"Gwen Stefani, nominated for five Grammy Awards including album of the year for 'Love.Angel.Music.Baby.,' is pregnant with her first child," begins an Associated Press story. Stefani, like Madonna in "Papa Don't Preach," is keeping her baby. But what if she decided not to? Would the Associated Press still consider her pregnant with a "child"? Or would the child become a "fetus," a "glob of cells," or a "choice"?

Who the hell is Gwen Stefani, and why should I care?

The way I see it there are two rational positions on the abortion debate.

The Atheist view: This view holds that since a fetus is just a glob of cells, there is nothing inherently sacred about it's life and it is okay to kill it.This view is entirely rational, IF it recognizes that ALL life is just a glob of cells with nothing inherently sacred about it, and that, following this line of reasoning, there is nothing morally wrong about committing murder.

The religious view: This is obviously the view that all life is sacred and that if all possible we must avoid destroying life. Since it is laughably irrational to say that life is sacred AFTER it has been shoved head first through a vagina, but NOT BEFORE, this must include pre-birth children.

I fall in the second camp.

You ask a great question. I've never thought of that. The MSM is so hypocritical. They recognize the humanity of her baby. And if she ever had a miscarriage (God forbid) the MSM and her fans would mourn for her and her baby. Yet we allow this to happen everyday in the name of "choice." Makes me sick.

Agreed. Who cares about Stephani. Or, for that matter, how people view what or who her fetus is?

So sick of the whole abortion thing. Does the World really revolve around this one issue?

People are killing people, people are killing children, people are killing the unborn.

It's all f'ed up so why discuss it ad nauseum?

"The Atheist view: This view holds that since a fetus is just a glob of cells, there is nothing inherently sacred about it's life and it is okay to kill it.This view is entirely rational, IF it recognizes that ALL life is just a glob of cells with nothing inherently sacred about it, and that, following this line of reasoning, there is nothing morally wrong about committing murder."

Excuse me, but this is NOT what atheists believe at all. Apart from the fact that an atheist doesn't believe in the existence of God, their beliefs may vary highly, from individual to individual and there is nothing in the position of disbelief in God that infers or implies any such thing.

Atheism is not a philosophy, it is a philosophical position on one - and only one - thing: whether there is or is not a deity. Anyone who would infer from this that atheists condone murder or that atheists have no respect for human life knows nothing about atheism or atheists.

As far as politics are concerned, there are atheists of every political persuasion. The widely held belief that atheism equates with communism is explemplary of the ignorance of the general public regarding atheism. The fact is, many, if not most, atheists are libertarians and are highly ethical people.

The also widely held attitude, chiefly among Christians, that all morality stems from God or from belief in God is a further example of the general ignorance of atheism that abounds in the world today.

I am a conservative and have been for most of my life. I have also been an atheist for most of my life, though I call myself an agnostic, these days. I am deeply offended by the idiotic notion that I am somehow immoral because of this, or that I would condone murder merely because I don't believe there is a God.

I would appreciate it if you would read a few books on atheism and learn something about it before you continue to post such inflammatory rhetoric here. It was only three centuries ago that non-believers were still being burned alive at the stake by people whose understanding of religious belief was about as enlightened as yours is.

"Excuse me, but this is NOT what atheists believe at all. Apart from the fact that an atheist doesn't believe in the existence of God, their beliefs may vary highly, from individual to individual and there is nothing in the position of disbelief in God that infers or implies any such thing." -Gary

There is no rational reason to believe in the sacredness of life with a lack of God. Any atheist who believes life is inherently sacred is guilty of doublethink.

"It's all f'ed up so why discuss it ad nauseum?" -asdf

You say this about murder, but we could say this about ANY bad thing in the world. To really make your position CONSISTENT, you would have to think it was pointless to spend a serious amount of time discussing or fighting to right any evil. Is that really what you think? Even if you are consistently apathetic about evil, however, this still won't become a RESPONSIBLE position.

Simple. A child is not a child when it's a choice. Don't know what that means? Then turn to the wisdom of a US Senator: "The baby is born, when the baby is born!" ( http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/notansweringboxersantorum.html ).

Ok, I admit it, I'm still confused too...

"There is no rational reason to believe in the sacredness of life with a lack of God."

Why must the reason by rational? And in what sense is the revelation that life is sacred rational?

And why bother with "sacred"? Can't the atheist believe that the taking of life (given the standard qualifications) is "wrong"? Ethics does not require theism.

"There is no rational reason to believe in the sacredness of life with a lack of God. Any atheist who believes life is inherently sacred is guilty of doublethink."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, misinformed as it is. The fact is, most atheists live moral lives. They believe that murder is wrong and should be punished. I believe this probably more so than you do, in fact. Doubt that? Read what I've had to say about the death penalty: http://www.garyrea.com/deathpenalty.htm

The notion that only belief in God makes morality possible is simply not true. One needn't look any further than the philosophers of ancient Greece to see that most of the ideas expressed by Christianity (The "Golden Rule," for example) come from ancient Greek sources, centuries before the birth of Christ.

Your supposition that anyone who doesn't believe in God must therefore be immoral is an insult to millions of people around the world who believe in non-theistic faiths, as well as those who are atheists and agnostics. The very fact that most atheists live quiet lives, obeying society's laws and behving like everyone else proves this. My own existence proves it.

"Any atheist who believes life is inherently sacred is guilty of doublethink."

Are you an atheist or a believer? Just asking, since this could be construed either way. You might be an atheist who takes this position, as well as Christian. Quite frankly, the atheist sees life as being more precious than many people who profess to believe in God do. Take our Muslim brethren, for example. The reason I say this is because an atheist believes this life is the only life he will ever have and that it should be preserved for as long as possible. That's certainly my view, anyway. From that flows the realization that, if my life is that important to me, then the lives of every human being are equally as important to them. Are you at all aqcainted with secular humanism? I'm not a humanist, myself and I don't subscribe to their political agenda, but one of their primary tenets is a concern for moral behavior; i.e., ethics. If you believe that atheists have no respect for human life, you have been mislead.

As for abortion, I oppose abortion on demand. I believe it should only be allowed in cases in which the mother's health is such that the pregnancy or the trauma of labor would result in her death. In the case in which a woman has been impregnated by a rapist, she is not responsible for the conception and it would be inhumane to force her to give birth to a constant reminder of the violence done to her. Nevertheless, there are women who have given birth to their attacker's offspring and who have loved and raised the child, despite the circumstances of its birth. I believe that, in such cases, the decision should still rest with the woman. Other than that, I don't believe in abortion.

Another thing; you might want to read another of my writings, on the subject of the war on Christmas. Also, bear in mind I'm not the only non-believer who holds the opinion expressed therein: http://www.garyrea.com/inclusion.htm

If, after reading what I have to say, you still believe that the only moral people in the world are those who believe in God, well, I'm afraid there is nothing that will change your mind.

"In the case in which a woman has been impregnated by a rapist, she is not responsible for the conception and it would be inhumane to force her to give birth to a constant reminder of the violence done to her."

Is the unborn child responsible for its own conception? Would it also be "inhumane" to tear the unborn child limb from limb? Is the memory of rape more inhumane that the loss of life?

"Why must the reason by rational? And in what sense is the revelation that life is sacred rational?" -Ralph

If you want to be irrational in your opposition, there isn't anything explicitly wrong about that. People just tend to want to be rational. I know I do.

"Why must the reason by rational? And in what sense is the revelation that life is sacred rational?

And why bother with "sacred"? Can't the atheist believe that the taking of life (given the standard qualifications) is "wrong"? Ethics does not require theism." - Ralph

Life is sacred because man is made in God's image, in the Judeo-Christian view. Many religions have many explanations.

From an atheist standpoint, I don't see any reason for life to be sacred. If we are all just a bundle of cells that climbed from the promordial ooze, what gives us any inherent right to life?

"You're certainly entitled to your opinion, misinformed as it is. The fact is, most atheists live moral lives. They believe that murder is wrong and should be punished. I believe this probably more so than you do, in fact. Doubt that? Read what I've had to say about the death penalty: http://www.garyrea.com/deathpenalty.htm" -Gary

I didn't say you didn't live a moral life, I didn't say you didn't believe murder was wrong or it should not be punished. I said that the atheist believes these things irrationally. Many people do many things for irrational reasons.

"You're certainly entitled to your opinion, misinformed as it is. The fact is, most atheists live moral lives. They believe that murder is wrong and should be punished. I believe this probably more so than you do, in fact. Doubt that? Read what I've had to say about the death penalty: http://www.garyrea.com/deathpenalty.htm' -Gary

A.) I am a Roman Catholic Christian, converted from Atheism. I do not consider atheists to be immoral people as you seem to think I do, I simply believe that there is no rational explanation for human morality outside of God. I am not arguing in condemnation of atheists, I am arguing in defense of the idea of God.

