Sample clip of my debate with an
atheist on the issue of morality.
Find the whole debate at this link

Another “debate” on morality with an atheist, part 1 of 4

I say “debate” because that which follows is part of a discussion/debate derived from a blog that I used to run wherein I had originally posted the essay, Speaking of Assiduous Absconders…Yet Again, Vox Day Challenges PZ Myers to Debate (see my debate section in general for more).

Not content to let the facts speak for themselves an atheist came to the rescue of their cult of personality’s cenobite.

Much was discusses yet, I want to focus upon the aspects of the conversation in which we considered morality.
From the get go, you could tell that the discussion would, not surprisingly, be heavy on emotive assertions and light on substance. This was the kind of guy who basically performed anti-Christian related internet searches and then copy and pasted whatever came up. And so not only is Vox Day, according to this atheist’s estimation, not worthy of having PZ Myers coming down from his lofty imitation-ivory tower but why not take a swipe at his father, while we are at it:

Tell you what...we'll take Myers and the other godless sciencebloggers, and you can keep Vox Day, and his crazy dad!...
there's a reason why Myers calls Vox Day names...he deserves them.

Amongst other things, I noted,

You end up proving my point about “their fans who follow behind cleaning up their messes and excusing any and everything”…
By the way, you only quote Vox Day from one of his own websites/blogs once, the rest are from secondary sources (out of the 18 hyperlinks that you provided). That does not necessarily mean that he has been taken out of context or misrepresented but it makes one suspect that you are not reading the originals for context but relying on someone else to tell you what he says and what he means when he says it.

Ok, so, let us get to it as I stated,

I agree that “religious belief has been responsible for killing people for century after century” please inform me as to how you condemn these actions.

By the way, see Find it Fast - Fast Facts: on religious wars and Is the Atheist Argument from Religious Violence Cogent? for details on this issue.
So, how does he condemn these actions?

Here is the entirety of his answer,

Easy. I condemn them. I thought that context was easy enough to see. I guess not.

Well, obviously, or so I thought, anyone can inhale and cause the oxygen to be exhaled through their vocal cords whilst intonating moral condemnations. That might, at some level, answer “how” he condemns it but it is not exactly what I had in mind and so I thought to elucidate:

I stated and asked, “I agree that ‘religious belief has been responsible for killing people for century after century’ please inform me as to how you condemn these actions.”
Your answer was, “Easy. I condemn them. I thought that context was easy enough to see. I guess not.”

I guess not as well. I do not get your point unless it is that you condemn them because you condemn them.

Does an atheist condemn certain actions because they are immoral or are certain actions immoral because an atheist decided to condemn them?

This last line is also what I asked as part of my opening statement in my formal debate with an atheist on the issue of morality. Here is a sample (you can watch the entire debate at this link):

We will consider his response in the next segment.

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano Grinbank of the website "True Free Thinker" at www.truefreethinker.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as long as the following conditions are met:

Give credit to Mariano Grinbank of the website "True Free Thinker" and provide the url: www.truefreethinker.com/articles/another-%E2%80%9Cdebate%E2%80%9D-morality-atheist-part-1-4.
Inform me as to where it is being reproduced via the comments section or use the Trackback url: http://www.truefreethinker/trackback/1793

face palm

Anonymous — Tue, 11/02/2010 - 5:29pm

Atheists are really inconsistent. If they say Atheism is no belief in a God/Gods or just a lack of a belief in God, why all the God/religious hate? What does religion or God have to do with their non or lack of belief? I think many of them aren't Atheists at all, they're antiTheists. They bring nothing but prejudice, oppression, and hate speech.

arguments are not hate

Anonymous — Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:10am

Theists are really inconsistent. If they say they want to defend their position in debate, why do they frame the arguments of their opponents as "prejudice, oppression and hate speech?" You can't have it both ways: either you can defend your position with reasoned arguments or you can't. It isn't valid to paint your opponents as evil when your arguments falter.

But to answer your question about anti-theism, it probably derives from all the damage caused in the name of theistic belief. The same way (I hope) you would consider yourself anti-slavery (though your Bible, if you follow it, approves of it), we anti-theists are against stupid policies directly influenced by superstitious nonsense. Stupid beliefs lead to stupid decisions--and stupid decisions often lead to human suffering, sometimes in the form of actual "prejudice, oppression and hate speech"--but not excluding more extreme outcomes like death-by-faith-healing.

Atheists can't make up their minds what they are...

