "From what I think works for me" is a choice to be made by logically addressing that which offers "a" which can be relative to "b"; that "b" logically should have an absolute power or weight relative to "a". If not, then we can say it is not the best way by which to measure an action and therefore "does not work for me". So by your logic, "a" can be measured up to any "b" or "c" or "d" which could have any value in the world (morally speaking), and would not produce any conclusive or "best" result in your proceeding action/thought, due to the fact "b,c, or d" are not objective absolutes.

Therefore, in a nut-shell, you are left adrift. Your system of morality works for you BankStreet, and you are a strong man. Saying that it has "best explanatory power" relative to Christian teachings on morality which offer objective absolutes is childish and merits more research. As I am now your "dad????" I will say I am sorry for agitating you with my referencing a "child and his father" in my last post. My intent was not to belittle your argument by putting it on par with a child's, rather to express the loving intent in my postulations. I'm sure I could have used a better metaphoric example, and for that I do apologize.

pattycakers,

Gay men are typically "destroyed," not by their homosexuality, but, rather by societal (and that includes familial, religious, cultural, and other) reactions to it as well as by the havoc those forces create within. Applying my categorical imperative (expressed a lot more bluntly, as..."get the hell out of my bedroom and my fantasies and I'll stay out of yours...") to this issue would go a long way toward easing a lot of trauma and would, in the main, make for a much better world.

And, to repeat what you apparently would not hear the last time: I am not "adrift" because you say I am, except in your eyes. I am confident, secure, and very well grounded in a moral schema that does not require paternalism -- especially a paternalism based in myth and top-down, pulpit-driven teachings from those demonstrably less "moral" than I.

I know it probably frightens you to know that humans can thrive without the particular brand of morality to which you yourself are addicted.

You should get out more often.

AHH! Rfan Anon! my atheist avatar, you have put forth a concise contention there.

Essentially you say I do not practice my own Christian compassion by disapproving of homosexuality?
So we arrive at a cross-road Rfan Anon -- we could really be making ground here by addressing your accusations.

First, define "compassion". Second, define "Christian compassion". Third, explain why it is that you think my opinion on what homosexuals choose to do contradicts Christian compassion. Reflect.

"moral absolutes often become moral imperatives for those who create them..."
- When you recognize a "higher force" as the Authoritative figure, it takes away the tendency for human imperatives to take precedence. As Christians believe in the "Judeo-Christian" representation of God, then it follows to put faith in or identify with the teachings of this God, through His Church on earth, and the benefits which flow from these teachings. Many religions of the world hold the same moral absolutes in high regard as foundational elements to build upon (i.e. respect for life, the earth, etc.)

"...and when they turn subsequently into acts punishable by law or as devotees of religion would have it, punishable by divine law..."
- Laws are there for reasons. To protect us, serve us, educate us and to keep order in our human condition. Are there bad laws? Maybe. How bad? It depends on the "what, why, when, where, how"of that law and the context in which it is being viewed. As per Divine Law, we put our faith based in reason in the teachings of the "Divine One's" church on earth for answers pertaining to Divine Law. Bottom-line is: we need laws for our own well-being and most laws which have formal punishments as consequences for breaking them need to be understood before we break or criticize them.

"...then the moral absolutes themselves become corrupted to serve the human agenda for power, authoritarianism and yes, paternalism".
- I agree. So how do we know that the "absolutes" created are not selfish imperatives?
By tracing the absolutes back to a perfect source; the guys on Capital Hill or on Wall Street are not the guys in the Vatican or in a Tibetan Temple; The motives and purposes for absolutes are different and what is at stake is different. In service to this "perfect source" which the religious advocate, the guiding principles of morality have been determined through centuries of contemplation, theological analysis and prayer. Note that the margin for human imperatives to permeate the goal of "pleasing a higher power for the good of man", is significantly reduced BECAUSE of the intent to please God THROUGH the works of man.

pattycakers,

You remind me of how painful it was to endure philosophy classes during my undergraduate days, with their interminable semantic "self-gratification" sessions, signifying, in the end, not a thing.

I'm outta here.

As so often is the case, captcha has the last word: "naysayer anything."

Pattycakers, go suck a lollipop and choke while you are at the sucking--you who claims to know God's mind deserves nothing less and nothing more.
Ravensfan Anon

I'm Sorry that you have nothing to say Rfan Anon. That's quite unlike you.

...and I don't quite understand how my last post implied me knowing Gods thoughts?? For the record though, no I'm not God.