B.) I am aware many religious people behave immorally. Simply being religious does not make you a moral person. Simply being atheist does not make you an immoral person.I'm speaking simply in terms of rational thought.I came to religion purely through logical deduction about the nature of man, so logical deduction about the nature of man is the way in which I argue in favor of it.

C.) I am somewhat familiar with secular humanism. I don't quite understand their logic.

D.) Yes, the lives of others are important to them. But in a world of atheism, why should you care? Please note that I am not seeking to establish you do not have morals, I am seeking to establish that your morals come from God, and you have them because He made you in his image.

"If, after reading what I have to say, you still believe that the only moral people in the world are those who believe in God, well, I'm afraid there is nothing that will change your mind." -Gary

I think I've established in this post that that is not at all what I believe. I am not saying your are not moral, I am arguing that your morals come from God, and that if there is no God, there is little use for morals. Leastways, not the moral structure our society has used historically.

"As for abortion, I oppose abortion on demand. I believe it should only be allowed in cases in which the mother's health is such that the pregnancy or the trauma of labor would result in her death. In the case in which a woman has been impregnated by a rapist, she is not responsible for the conception and it would be inhumane to force her to give birth to a constant reminder of the violence done to her. Nevertheless, there are women who have given birth to their attacker's offspring and who have loved and raised the child, despite the circumstances of its birth. I believe that, in such cases, the decision should still rest with the woman. Other than that, I don't believe in abortion." -Gary

I do not belive that the mothers freedom not to be constantly reminded of her situations (which is terrible and deserves out pity) outweighs her child's freedom not to be murdered.

Scully, as long as people aren't forcing me or mine to make decisions about abortion, it really doesn't matter to me how other people think about or what they do about it.

I guess that means that I don't have enough respect for the sanctity of life and that I
am a cynical bs'tard. And it’s not that I’m necessarily apathetic as I don’t agree with abortion. But I wouldn’t consider fighting against a woman’s right to choose the same thing as fighting evil.

Although my background is not consistent with my views, I really don’t get that upset if some woman decides for whatever reason that she has an unwanted pregnancy and decides to terminate it.

Are there a reasons (other than spiritual or religious ones) why I should be concerned?

Are there a reasons (other than spiritual or religious ones) why I should be concerned?

A woman that has an abortion can't be too far removed in mind from, say, Lorraina Bobbit. You should be concerned if you are close with someone like that.

Assuming you are not religious, there is no RATIONAL reason why you should be concerned with the death of any human other than yourself or one you need to be alive for some self interested reason. However, it's nearly impossible for a human to simply cast off their God given moral compass alltogether.

If you don't agree with abortion, this implies you believe fetuses to be, on some level, living beings. This means that they have the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to kill them is to commit murder. If you do not consider fighting against the yearly murders of millions and millions of people to be fighting evil, I cannot imagine what would constitute evil in your mind.

"A woman that has an abortion can't be too far removed in mind from, say, Lorraina Bobbit."

That reads to me like you're having a Lorraina Bobbit moment yourself. Ay carumba.

I know many a thinking, kind and gentle woman who has had to make the difficult decision to go through with an abortion and not one could be considered consistently unstable mentally.

And not one has tried to cut it off yet either.

"Assuming you are not religious, there is no RATIONAL reason why you should be concerned with the death of any human other than yourself or one you need to be alive for some self interested reason."

Please define what you mean by the word "rational".

And what "rational" reason do you have to be concerned with your own death?

"Is the unborn child responsible for its own conception? Would it also be "inhumane" to tear the unborn child limb from limb? Is the memory of rape more inhumane that the loss of life?"

No, it isn't. I was going to add that, as for this particular scenario (rape-induced pregnancy), I haven't ultimately decided if it should be allowed for or not. I do still believe it would be inhumane to the mother to force her to bear her attacker's child, but I will concede that this doesn't outweigh the child's right to life, Ralph.

"Life is sacred because man is made in God's image, in the Judeo-Christian view. Many religions have many explanations."

"From an atheist standpoint, I don't see any reason for life to be sacred. If we are all just a bundle of cells that climbed from the promordial ooze, what gives us any inherent right to life?"

The value of life is self-evident, as are the rights of man. The presence or absence of a deity doesn't improve or detract from this. Morality is not a condition of belief in God, it is a neccessary condition of human existence.

Life is sacred, to use your word, as a condition of its own existence. The fact of your life is all the justification required for your right to continue living. This is what is meant by "inalienable rights." These are rights that the founders described as being "self-evident." In other words, there is no further argument required to justify them, nor is any grant of permission or official recognition required. We live, therefore, we have the right to continue doing so.

"I didn't say you didn't live a moral life, I didn't say you didn't believe murder was wrong or it should not be punished. I said that the atheist believes these things irrationally. Many people do many things for irrational reasons."

From what you did actually say, one can't help but infer that you think people who don't believe in God think this way. It also implies that you think morality flows from belief in God. Both conclusions are incorrect.

I note that you've acknowledged that belief in God doesn't automatically make one moral and that the lack of such a belief doesn't make one immoral. Thank you for that, at least. I would say, further, that, as in every other area of society, there are probably more people in prison who believe in God than there are atheists in prison, given that the prison population itself outnumbers atheists, going by the stats often quoted by Christians.

"Yes, the lives of others are important to them. But in a world of atheism, why should you care? Please note that I am not seeking to establish you do not have morals, I am seeking to establish that your morals come from God, and you have them because He made you in his image."

As I've said already, morality is not the exclusive province of religion, nor does morality come from God. Morality is a natural extension of our existence, hence the term "natural law." Most atheists believe in natural law, as do most humanists. That you were once an atheist and never realized this is hard to believe. Natural law was the basis of John Locke's political philosophy, which served as the basis for Jefferson's thinking, as well.

As I said earlier, "atheism" is not a philosophy, it is a philosophical position regarding only one issue: the existence of a deity. A philosophy is a complete system of thought, a complete system for living, which consists of an epsitemology, a metaphysics, logic, and a politcal and moral viewpoint that stems from these. Atheism, in and of itself, is simply a lack of belief in God, nothing more. One may be an atheist and subscribe to any number of philosophies. It is, I believe, the unfortunate addition of that "ism" word ending that misleads people to believe that atheism is a philosophy. That said, an atheist can have a wide variety of views on any topic and none of them are necessarily a product of not believing in God. Atheism is only a metaphysical position. There is no moral philosophy that stems from atheism and, in fact, a diverse range of ethical positions have been taken by atheists. Atheism, in itself, doesn't dictate what one's moral code will be.

"I am arguing that your morals come from God, and that if there is no God, there is little use for morals."

That view is the view of nearly every totalitarian dictator who ever lived. A very dangerous way of thinking, as all that one has to do is remove God from the equation and morality goes with him, leaving the door open to any manner of evil. I, on the other hand, as I've said, believe that morality is the basis of natural law and that natural law stems from the fact of our existence and the natural rights of man. If you don't subscribe to that and believe that only God confers morality upon man, I certainly hope you never lose your faith. When you were an atheist, did you believe that there was no such thing as morality? I couldn't live that way, myself. I believe that man is the source of his own morality and that this is a part of the nature of man; i.e., that all human beings possess an inherent "goodness," an innate sense of right and wrong. The extent to which this continues is the extent to which one either follows his sense of right and wrong or allows himself to be subverted by those who have denied that morality exists.

"And what "rational" reason do you have to be concerned with your own death?" -Ralph

It goes against your instictual desire to survive. In a godless world, self interest is all that really matters.

"The value of life is self-evident, as are the rights of man. The presence or absence of a deity doesn't improve or detract from this. Morality is not a condition of belief in God, it is a neccessary condition of human existence." -Gary

Why are they self evident? This is simply arbitrary. They are self evident because we are imbued with them by God. They aren't simply self evident for no reason, that makes no sense.

"Life is sacred, to use your word, as a condition of its own existence. The fact of your life is all the justification required for your right to continue living. This is what is meant by "inalienable rights." These are rights that the founders described as being "self-evident." In other words, there is no further argument required to justify them, nor is any grant of permission or official recognition required. We live, therefore, we have the right to continue doing so." -Gary

The founding fathers attributed our inalienable right to God. You have no arbitrary rights. To say that you simply have the right to life because you are alive is to state that you have to right to Y simply because you desire it. Simply desiring something has never equated with having a right to it, the same goes for life.

"From what you did actually say, one can't help but infer that you think people who don't believe in God think this way. It also implies that you think morality flows from belief in God. Both conclusions are incorrect." -Gary

I made neither conclusion. I simply stated that a rational study of morality and the nature of man leads to the unavoidable conclusion that either God exists or morals are an illusion.