Anonymous — Wed, 11/03/2010 - 6:11am

My experience with internet atheists has been that they happily blame the Crusades (war against foreign aggression, political wars, etc) for religion or belief in God and at the same time when one points out that atheist governments and states (where religion was eradicated) were responsible for mass murders in the 20th century of many times the magnitude of the Crusades they say that Nazis/Communists in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe were not really atheists but had an ideology (Marxism) as their god. This goes against what atheism is - belief in a supernatural deiety or deieties. The fact is that Marx, Engels, et al were not supernatural and their atheism was promulgated because Christian teachings were contrary to the evil these ideologies were spreading and would interfere with the implementation of the level of ruthlessness involved. Militant anti-theists who rage against belief with the idea that it somehow holds back progress (scientific and social advancement) while ignoring the negative sides of godless societies are being vocal in their silence against those evils and their distancing from those atheists. The guys who signed death warrants for tens of thousands of people in these politburos were atheists. At the end of the day atheists can't really say what is moral or not, unless they are using Judeo-Christian values to gauge these qualities or they've redefined morality to a subjective world-view in which case it's really a personal choice - which is better Pepsi or Coke?

To point out that killing (et al) is wrong according to Christian teaching but is not defined in any sense in atheist circles is redundant but these people will simply not see this. If a Christian kills it's not because of his religion, but despite of it. If an atheist kills it has no relevance to his non-existent beliefs, his only source of morality comes from his upbringing and the hype he's been brainwashed with - be it Marxism or Fascism.

the evolution of Judeo-Christian values

Anonymous — Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:59am

"At the end of the day atheists can't really say what is moral or not, unless they are using Judeo-Christian values to gauge these qualities or they've redefined morality to a subjective world-view in which case it's really a personal choice - which is better Pepsi or Coke?"

You're not even wrong. For one thing, where do you get the idea that it is wrong to murder your children for disobedience, the way the Bible commands? What about slavery? How do you know it's wrong? Your Judeo-Christian values didn't tell you that. I hate to break it to you, but morality and ethics have been and will continue to be discussed without reference to Judeo-Christian values, because all three are human innovations accreted atop evolved behaviors. You are out of your depth. Your Judeo-Christian values don't define human morality--they are defined by human morality, which is why those values vary across time and geography. This is child's play. You guys are "true free thinkers?" What a farce.

the evolution of Judeo-Christian values

Anonymous — Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:59am

the evolution of Judeo-Christian values

Anonymous — Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:58am

the evolution of Judeo-Christian values

Anonymous — Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:57am

the evolution of Judeo-Christian values

Anonymous — Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:56am

Uhmmm... OK

Anonymous — Fri, 01/21/2011 - 2:02am

"[states] responsible for mass murders in the 20th century of many times the magnitude of the Crusades they say that Nazis/Communists in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe were not really atheists but had an ideology (Marxism) as their god"

Not ideology but rather Leader (hence "cult of personality")

"many times the magnitude" partly because there was more people in 20th c... but it's just a side point.

Israelites in the OT killed out whole tribes (including children) achieving 100 % casualty rate.

Main point: were there only atheists in those countries? Who forced German protestants and catholics to elect Hitler? (and then happily carry out his orders with almost no resistance?)

"The guys who signed death warrants for tens of thousands of people in these politburos were atheists."

Funny that you left out Nazis this time. How about those who organized Holocaust? All atheists too? No Protestants or Catholics in there?

"If a Christian kills it's not because of his religion, but despite of it."
Good. I'm glad we have avoided those Reformation/Counter-reformation wars, torture etc. sanctioned by the highest religious authorities and carried out by Protestants and Catholics few centuries back. Oh wait...

I notice none of these "true

Anonymous — Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:44am

I notice none of these "true free thinkers" were able to respond to this comment. I came here thinking I might find something substantial from a theist, but no, it's just the same nonsense. This is my experience time and time again. This is why I remain an atheist. There just is no evidence for the existence of gods--and no good arguments for why I should believe in one despite that fact. This attempt fails like all the rest.

Oh, and the video, over there on the side bar--that is a good demonstration of why I find theists so often to be arrogant bores. They ignore reasonable argumentation and assert their beliefs as self-evident, pretending this gives them the moral and logical high ground. It's absurd. Assertions are not arguments. The theist's response was not at all clever. That's the other thing: theists tend to give ready approbation to such disrespectful foolishness as this. It doesn't help their case to demonstrate and approve of buffoonery.

Agreed

Anonymous — Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:21pm

Atheism failed then and it will fail again. Secularism will die out eventually. Human beings are naturally spiritual beings and it is in our nature to not only believe in God but to worship as well. I give it no more than 10 more years till it all blows over.