Peace buddy... off to get that lollipop I guess...

Pattycakers - Unfortunately like Robert Rfan Anon can't simply respectfully agree to disagree so when he has no response he resorts to the same attack the person strategy. It's rather ironic that two people who feel atheism is so much more logical and reasonable have trouble keeping their own emotions in check and respond so illogically and unreasonably.

ravensfan - When dealing with delusional absolutists, who have not a chance in the world of supporting their quaint, but totally made-up belief systems, there is always going to be a level of frustration involved when the religionists feel that figuratively putting their hands over their ears and repeating loudly, "Blah, blah, blah, blah , blah" ( I've seen some literally do this too) instead of backing up their god delusions, somehow proves their point. When faced with this type of intransigence, there is little else one can do but identify the rubbish for what it is and take it out, to mitigate the stench. I sorry that you take this for not being "respectful" , but you don't leave much wiggle-room for that courtesy. That you use this obvious lack of respect for that which does not deserve it, is understandable, its all you've got.

Mr. Littel,

If you had a better alternative or belief system (as per morality and objective teaching ), you would have produced it. As you and Rfan Anon both realize you have no argument to trump objective teaching, it is not really surprising that there is nothing much to say. It's simple really.

Atheism by definition, gives no foundation for any type of comprehensive universal morality. It's an argument you know is not worth having. Even if there was no God, the best you could hope for are persons who "evolved" with some sort of "objective morality" to begin to spread their teachings and have their teachings be accepted by making sense so as to promote righteousness, kindness, compassion and justice on a wide scale. Kinda seems suggestive of religious thought don't you think Robert?

Robert - Considering how many made up and completely false things you've said regarding when your own opinion of life begins, imagined violations of the establishment clause I find you calling others delusional for believing in something you can't comprehend rather sad. If anyone here is guilty of "figuratively putting their hands over their ears and repeating loudly, "Blah, blah, blah, blah , blah" its you. You quote the same nonsense over and over and never seem to feel the need to actually support what you say. When cornered you simply try and change the subject. Or resort to appeals to ridicule and attack the person fallacies you embrace so readily. Pattycakers comments pretty much hit the nail on the head when it comes to you and Anon.

To the two (Clay shuns those who are critical of his childish beliefs) who insist on defending belief patterns based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but myth driven superstition and fairy-tales, I don't think you have the mental capacity to envision how a body of ethics can arise outside the need for having some made-up god standing behind you with a hammer of eternal retribution. Being so mentally inhibited, you have signed onto
an archaic belief in things that are so ridiculous to believe that you can not provide one tiny shred of proof that they are demonstrably so. YET, you insist that these beliefs are so necessary to Human functioning, that you assign your god creatures the role of arbiter of the way we all have to behave, right down to swallowing the sacred nature of a tiny mass of cells, that usually self aborts 80% of the time when the fertilized zygote fails to implant, or whom and how we love each other. If your stinking made -up god thinks so little of his/her/its "Blessed" creation (the fertilized zygote), then even a boneheaded believer should have some doubts about life beginning at such an early stage. You people are NOT going to be allowed to have your way in pushing your imperatives on the rest of us, be it abortion, school prayer, Creation Science (crap), or any of the religious abuses of the separation principle that have already be sneaked by (vouchers, school text book aid, transporting religious students,) and paid for with public funds. There is a reason why we have separation of church and state, and that reason is people just like YOU.

Typical Robert post long on insults appeals to ridicule and other fallacies and short on supporting facts and completely devoid of any logic or intelligent thought.

ravensfan does not disappoint. Another dismissive post that does not compensate for his religious bigotry in being unable and unwilling to face the fact that his entire belief system, is in all probability, based on falsehood, and that someone out here in the real world might object to his peculiar beliefs being forced on the rest of us.

Robert – Just when I think you couldn’t be anymore irrational you manage to show you can.. A bigot according to Websters is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." That is a great definition of you. No one treats those who do not share their own opinions with more hatred and intolerance than you. No one beats the drum louder and more intensely for their own personal prejudices than you. You seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend that your personal opinion on God means absolutely nothing to me and does not require anything from me except dismissal. I though I’d made that clear already. I dismiss you because you offer absolutely no reasonable, rational or intelligent perspective. All you do is use appeals to ridicule and abusive personal attacks on anyone who shares different views than your own.

ravensfan - All I do is point out the improbability of what you believe as having any validity and that the rest of us will not be ruled by it. If you call that bigotry and unwarranted attack, I can live with it. It is a small price to pay to expose the dictatorship of theocracy you seem to want to impose on us all, despite your protestations of live and let live, as long as we just shut up and let you get away with it. Ain't gonna happen, so don't hold your breath.