"As I've said already, morality is not the exclusive province of religion, nor does morality come from God. Morality is a natural extension of our existence, hence the term "natural law." Most atheists believe in natural law, as do most humanists. That you were once an atheist and never realized this is hard to believe. Natural law was the basis of John Locke's political philosophy, which served as the basis for Jefferson's thinking, as well." -Gary

Find me any reading on natural law. It is always stated where it comes from. The God of nature. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson both attributed natural law to God. To believe in a natural law is to believe in cosmic definitions of what is good and what is evil. Something which is impossible under atheist thought,taken to it's logical conclusion, where all existence is an accident and man is no more than a beast. Of course I believed in natural law when I was an atheist. This forced me to the conclusion that God exists.You must understand here, I am not entertaining the thought that morals do not exist, I am playing the devil's advocate.

"As I said earlier, "atheism" is not a philosophy, it is a philosophical position regarding only one issue: the existence of a deity. A philosophy is a complete system of thought, a complete system for living, which consists of an epsitemology, a metaphysics, logic, and a politcal and moral viewpoint that stems from these. Atheism, in and of itself, is simply a lack of belief in God, nothing more. One may be an atheist and subscribe to any number of philosophies. It is, I believe, the unfortunate addition of that "ism" word ending that misleads people to believe that atheism is a philosophy. That said, an atheist can have a wide variety of views on any topic and none of them are necessarily a product of not believing in God. Atheism is only a metaphysical position. There is no moral philosophy that stems from atheism and, in fact, a diverse range of ethical positions have been taken by atheists. Atheism, in itself, doesn't dictate what one's moral code will be." -Gary

I am not stating atheism is a philosophy. I am pointing out obvious facts of the nature of humanity that cannot be answered in a world absent of God. Namely, natural law.

"That view is the view of nearly every totalitarian dictator who ever lived. A very dangerous way of thinking, as all that one has to do is remove God from the equation and morality goes with him, leaving the door open to any manner of evil." -Gary

I agree. It is no surprise that all of history's most evil dictators were atheistic. If you deny God long enough, eventually you are able to deny his laws, even the natural ones.

"I, on the other hand, as I've said, believe that morality is the basis of natural law and that natural law stems from the fact of our existence and the natural rights of man. If you don't subscribe to that and believe that only God confers morality upon man, I certainly hope you never lose your faith." -Gary

And again, natural law cannot exist in the absence of God. The pioneers of the concept of natural law cleary understood this, they attributed it's existence to God. Natural law is indicative of cosmic concepts of Good and Evil, which simply cannot exist if, by definition, there is not cosmic law in the first place, no source from which our ideas of good and evil have sprung. The atheist view is that these things exist just because they DO. This is a illogical view. Nothing JUST EXISTS.

"When you were an atheist, did you believe that there was no such thing as morality?" -Gary

No. Upon realizing that morality was impossible in the absence of God, I realized that God must exist.

"believe that man is the source of his own morality and that this is a part of the nature of man; i.e., that all human beings possess an inherent "goodness," an innate sense of right and wrong. The extent to which this continues is the extent to which one either follows his sense of right and wrong or allows himself to be subverted by those who have denied that morality exists." -Gary

I agree, all human beings do possess an innate goodness and sense of right and wrong. This is called the soul. It did not spring forth from nowhere arbitrarily. It exists for a reason.

Gary-- most of what you say against Ben T is correct, but excuse me???: "One needn't look any further than the philosophers of ancient Greece to see that MOST OF THE IDEAS EXPRESSED BY CHRISTIANITY (The "Golden Rule," for example) COME FROM ancient Greek sources, centuries before the birth of Christ." I'm sorry, but that's just false, even if it's a convenient thing for an atheist to believe.

"It goes against your instinctual desire to survive. In a godless world, self interest is all that really matters."

You forgot to tell me what you mean by 'rational'. Judging from your answer to my second question, you seem to think it's equivalent to instinct.

That's a curious definition, but let's give it a whirl. Many animals instinctively defend the lives of other animals (e.g., relations, members of the same community). Perhaps man has such an instinct. If so, then his concern with the lives of others is 'rational' even if he happens to be an atheist. Right?

"It goes against your instictual desire to survive. In a godless world, self interest is all that really matters."

This "every man for himself" view might work if you're living in the wilderness by yourself, but, I'm afraid it doesn't quite work in society. To be sure, self-interest is what drives a free market economy, but so do collaborative relationships and this is even more the case in society as a whole. If your belief in God is all that keeps you from acting like a savage animal, I'm glad you're not my neighbor. Me, I don't need God to know the difference between right and wrong. My parents taught me that and I've lived my life by it ever since. Religion has never been the source of my ethics.

"Why are they self evident? This is simply arbitrary. They are self evident because we are imbued with them by God. They aren't simply self evident for no reason, that makes no sense."

Perhaps you should read a little Jefferson and Locke, then, if the term "self-evident" isn't making any sense. By the way, those words are in our Constitution.

"The founding fathers attributed our inalienable right to God. You have no arbitrary rights. To say that you simply have the right to life because you are alive is to state that you have to right to Y simply because you desire it. Simply desiring something has never equated with having a right to it, the same goes for life."

Again, do some reading on natural law. There is nothing arbitrary about it. Human rights derive from the human condition. They are neither granted by government nor given by God. They are conditions of our existence. Inherent in having life is the right to keep it.

"I made neither conclusion. I simply stated that a rational study of morality and the nature of man leads to the unavoidable conclusion that either God exists or morals are an illusion."

Now who's not making sense? You DID say that morals come from God, first of all. Second, how does any study of the nature of man, rational or otherwise, lead to any conclusion that god exists or that morals are an illusion. You, apparently, believe there is no such thing as morality and you would be sadly wrong in thinking so. Also, the study of human nature tells one absolutely nothing about the existence of God, which is an entirely different matter. Any inquiry into the existence of God is a metaphysical question, not a question of moral philosophy.

"Find me any reading on natural law. It is always stated where it comes from. The God of nature. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson both attributed natural law to God. To believe in a natural law is to believe in cosmic definitions of what is good and what is evil. Something which is impossible under atheist thought,taken to it's logical conclusion, where all existence is an accident and man is no more than a beast. Of course I believed in natural law when I was an atheist. This forced me to the conclusion that God exists.You must understand here, I am not entertaining the thought that morals do not exist, I am playing the devil's advocate."

Absolutely wrong. Natural law stems from man's natural state. One can attribute this to God if one likes, but it is usually understood to mean that our rights are an extension of our existence, not something granted by God.

"I am not stating atheism is a philosophy. I am pointing out obvious facts of the nature of humanity that cannot be answered in a world absent of God. Namely, natural law."

I mentioned the fact that atheism is not a philosophy to counter the first post you made, in which you said "the atheist view," as though there is anything more to athiesm than simply "I don't believe God exists." That's it. That IS atheism and that is all there is to it. There is no "atheist view" of anything, as though all atheists share in some philosophy stemming from their mutual denial of God.

"I agree. It is no surprise that all of history's most evil dictators were atheistic. If you deny God long enough, eventually you are able to deny his laws, even the natural ones."

That is certainly one possible outcome, yes, but it does not follow from atheism that there is no morality and, therefore, no right or wrong, no laws. As I just said, atheism is nothing more than the non-belief in God. Whatever else one believes, politically or morally, has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is not a philosophy nor a religion. It has no tenets to follow, no rules of order, and has nothing to do with morality or ethics. It simply a state of disbelief and nothing more. What I was referring to is not atheism, but the denial of morality, which seems to be your view. You are saying there is no morality without God. I am telling you that morality exists independently of religious belief. I know it does because I am a moral man and I have never believed God exists not one day of my life. Going by your argument, I should be out raping and pillaging, then. But, I'm not. How is that possible if I don't believe in God? It is possible because morality has nothing to do with religion.

"And again, natural law cannot exist in the absence of God. The pioneers of the concept of natural law cleary understood this, they attributed it's existence to God. Natural law is indicative of cosmic concepts of Good and Evil, which simply cannot exist if, by definition, there is not cosmic law in the first place, no source from which our ideas of good and evil have sprung. The atheist view is that these things exist just because they DO. This is a illogical view. Nothing JUST EXISTS."

Wrong again. Natural law is the ONLY law that exists if there is no God. As for good and evil, they have nothing to do with any "cosmic concepts" or with God. Man has free will and can choose either good or evil. I believe it is in man's nature to choose good over evil and the fact that most people do so proves this. If it were not so, civil society couldn't exist.

"No. Upon realizing that morality was impossible in the absence of God, I realized that God must exist."

Then you MUST have believed that morality doesn't exist prior to your "realization." If you once believed there is no God and that morality doesn't exist without God, then it follows from this that you must have once believed that there is no morality.

"I agree, all human beings do possess an innate goodness and sense of right and wrong. This is called the soul. It did not spring forth from nowhere arbitrarily. It exists for a reason."

Believe as you choose. I'm afraid we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one, as I am incapable of making myself believe the unbelievable. I'll believe there is a God and that we have souls when the evidence clearly shows this to be true. until then, the jury is still out.

"Gary-- most of what you say against Ben T is correct, but excuse me???: "One needn't look any further than the philosophers of ancient Greece to see that MOST OF THE IDEAS EXPRESSED BY CHRISTIANITY (The "Golden Rule," for example) COME FROM ancient Greek sources, centuries before the birth of Christ." I'm sorry, but that's just false, even if it's a convenient thing for an atheist to believe."

Skeptic, have you ever read Aristotle's "Ethics?" How about the law codes of Hammurabi, who lived centuries before Aristotle? The concepts that murder is wrong, that it is better to be friendly toward one's neighbors, that fidelity is good and infidelity is bad, and so on were conceived of long before the Judeo-Christian scriptures were ever written. I suggest some further study of ancient history. And, by the way, I'm not an atheist. As I said, I'm an agnostic. There is a difference, that being that the atheist flatly denies the existence of God, while the agnostic states that there is simply not sufficient evidence to say, one way or the other, that God exists. I consider it a form of hubris for anyone to say they "know" that God exists. No one knows the unknowable. One may have faith that God exists, but this isn't to be confused with knowledge. Knowledge is certainty and knowledge is verifiable to all.

Gary: You are right. I do need to read more ancient sources. Isn't the anonymity of the internet nice? Perhaps I've never heard of Aristotle, or perhaps I've read his "Ethics" (which one, the Nicomachean or the Eudemian?) twenty more times than you have. You have no idea. Anyway, your claim was, "...most of the ideas expressed by Christianity ... come from ancient Greek sources." This involves two claims: (1) most Christian beliefs appear in ancient Greek sources, and (2) the Greek sources somehow caused the Christian beliefs. But most Christian claims -- think of the Nicean Creed, for example, or (more broadly) think of the factual, theological, and moral claims made in the OT and NT Bible -- don't appear in ancient Greek sources. And those that do probably weren't caused by their (sometimes earlier) Greek appearances.

Now you say: "The concepts that murder is wrong, that it is better to be friendly toward one's neighbors, that fidelity is good and infidelity is bad, and so on were conceived of long before the Judeo-Christian scriptures were ever written." Yes. They also appear well before Aristotle was born, because they are universal. More common-sensically, the largest historical sources of Christian beliefs are Judaism, the teachings of Christ to his followers, and their teachings to theirs.

"You forgot to tell me what you mean by 'rational'. Judging from your answer to my second question, you seem to think it's equivalent to instinct.

That's a curious definition, but let's give it a whirl. Many animals instinctively defend the lives of other animals (e.g., relations, members of the same community). Perhaps man has such an instinct. If so, then his concern with the lives of others is 'rational' even if he happens to be an atheist. Right?" -Ralph

Animals will often defend their young, because of their instictual survival to ensure the survival of their species. Man has this instinct as well,but I do not believe it equates with the complex moral code mankind as constructed for himself.

What do you mean, what do I mean by rational? I mean RATIONAL:

ra·tion·al Audio pronunciation of "rational" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-nl)
adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.

Not everyone desires to live. Most do.

"This "every man for himself" view might work if you're living in the wilderness by yourself, but, I'm afraid it doesn't quite work in society. To be sure, self-interest is what drives a free market economy, but so do collaborative relationships and this is even more the case in society as a whole. If your belief in God is all that keeps you from acting like a savage animal, I'm glad you're not my neighbor. Me, I don't need God to know the difference between right and wrong. My parents taught me that and I've lived my life by it ever since. Religion has never been the source of my ethics." -Gary

How sad for you that your argument has boiled down to ad hominem attacks directed at my charactor, or alleged lack thereof.

"Perhaps you should read a little Jefferson and Locke, then, if the term "self-evident" isn't making any sense. By the way, those words are in our Constitution." -Gary

That was one of the most misleading and intellectually dishonest things I have ever read.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..."-US declaration of independence.

"Again, do some reading on natural law. There is nothing arbitrary about it. Human rights derive from the human condition. They are neither granted by government nor given by God. They are conditions of our existence. Inherent in having life is the right to keep it." -Gary

No. You have apparently not read either of Locke's two treatises on Government. Your arguments in reference to it are ignorant and inaccurate. Locke is clear that natural rights are derived from the God of nature. It is your view that these rights are simply arbitrary and come from nowhere. This is ridiculous. Simply asserting continuously that man has natural rights is not an argument in favor of them.

"Now who's not making sense? You DID say that morals come from God, first of all. Second, how does any study of the nature of man, rational or otherwise, lead to any conclusion that god exists or that morals are an illusion. You, apparently, believe there is no such thing as morality and you would be sadly wrong in thinking so. Also, the study of human nature tells one absolutely nothing about the existence of God, which is an entirely different matter. Any inquiry into the existence of God is a metaphysical question, not a question of moral philosophy." -Gary

You are clearly behind the debate here. The fact that I think there is such a thing as morality is why I think there is such a thing as God. There is no such thing as morals in the absence of God. You have offered no reason for why morals would exist in God's absence, you have simply stated that they exist and then repeated that assertion continuously.

"Then you MUST have believed that morality doesn't exist prior to your "realization." If you once believed there is no God and that morality doesn't exist without God, then it follows from this that you must have once believed that there is no morality." -Gary

Are you being serious right now? I find it rather difficult to believe. I have explained this very clearly for you, but I'm going to try one more time. A.) I was an atheist. B.) I believed morals exist. C.) I was, in my study of human nature, forced to come to the conclusion that morals cannot exist in the absence of God. D.) This forced me to the conclusion that God exists.

If you still don't understand,I might as well stop trying.

"Wrong again. Natural law is the ONLY law that exists if there is no God. As for good and evil, they have nothing to do with any "cosmic concepts" or with God. Man has free will and can choose either good or evil. I believe it is in man's nature to choose good over evil and the fact that most people do so proves this. If it were not so, civil society couldn't exist." -Gary

The idea that man may freely choose what is good and what is evil is incompatible with the idea of natural law. For example, in fundamentalist Muslim societies, the consensus is that women do not have the same rights as men and are to be subjugated. The western view is clearly that this is wrong. Why? The reason this is wrong is because it is depriving women of their natural rights. However, if those natural rights are up to the whim of man, than there is nothing natural or inalienable about them. They may be removed or granted at will by the majority. The very concept of inalienable rights, that there are some rights which belong to man and cannot be taken away by any government or process of any kind, is incompatible with your view that man may decide what is good and what is evil. In this view, there is nothing evil about the subjugation of women in Islamic societies, because their subjugation has come about as a result of a consensus.

According to your definition of rights, man has a right to life because man desires to live. This argument, taken to it's logical conclusion, leads us to the stance that man has a natural right to everything he desires.

"Believe as you choose. I'm afraid we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one, as I am incapable of making myself believe the unbelievable. I'll believe there is a God and that we have souls when the evidence clearly shows this to be true. until then, the jury is still out." -Gary

The problem with your definition is that you claim man has natural rights, but can offer no supporting evidence for this conclusion. When questioned on it, you simply reassert that man has natural rights, as you have demonstrated in this thread. You offer no argument as to where natural rights are derived from in the absence of God, other than the assertion itself. The best you offer is that man has a right to life because he wants to live, an argument that equates to saying that man has a natural right to everything he desires. The second problem with this argument that you claim man has a natural right to live because he is alive. This rests of man's natural right to property. Circular reasoning, which this is an example of, is a logical fallcy.

"Skeptic, have you ever read Aristotle's "Ethics?" How about the law codes of Hammurabi, who lived centuries before Aristotle? The concepts that murder is wrong, that it is better to be friendly toward one's neighbors, that fidelity is good and infidelity is bad, and so on were conceived of long before the Judeo-Christian scriptures were ever written. I suggest some further study of ancient history. And, by the way, I'm not an atheist. As I said, I'm an agnostic. There is a difference, that being that the atheist flatly denies the existence of God, while the agnostic states that there is simply not sufficient evidence to say, one way or the other, that God exists. I consider it a form of hubris for anyone to say they "know" that God exists. No one knows the unknowable. One may have faith that God exists, but this isn't to be confused with knowledge. Knowledge is certainty and knowledge is verifiable to all." -Gary

Modern western ethics come from the "Grand Synthesis" that came about as a result of the merging of Jewish philosophy with Greco-Roman philosophy that took place when Christianity appeared in the Roman empire. There are many aspects of Greco-Roman morality that we would find horrifying. For example, man today generally believes sexual relations between an adult male and a small boy to be immoral. The Greeks and Romans did not feel this was the case.

Good job guys! Very nice site! tramadol online: http://lucky7.to/tramadol20/ buy tramadol; buy clonazepam: http://hk852.to/clonazepam/ clonazepam; ultram online: http://tw886.to/ultram20/ ultram; buy soma online: http://tw886.to/soma6/ soma; buy ambien online: http://lucky7.to/ambien6/ buy ambien; zoloft side effects: http://lucky7.to/zoloft20/ zoloft withdrawal; ephedrine hcl: http://hk852.to/ephedrine/ hydroxycut with ephedrine; buy zyban: http://hk852.to/zyban1/ zyban; buy fluoxetine: http://hk852.to/fluoxetine/ cheap fluoxetine; norvasc: http://hk852.to/norvasc/ order norvasc;

Skeptic, I said: "The concepts that murder is wrong, that it is better to be friendly toward one's neighbors, that fidelity is good and infidelity is bad, and so on were conceived of long before the Judeo-Christian scriptures were ever written." To which you replied:

"Yes. They also appear well before Aristotle was born, because they are universal."