Robert – As I recall it was you who accused me of religious bigotry now when I point out who the true bigot is you cry and try and play the martyr yet again. I can always tell when you are backed in a corner. You try and play the martyr. If all you did was point out improbability that would not constitute bigotry and unwarranted attacks. What makes you a bigot is your assumption that all those who believe are somehow intellectually inferior to you because we don’t subscribe to the same views as you. It’s also your continual need to insult, belittle and malign believers. There are others here who do not believe and I wouldn’t say that about them because they can conduct themselves without the need for such immature actions. Even in your last post you make up this “dictatorship of theocracy” nonsense as a personal attack on me. Drop the us nonsense. You represent no one except yourself here. I’m probably one of the few here who has defended your right to post your ignorant arrogant fallacy filled diatribes. I really don’t care how much or little you say here Robert.

ravensfan - If you cared not for what I say, or don't say here, you would adopt the Clay like tactic of ignoring what I say. Of course that doesn't keep me from commenting about what he says when he says something stupid, which seems to be everytime he hits his keyboard, and it wouldn't stop me where you are concerned, but you keep on providing opportunities and claiming that you do not care.

I will admit it, I HATE RELIGION. I hate it because it is a cheat, a lie, a crutch that keeps Humanity weak and at each other's throats, when there are far more important things we should be engaging each other about. We are a planet that is heading for ruin and the roller-coaster we are taking is powered by the ignorance and stupidity of god concepts, that tell us the wall we are heading for is inevitable and ordained. If it is bigotry to hate that which threatens to destroy us, or tells us that we should blindly accept that destruction, then it is a bigotry we should adopt as a virtue. I make no apologies for having the fortunate circumstance of having evolved beyond your level of understanding and have nothing but pity for you and the burning house of cards you subscribe to.

Robert – I'm sure you would prefer me to adopt Clay's tactics. It's much easier for you when the other person doesn't call you on your logical fallacies. You are aware that not caring about the level of your nonsensical diatribes is not the same as ignoring them. .

I am well aware of your personal opinions and bias on religion. Actually it's intolerant, arrogant and biased talk like yours which keeps people at each others throat. For all your concern about the world’s problems you seem to spend quite a bit of your time attacking others rather than discussing those problems and potential solutions. Instead you use it to justify your anti-religion rants. Even when you do discuss the problems you show the same ignorant and arrogant behavior to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your own narrow views. If you want to delude yourself into thinking you are somehow superior others, including me, go right ahead. Those who believe themselves to be superior are usually the most inferior.

The solution is to give you 10 days to cough up this god of yours and prove that it exists, or have all tax advantages taken way from EVERY religion that doesn't make their case. There is no reason why anyone running a con should be given a special status above the rest of us. We also should get gods out of all our schools and get religion out of the education business altogether. Programming children to believe falsehoods, superstitions and myths, as if it was truth, in the name of education is stupid, and using tax money to facilitate such actions (transportation, text books, vouchers) is a misuse of public funds on a criminal level. Lastly, no intrusive law that is based on religious prejudices (abortion for one) can be allowed to be enacted making these religious imperatives the rules we all have to follow. If people are stupid enough to need infantile god concepts, then society should not be forced to pay for this abnormality in any way. Oh, one more thing, get your stinking god off the money and out of the pledge. It doesn't belong there and we should not have to carry around reminders of your stupidity in our pockets.

Robert – That last post must have really bugged you to get such a response. I was going to go through and point out the numerous flaws in your little demand. Then I realized who are you to make any demands of me or anyone else? I will tell you I agree with you on no public support of any kind for private schools and leaving God off the pledge and money. Other than that nothing else you said merits anything else from me.

ravensfan - It is clearly not my fault that you have allowed yourself to be programmed (your admitted 12 years of parochial school indoctrination) to the point where you have to subscribe to a narrow subset of infantile god concepts, to give meaning to your life. It is not worthy of the potential that Humanity should be making since our earliest common ancestor stood on the plains of Africa and asked the question, "WHY?". You represent a dead-end in the evolution of our species, that it is little more than a rotting albatross hanging around our collective necks. I'm only here to point out that that stinking necklace you are wearing is grossing out those around you, who have developed a finer sense of smell.

Robert - If it makes you feel better to think such nonsense be my guest. We've had this discussion before and I don't intend to correct you on it again.