Yes, and this is exactly what I'm talking about; i.e., that Christianity has NO MONOPOLY on the points of civil order and individual behavior expressed in such Christian sources as the Ten Commandments, that these edicts existed well before being adopted from earlier sources by Christian OR Jewish clerics. That was my whole point, that religion has no monopoly on morality. By the way, I didn't ascribe the origin of such ethics to the ancient Greeks alone, but to sources even earlier. I believe I mentioned Hammurabi, did I not? The concept of morality existed well before monotheism and is not at all the creation of Judeo-Christianity, let alone God.

"How sad for you that your argument has boiled down to ad hominem attacks directed at my charactor, or alleged lack thereof."

My remark was not intended as an attack on your character, but as an observation that your viewpoint, when you were an atheist (not now), was that there is no such thing as morality. You were then, therefore, a person without morals, by your own definition. Actually, I'm glad you don't think that way anymore, though I believe you've misplaced the source of your morality.

"No. You have apparently not read either of Locke's two treatises on Government. Your arguments in reference to it are ignorant and inaccurate. Locke is clear that natural rights are derived from the God of nature. It is your view that these rights are simply arbitrary and come from nowhere. This is ridiculous. Simply asserting continuously that man has natural rights is not an argument in favor of them."

And how does Locke define his term "the god of nature?" Does he mean "nature," or does he mean the Judeo-Christian God? Regardless, natural rights, whether granted by God or not, still arise from man's natural state of existence. The fact that we live at all is what entitles us to go on living. We don't require God for this to be true, and that is the point I'm trying to make; i.e., that regardless of what the founders believed, the basis for all human rights is recognized as deriving from the natural state of being. Even the right of citizenship in the United States stems from whether one was born in this country or not, despite added conditions, such as naturalization. If one was born here, the very fact of his existence makes him a U.S. citizen from birth. His citizenship derives from his existence, then. This would be an example of natural law. That it has been codified since is irrelevant, as those who codifed it recognized the implications of natural law, which was the basis for the codification, not some edict of religion. So, too, is the right to life derived from one's own existence, not from some divine decree.

"A.) I was an atheist. B.) I believed morals exist. C.) I was, in my study of human nature, forced to come to the conclusion that morals cannot exist in the absence of God. D.) This forced me to the conclusion that God exists."

Let's examine this closely. First, you say you were an atheist and that, during that time in which you were an atheist, you believed that morals exist. Okay. That contradicts what you said earlier, but, for the sake of argument, I'll accept this for the moment. Now, if that is true, and you believe that "morals cannot exist in the absence of God," then your conclusion is wrong. You cannot conclude that God must exist only on the basis of the existence of morals. The one does not prove or support the other. By acknowledging that morals exist, it does not necessaryily follow from this God exists, even if you personally believe that morals can't exist without the presence of God. There is no a priori reason to be believe God exists that stems from the fact of morality alone. As I have shown, morality not only can, but does exist independently of religious belief; i.e., independently of God. Besides, there are myriad other conditions to be met, including metaphysical conditions, before we can conclude that God exists. The mere fact of morality does not constitute a proof of God's existence in and of itself. If it did, there would be no argument that Gods exists. However, there is still much dispute over this claim that cannot be resolved by the mere fact of morality. To say that morality alone is proof of God's existence is inadequate. It is also a circular argument to infer that the two terms, the existence of God and the existence of morals, are mutually supportive and that no other requirement is needed to satisfy the existence of either. Your argument doesn't stand up, logically.

"The idea that man may freely choose what is good and what is evil is incompatible with the idea of natural law..."

That is NOT what I said. Now you're attempting to twist my words. Man if free to choose whether to DO good or evil. What IS good or evil is self-evident, deriving, again, from the conditions of nature, NOT from man's choice. In other words, that to kill is wrong is a concept derived from man's natural right to life. It remains wrong whether one chooses to kill or not. The act of choosing to kill does not determine whether to kill is right or wrong, it only determines one's behavior. It is a condition of nature, of man's existence, that to kill is wrong. This stems from the natural right to life. If one has the right to live as a condition of the fact that he lives, then it follows from this that to kill another is a violation of his right to life. Nowhere in any of this is it necessary to posit the existence of some deity. The laws of man are derived from the laws of nature, whether man chooses to believe in God or not.

"According to your definition of rights, man has a right to life because man desires to live."

Wrong. Man has the right to life because he lives. This is independent of his desires. If he desires to die, this in no way changes the fact that he has the right to life. If it did, then killing someone who doesn't want to live would be completely ethical, as his desire to die would negate his right to life, leaving his life without any legal protections. This would be absurd. The right to life stems from the fact of life itself. As long as one lives, he has the right to continue living. This is accepted truth everywhere in the world (save for a few dictatorships, which choose to ignore it).

"The problem with your definition is that you claim man has natural rights, but can offer no supporting evidence for this conclusion"

There is no supporting evidence required. That is what "self-evident" means. When something is self-evident, that means that it is understood that no further proof of it is required. That the right to life is self-evident means that the right to life is inherent in the existence of life itself. There is no further condition that must be met to assure the right to life. All living persons possess this right at birth and continue to have this right until death. The right to life is not something granted by any higher authority, it is a necessary condition of existence. If you don't understand this very basic principle, you have no understanding of the basis of law - natural or otherwise.

"Modern western ethics come from the "Grand Synthesis" that came about as a result of the merging of Jewish philosophy with Greco-Roman philosophy that took place when Christianity appeared in the Roman empire."

Nonsense. Aristotle wrote "The Ethics" centuries before the Roman empire existed. Greco-Roman refers to the period after the rise of ancient Rome, which occurred after the fall of ancient Greece. Aristotle lived well before this and the foundations of Greek philosophy antedate Aristotle by centuries, as well. When the Romans derived their ideals from Greek philosophers, those philosophers had been dead for centuries already. As I said, the source of the ethical edicts presented in the Ten Commandments and other Judeo-Christian codes of ethics derived from earlier sources. Once again, religion is not the fount of morality.

Gary, again, I think Ben T is largely wrong. The claim from you that I initially disagreed with was this: "...most of the ideas expressed by Christianity ... come from ancient Greek sources." Your examples: "The concepts that murder is wrong, that it is better to be friendly toward one's neighbors, that fidelity is good and infidelity is bad." Now you admit that these ideas didn't come from the Greeks to the Christians. So, whether you admit it or not, you have abandoned your inital claim, (you know, the claim that was really convenient for atheists and agnostics to believe because it provides a reason to downplay the significance of Christianity). Moreover, you have no right to claim Hammurabi or Aristotle etc as atheists or agnostics. Hammuabi had a (pagan) religion, and Aristotle believed in god/gods. So why appeal to them if you want to prove that religion isn't the foundation of morality?

By the way, this thread was supposed to be about abortion. And the Christian fetish for protecting human life and the prohibitions against abortion and infanticide (which happened very early in church history) is certainly NOT one of those ideas that Christians got from or even shared with ancient pagan religions, philosophers, or cultures. So, even though I don't agree with Ben T's bigger point, **historically our culture's view of "the sanctity of human life" comes from Christianity** -- and not any universally shared view, or pagan religion, or philosophical ethics.

"Gary, again, I think Ben T is largely wrong. The claim from you that I initially disagreed with was this: "...most of the ideas expressed by Christianity ... come from ancient Greek sources." Your examples: "The concepts that murder is wrong, that it is better to be friendly toward one's neighbors, that fidelity is good and infidelity is bad." Now you admit that these ideas didn't come from the Greeks to the Christians. So, whether you admit it or not, you have abandoned your inital claim, (you know, the claim that was really convenient for atheists and agnostics to believe because it provides a reason to downplay the significance of Christianity). Moreover, you have no right to claim Hammurabi or Aristotle etc as atheists or agnostics. Hammuabi had a (pagan) religion, and Aristotle believed in god/gods. So why appeal to them if you want to prove that religion isn't the foundation of morality?"

Not at all, Skeptic. I did say, from the beginning, that I included earlier sources than the Greeks. I didn't limit the influence exclusively to the Greeks and, in fact, mentioned Hammurabi's law codes, which you seem to want to ignore.

"Moreover, you have no right to claim Hammurabi or Aristotle etc as atheists or agnostics."

I never did. If that is what you inferred from my mention of them, you didn't understand my intent was to show that morality and the various ethics and moral codes that Christians claim a monopoloy of had their origins in pre-Christian sources. This is no way was meant to suggest that anyone, let alone Aristotle or Hammurabi, were atheists. I said, nor implied, nothing of the sort. I also didn't "appeal to them" to show that religion is not the source of morality. I merely mentioned them as earlier sources of the same thoughts on moral conduct which the Jews and the Christians have appropriated as the "word of God." It doesn't matter what thye religious beliefs of those earlier cultures were; it only matters that they, not God, were the authors of such concepts as the prohibition of killing, stealing, disrespecting one's elders, and so on. There were civil societies with advanced systems of ethics long before the Talmud or the Bible were written. The claim, by Christians (or any other sect) that their religion is the source of our modern law is simply incorrect. That was my whole point.

Gary, be honest man. (1) You didn't mention Hammurabi until later, until after I had expressed my disagreement that "most of the ideas expressed by Christianity came from ancient Greek sources." (2) You initialy mentioned ancient Greek sources and philosophers in order to show that god and belief in god were not the basis of morality. So it is relevant that the ancient sources you then mention (Aristotle and Hammurbi) were theists. (3) Now you say AGAIN: "I merely mentioned them as earlier sources of the same thoughts on moral conduct which the Jews and the Christians have appropriated as the 'word of God.'" Appropriated? Now you are back to the old claim, the one you had just abandoned (I thought). Remember, we agreed that the only examples you could come up with were universal, so there is no need to say that appropriation took place. You are once again saying that the Jews and Christians TOOK these ideas from the Greeks (and, you add later, Hammurabi). Regarding the 10 commandments and other teachings of the OT , it's a good thing you added Hammurabi, because they were written well before Aristotle's birth, but you still have no evidence of APPROPRIATION. And regarding the moral question at issue here -- abortion -- appropriation from Hammurabi and the Greeks is absurd. Again, I think you just like thinking that the Jews and Christians "appropriated" "most of their ideas" from ancient pagans because it is convenient for you to downplay the significance of the moral traditions in which you were raised and which you have rejected.

'Perhaps I've never heard of Aristotle, or perhaps I've read his "Ethics" ... twenty more times than you have.'

It's clear that Skeptic has never heard of Aristotle. He's probably never heard of Husserl either. Go get him Gary!

"Animals will often defend their young, because of their instinctual survival to ensure the survival of their species."

Though I'm not quite sure what the phrase "survival to ensure the survival" means, you seem to be claiming that animals instinctively protect other members of the same species, and THEREFORE, they protect their own offspring. That's evidently false. At most, the instinct to protect extends to a limited community (a pack, for example), and not to the species as a whole.

"Man has this instinct as well, but I do not believe it equates with the complex moral code mankind as constructed for himself."

"Complex moral codes" are irrelevant. The question is whether or not concern for the lives of others can be 'rational' (even for the atheist). If instinct is the measure of 'rational', then concern for the lives of others can be rational.

"1. Having or exercising the ability to reason. 2. Of sound mind; sane. 3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior."

Perhaps your not familiar with the notion of equivocation. A dictionary lists several meanings because when a word is equivocal, i.e., has DIFFERENT meanings. These meanings are not strictly equivocal, but ana-logical; that is, while different, they are nonetheless related. Finally, the dictionary is not always the best place to turn in a philosophical dispute.

That said, please pick on of these definitions and explain why an atheists concern for the lives of others fails to be 'rational'. Is the atheist insane? Is he violating some rule of logic? If so, which one? Etc.

Ralph,

Who's Husserl?

"Who's Husserl?"

Some Cartesian I believe.

"Gary, be honest man. (1) You didn't mention Hammurabi until later, until after I had expressed my disagreement that "most of the ideas expressed by Christianity came from ancient Greek sources." "

I wasn't looking at my post when I wrote that, so, if I'm mistaken about the poit at which I introduced Hammurabi, then I'm mistaken on that point. It doesn't in any way diminish the point of my argumet, however. Even if I'm wrong that the Greeks were not an earlier source of such moral philosophy, I'm right that the basic content of the Ten Commandments was derived from earlier sources.

"(2) You initialy mentioned ancient Greek sources and philosophers in order to show that god and belief in god were not the basis of morality. So it is relevant that the ancient sources you then mention (Aristotle and Hammurbi) were theists."

No, it isn't at all relevant that the Greeks were theists. The issue was not one of religion, but one of moral philosophy. I said the Greeks, as well as other earlier societies, provided the basis for the moral philosophy contained in later Judeo-Christian texts such as the Bible and the Talmud. By the way, the Greeks were pantheists and were considered pagans by early, as well as later Christians. It makes no difference what they believed in, though, as it is only their ethics I am talking about, not their religion.

"Appropriated? Now you are back to the old claim, the one you had just abandoned (I thought)."

I didn't abandon anything. My whole point, all along, has been that the so-called "Christian values" that conservatives point to as being the basis of American society and law were derived from earlier pre-Christian sources.

"Remember, we agreed that the only examples you could come up with were universal, so there is no need to say that appropriation took place. You are once again saying that the Jews and Christians TOOK these ideas from the Greeks (and, you add later, Hammurabi)."

Of course they did. How do you suppose anything is transmitted from generation to generation, down through history? Everything known to modern man has been passed down to us and added to, revised and supposedly improved upon. This is the nature of history itself. Did you think the concept of "love thy neighbor" or "thou shall not kill" were never conceived of by mankind before the Ten Commandments were written? As I said earlier, there were whole civilizations that existed prior to the birth of the Judeo-Christian monotheistic religion. It is from those earlier societies that the ideas presented in the Bible came from. The Bible itself is a collection of writings, by different men who lived years or even centuries apart. The Jews who first published the Old Testament picked and chose which of these writings to include in the Bible and left some of them out. Kings later had the Bible translated into various languages and rewritten, oftentimes to suit the current viewpoint. Literally everything in the Bible has gone through centuries of revision, deletion, additions, and so on. But, hey, don't believe me; just ask any Biblical scholar.

"And regarding the moral question at issue here -- abortion -- appropriation from Hammurabi and the Greeks is absurd."

Where did I say ANYTHING about this having anything to do with abortion?! We got off onto this religious tangent when the debate over the source of morality arose. I have been trying to establish that morality is not soley derived from God, that it is a natural condition of human existence. This lead to a further tangent: whether or not the source of Christian values comes from earlier pre-Christian sources. NONE of these arguments have a damned thing to do with abortion and I NEVER said anything about abortion in connection with the ancient Greeks or Hammurabi. If you can't keep it straight who said what about what, maybe we need to end this before Dan starts charging us for the server space we're using up.

Thanks, Ralph. Edmund Husserl was a Phenomenologist. In a nutshell, he's one of those relativists said everything is subjective and that, basically, morality doesn't exist. His entire approach to philosophy was derived from the early Greek strain of, I believe (memory's a little fuzzy on this) Anaximander (or was it Anaxagoras?), who believed that all reality is reducible to mathematics. Here's link to some of his hogwash: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/

"Yes, and this is exactly what I'm talking about; i.e., that Christianity has NO MONOPOLY on the points of civil order and individual behavior expressed in such Christian sources as the Ten Commandments, that these edicts existed well before being adopted from earlier sources by Christian OR Jewish clerics. That was my whole point, that religion has no monopoly on morality. By the way, I didn't ascribe the origin of such ethics to the ancient Greeks alone, but to sources even earlier. I believe I mentioned Hammurabi, did I not? The concept of morality existed well before monotheism and is not at all the creation of Judeo-Christianity, let alone God." -Gary

There is nary a group of people predating the ancient Israelites. They were contemporaries of the Sumerians. Not that it is relevant. The ancient Greek philosophers understood morality existed, but their explanations as to WHY fall very short, as do your own.

"My remark was not intended as an attack on your character, but as an observation that your viewpoint, when you were an atheist (not now), was that there is no such thing as morality. You were then, therefore, a person without morals, by your own definition. Actually, I'm glad you don't think that way anymore, though I believe you've misplaced the source of your morality."-Gary

No it wasn't. You appear to be either a very slow man or being deliberately disingenous. The fact that I couldn't reconcile the existence of morality in an atheist world led me to abandon atheism. I have explained this very clearly multiple times, I won't do so again. Why you can't seem to comprehend this extremely simple course of events is beyond me.

"And how does Locke define his term "the god of nature?" Does he mean "nature," or does he mean the Judeo-Christian God? Regardless, natural rights, whether granted by God or not, still arise from man's natural state of existence. The fact that we live at all is what entitles us to go on living. We don't require God for this to be true, and that is the point I'm trying to make; i.e., that regardless of what the founders believed, the basis for all human rights is recognized as deriving from the natural state of being. Even the right of citizenship in the United States stems from whether one was born in this country or not, despite added conditions, such as naturalization. If one was born here, the very fact of his existence makes him a U.S. citizen from birth. His citizenship derives from his existence, then. This would be an example of natural law. That it has been codified since is irrelevant, as those who codifed it recognized the implications of natural law, which was the basis for the codification, not some edict of religion. So, too, is the right to life derived from one's own existence, not from some divine decree."-Gary

Whether or not it is the Judeo-Christian God is not relevant to this debate. I am not making the case for one specific religion, I am making the case for the existence of a deity or deities.

Again, you are employing circular reasoning when you place man's natural right to life on his natural right to property. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.

"That is NOT what I said. Now you're attempting to twist my words. Man if free to choose whether to DO good or evil. What IS good or evil is self-evident, deriving, again, from the conditions of nature, NOT from man's choice. In other words, that to kill is wrong is a concept derived from man's natural right to life. It remains wrong whether one chooses to kill or not. The act of choosing to kill does not determine whether to kill is right or wrong, it only determines one's behavior. It is a condition of nature, of man's existence, that to kill is wrong. This stems from the natural right to life. If one has the right to live as a condition of the fact that he lives, then it follows from this that to kill another is a violation of his right to life. Nowhere in any of this is it necessary to posit the existence of some deity. The laws of man are derived from the laws of nature, whether man chooses to believe in God or not." -Gary

Oh, so now man has the right to choose to do what is good or evil, but the concepts of good and evil transcend man? Interesting. Also impossible in an atheistic world.

"Let's examine this closely. First, you say you were an atheist and that, during that time in which you were an atheist, you believed that morals exist. Okay. That contradicts what you said earlier" -Gary

No it doesn't. Quote where I contradicted myself.

"Now, if that is true, and you believe that "morals cannot exist in the absence of God," then your conclusion is wrong. You cannot conclude that God must exist only on the basis of the existence of morals. The one does not prove or support the other. By acknowledging that morals exist, it does not necessaryily follow from this God exists, even if you personally believe that morals can't exist without the presence of God. There is no a priori reason to be believe God exists that stems from the fact of morality alone." -Gary

If morals cannot exist without God, than if God does not exist morals do not exist. I believe that morals exist, and therefore believe that God exists. An atheist who believes in morality is guilty of the fallacy of doublethink.

"Besides, there are myriad other conditions to be met, including metaphysical conditions, before we can conclude that God exists. The mere fact of morality does not constitute a proof of God's existence in and of itself." -Gary

Because morality exists, and because it is literally impossible for morality to exist if God does not exist, we can conclude that God exists. Or, if you so choose, you can conclude that morality does not exist. I am open to the possibility that morality is non-existent, but I find the likelihood of it to be extremely small.

"There is no supporting evidence required. That is what "self-evident" means. When something is self-evident, that means that it is understood that no further proof of it is required." -Gary

In that case, than to state something is self evident is a logical fallacy. It requires us to believe that one can make a statement of value without being under the burden of proof. Nothing in the universe is simply self evident under your definition. Of course, this is simply your intellectual attempt to make a statement of value without supporting it, since your worldview requires you to do that.

"Wrong. Man has the right to life because he lives. This is independent of his desires." -Gary

In this case, man has a natural right to life that stems from his natural right to property. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.

"There is no further condition that must be met to assure the right to life. All living persons possess this right at birth and continue to have this right until death."-Gary

You're engaging in circular reasoning again.

"Nonsense. Aristotle wrote "The Ethics" centuries before the Roman empire existed. Greco-Roman refers to the period after the rise of ancient Rome, which occurred after the fall of ancient Greece. Aristotle lived well before this and the foundations of Greek philosophy antedate Aristotle by centuries, as well. When the Romans derived their ideals from Greek philosophers, those philosophers had been dead for centuries already. As I said, the source of the ethical edicts presented in the Ten Commandments and other Judeo-Christian codes of ethics derived from earlier sources. Once again, religion is not the fount of morality." -Gary

The ethics of ancient Greek philosophers are incompatatible with modern western ethics. Again, for example, while we hold pedophilia to be morally reprehensible, they did not. You are attempting to imply that ancient Greek ethics correllate with modern western ethics. There are three possibilities here. A.) You are ignorant to the ethics of ancient Greee. B.) You are ignorant to the ethics of modern western civilization. C.) You are deliberately lying.

"Thanks, Ralph. Edmund Husserl was a Phenomenologist. In a nutshell, he's one of those relativists said everything is subjective and that, basically, morality doesn't exist. His entire approach to philosophy was derived from the early Greek strain of ... Anaximander (or was it Anaxagoras?), who believed that all reality is reducible to mathematics."

[Takes shelter in anticipation of skeptic's reply.]

"The ethics of ancient Greek philosophers are incompatatible with modern western ethics. Again, for example, while we hold pedophilia to be morally reprehensible, they did not."

"The ethics of ancient Greek philosophers" (all of them?) endorse pedophilia?

Yes, Ralph -- I restrained from correcting Ben T on the pedophilia point, because I thought Gary's mistakes were more interesting. But as a matter of fact, though pedophilia had become common among married men high in ancient Greek social order, it was never considered normal or accepted by the hoi poloi; moreover, Aristotle and Plato both condemned it.

Now I get to ask you, Gary: have you ever read Husserl on ethics? Not that it matters that you are wrong about him, because you seem unteachable. For example, I have repeatedly pointed out that just because some of the content of religion A is also found in preexisting source B, it doesn't follow that A derived it from B. Yet you keep making claims that "most" of Judaism and Christianity "comes from" or "appropriated" the Greeks and Hammurabi. You have offered no evidence for your claim. By your standard, Aristotle's rejection of homosexuality would be derived from Leviticus, since Aristotle came later. This is just silly. And if your point is that our culture's mores are not based on Christianity, then this is the obvious answer: (though we fall terribly short) Christianity is A LOT more influential on our culture's moral practices and attitudes than Aristotle or Hammurabi or any other source. That's just common sense.

"just because some of the content of religion A is also found in preexisting source B, it doesn't follow that A derived it from B."

I suppose it's possible that the same ideas could have been arrived at independently, at different times. Afterall, much of the culture lost after the Dark Ages was again realized later and some cultural developments appear to have arisen simultaneously in different regions, as well. However, I believe that, in this case, the transference of such ethical standards is more likely to have been directly from earlier sources, as the Christians, the Romans and the Greeks, as well as the predecessors of the Greeks, were all in direct contact with each other as each succeeded the other. In fact, there were periods of coexistence between them, when ideas from one culture were assimilated by another. Alas, no one, including you, really knows for sure, as they left us no DVDs. ;)

"By your standard, Aristotle's rejection of homosexuality would be derived from Leviticus, since Aristotle came later. This is just silly."

I never said anything at all about this. You are confusing my words with someone else's. I said absolutely nothing about homosexuality in this thread, let alone how it relates to anyone or anything. But, if your point is the timeline, not the content, then you are wrong. I believe i said that Aristotle's Ethics may have been, in part, a source for Christian moral philosophy and that would not be at all incorrect, as far as the timing goes, as Aristotle died long before Christ was born. As for Leviticus, I never mentioned him.

"Christianity is A LOT more influential on our culture's moral practices and attitudes than Aristotle or Hammurabi or any other source."

Actually, that assumes that Christianity developed in an intellectual vacuum, which it certainly didn't. Like every philosophy and religion that has ever existed, it was influenced by its own times and by what came before it. There is nothing about Christianity's precepts that is pure or untouched by other influences. The Christians have their creation story, as every one of the world's major religions do. Christianity has a code of ethics, as all the world's religions do. Christianity promises life after death, a concpet familiar to many cultures the antedate Christianity. To say that Christianity didn't borrow ideas from other, older religions is absurd and the proof of it lies in the similarities between Christianity and these other, earlier faiths. You are simply in denial, and for no good reason, as there is certainly nothing in this that detracts from Christianity or devalues it in any way.

Skeptic, I believe 'post hoc propter hoc' is the phrase your looking for.

Just me being my pedantic self again, but the article Dan quotes doesn't actually refer to the foetus as a baby. When talking about "The Baby", either it's about when the baby will be due (future tense), will be the first child (future tense) or when quoting Stefani.

As the foetus (aka slug of flesh or what-ever evocative language one wan'ts to use) is present tense and Gwen Stefani didn't write the article, there is no inconsistency in this situation. Not saying that such inconsistencies of perspective don't occur, of course.

Ben-T
Don't like your logic:
"This view holds that since a fetus is just a glob of cells, there is nothing inherently sacred about it's life and it is okay to kill it. This view is entirely rational, IF it recognizes that ALL life is just a glob of cells with nothing inherently sacred about it, and that, following this line of reasoning, there is nothing morally wrong about committing murder."

View X holds that Acacia paradoxa is just a plant, and it is okay to cut it down. This view is entirely rational, IF it recognizes that ALL life is just plant material with nothing inherently sacred about it, and that, following this line of reasoning, there is nothing morally wrong about chopping all life forms down.

Atheists (generally) make a distinction between a Homo sapiens foetus and a developed human being, just as they can tell the difference between you and a tree. Your logical extension of a rationale for murder is (fortunately) a non-sequitur not championed by most atheists. Start worrying when they start watering your cat.

Bruce: AP changed the link. The story I originally linked to is slightly different and can be read here: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-bc-people-gwenstefani1220dec20,0,1954854.story

You use the term "foetus" in your post in referring to Stefani's baby, but nowhere in either of the AP articles do they use such terminology. In the article linked within this comment, they say that Stefani "is pregnant with her first child." In the other article, AP refers to the "foetus" as a "baby...due in June" and says it "will be the first child" for Stefani and her husband. I understand your distinction between present and future, but in the original article AP used present. And even though the second article didn't, it's still a victory over semantics that they used "child" and "baby." So, to correct your correction, the article I quoted from did indeed use the present tense ("is pregnant with her first child"). The article I linked to did too. It's just that the AP changed the link.

Gary: are you kidding? Just think about this very simply. Your initial claim: "One needn't look any further than the philosophers of ancient Greece to see that most of the ideas expressed by Christianity (The "Golden Rule," for example) come from ancient Greek sources, centuries before the birth of Christ." Now think about how many ideas are held by Christianity and about Christianity's emergence out of Judaism, look up post hoc ergo propter hoc, and then ask yourself: was this a responsible statement to make?

As for the example of the condemnation of homosexuality in the Book Leviticus (part of the Torah), it was an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that you have been committing. Perhaps you might want to learn more about the Judeo-Christian Tradition about which you like to make authoritative pronouncements explaining away its content.

Skeptic, I'm not attempting to "explain away" anything. The issue was raised, in the very first post to this thread, that only those who believe in God are moral, which, when I challenged that assumption, it was conceded that this isn't true. I then suggested that the origins of the several precepts contained in such Judeo-Christian writings as the Ten Commandments had their origin in the religious and philosophical thought of earlier civilizations, among which are the Greeks. As I further explained, history is filled with examples of one culture influencing another. Why do you insist upon denying that Judaism and Christianity borrowed from earlier sources? You just said that Christianity borrowed from Judaism. Why will you not admit that Judaism, in turn, borrowed from earlier influences? This doesn't in any way lessen Christianity. It is simply dishonest to say that Christianity developed of its own accord in an intellectual vaccum without any influence from historical or contemporary thought. There is no fallacy of logic in pointing out this very obvious fact. Very little, if anything in the history of the world has developed without reference to the past and present.

Gary, your post contains numerous factual errors, of two kinds. First, you misrepresent your own statements about which I expressed disagreement. I have quoted you so many times to remind you of your initial, outrageously broad and irresponsible claim that I hardly think that quoting you again could make any difference. Second, you misrepresent my statments. EVERY claim attributed to me in your prior post was never asserted by me.

If you can't follow a simple discussion without twisting my words, introducing things I never mentioned and then telling me I am mistaken for saying things about topics I never wrote anything about, and resorting to character assassination instead of answering my argument, then I shall consider this discussion at an end.

"One needn't look any further than the philosophers of ancient Greece to see that most of the ideas expressed by Christianity ... come from ancient Greek sources, centuries before the birth of Christ." -Gary

This is what you said. It is completely unsupported by fact and incredibly implausible given the number of ideas (and the number of very unGreek ideas) expressed by Christianity.

You later tried to rewrite history in this sentence: "I then suggested that the origins of the several precepts contained in such Judeo-Christian writings as the Ten Commandments had their origin in the religious and philosophical thought of earlier civilizations, among which are the Greeks." Notice that this is not the same claim as in the above quotation. The fact that you toned down the original so much is itself an admission that you were wrong.

Regarding things you have falsely said about me: I never said that Christianity arose in a vacuum. I never denied that Christianity and Judaism borrowed from other sources. I never said that Judaism didn't borrow from earlier sources. And I never attacked your character. I corrected you. Sorry.

Gary talks glibly about how most atheists "lead moral lives". What is the foundation of an atheist's morality, if they even have one? Why would it hold any weight without any higher authority to validate it? It's possible if reason was their guide under Kantian ethics, but Gary kills his one chance at being logical when he doubts the validity of rational thought and reason. Gary doesn't make sense, but when one disbelieves in all absolutes, one doesn't have to make sense and can pretend that their opinion is informed. What a joke!

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!

I'm sorry. I garbled Gary and Ralph's posts together, and was unfair to Gary. Oh Jack Daniels and sweet fruit-flavored liquer, you've thoroughly blitzed me during this season of the birth of Christ Jesus! I need to force myself not to post the morning after engaging in morally unjustifiable behavior (drunkeness). Gary, I apologize.

PMA asks:

"What is the foundation of an atheist's morality, if they even have one? Why would it hold any weight without any higher authority to validate it?"

As I explained (over and over again) and as at least one person agreed with me on this point (Ralph, I believe), the basis of an athiest's morality lies in the same thing as for everyone: natural law. As I also explained, with even greater repetition, as it didn't seem to sink in with some certain person, natural law derives from the natural state of man's existence. The fact of one's existence is all that is necessary to establish his right to life. Isn't this what pro-life advocates are saying when they say "life begins at conception?" By the way, I have no argument with that premise; life does begin when it begins. Whether liberals choose to call it a "fetus" or not is irrelevant. It is still a gestating, living human being, even if not fully formed yet. In fact, even after birth, a child is not fully formed yet. The period of human physical maturation continues well after birth and a human being can be said, quite rightly, to still be developing physically as late in life as adolescence.

But, to get back to the question of an atheist's foundation for moral and ethical behavior, as I was saying, it is the same foundation that all of mankind shares in. Not all people believe in the Judeo-Christian diety, yet, in every culture on earth, the same rules expressed in the Ten Commandments are recognized in other religions (save, perhaps, for that of Islam; this is still debatable) in some form or another ( I don't think the Dalai Lama is out raping and pillaging, yet, he doesn't have a deity he believes in, either), and is codified, in some form or another, in the laws of most, if not all the nations of the world, just as it is in the United States. In fact, the rules pertaining to honoring thy mother and father and no cheating on your spouse or coveting your neighbor's wife are more stringently enforced elsewhere in the world than they are in our liberalized culture (thanks to the Left). So, again, no religion, including Christianity, has a monopoly on morality and ethics and morality and ethics do not have their origins in religion. As I said earlier, they derive from the natural conditions of man's existence and have been codified, both in religious texts and in civil law. The most fundamental illustration of this is the right to life, which is recognized at birth. It is birth and the subsequent life that comes with it that confers the right to life, not some edict from some religion or some government. The right to life has been recognized far longer than any organized religion or any civil society has existed. Even our pre-agricultural ancestors knew that killing without provocation was a bad thing to do. How? Because they were imbued with an innate moral sense, a an innate understanding that killing one of their own kind was bad because it deprived the victim of his existence and deprived his loved ones of their family member, as well as the clan of one of their members. It has been understood by human beings, since long before there was civilization, that this differs from killing in self-defense or in defense of one's clan. Anyone who would argue that such a fundamental perception of the human condition didn't exist until Biblical times is not only being disingenuous, but is denying man the credit he deserves for his own creation: ethics.

PMA, I accept your apology and I must make one of my own, for failing to see yours before answering your first post. The coffee hasn't kicked in yet. Have a very merry Christmas!

"It is birth and the subsequent life that comes with it that confers the right to life, not some edict from some religion or some government. The right to life has been recognized far longer than any organized religion or any civil society has existed." I agree with your general point here, Gary, but don't tell this to the ancient Greeks and their philosophers (and many other cultures and religions as well), who had no problem with systematic exposure of infants.

Merry Christmas.

Skeptic, you certainly are fixated on my mention of the Greeks. I DID include other cultures in saying that earlier sources were responsible for the ideas that appear in Christian ethics, you know. No matter how many times I've said so, you keep ignoring this. So, if it will satisfy you, I'll admit I may have been mistaken in counting the ancient Greeks among those several earlier sources of civil conduct. By the way, I never said that the Greeks had anything to do with abortion, one way or the other. This is the second time you've attempted to put such words into my mouth. I said the tenets of Christian moral philosophy were borrowed from earlier sources, including the Greeks. That doesn't equate to saying the ancient Greeks said anything about abortion and, while we're at it, neither does the Ten Commandments, the Talmud or the Bible. In fact, as I recall, God told Abraham to slay his own son (who was somewhat older than a fetus at the time), didn't he?

You seem to be insisting that I'm pro-abortion simply because I'm an agnostic. As I've said, at least twice already, I don't support abortion, save for the case in which a pregnancy and/or labor threatens the mother's life. I conceded, early on, that rape victims probably don't have as sound a case and, therefore, probably don't deserve consideration, afterall, despite the cruelty of making them bear their attacker's children.

Now that we've all agreed that religion isn't the source of morality (or have we?) and that even non-believers are just as moral as everyone else (while many professed believers are anything but), I think we can finally adjourn this interminable discussion and get back to our eggnog now. Again, merry Christmas to you all.