Godless morality

Jerusalem Post ^ | Jan. 7, 2006 | Marc Hauser & Peter Singer

[Zionist Conspirator]

We can do this without blasphemy because it is our own nature, not God, that is the source of our morality.

And the source of my nature and ability to reason is...???

I'm sure these fellows would tell us the source is a random interaction of the elements of physical reality.

You know what's really scary about these whackos? They may insist on a world that began with absolutely no meaning of any kind, but they seem to believe that the world is actually gaining meaning as it evolves, and they believe that they are the ultimate authorities on the authentic evolving morality. It's almost the old Hegelian position of the world creating G-d (chas vechalilah!) rather than vice versa. They detest and ridicule "intelligent design," yet they use the language of design continually, almost delighting in flaunting it. The more they insist on the meaninglessness of the beginning of the creation process the more they use the teleological language of "progressive" vs. "reactionary" in describing what the meaningless world is becoming. And it seems to be becoming a totalitarian planetary society that will brook no dissent, all the while attacking "religious fundamentalists" for brooking no dissent! Apparently the absence of meaning at the beginning satisfies these people that no totalitarian "omega point" can be unjust or oppressive.

It's this precise issue of "meaninglessness acquiring ultimate meaning" that exposes atheist humanists as bizarre new age mystics parading as scientific materialists.

[dsc]

"I wonder if they've even noticed this about themselves?"

Actually, that's one of the things that woke me up from agnosticism.

I was telling a friend, as an axiom, that a man has an absolute obligation to any woman he impregnates and the resulting offspring, and he asked me, "Why? What's the source of the obligation?"

Made me think.

[dsc]

"and they believe that they are the ultimate authorities on the authentic evolving morality"

Genesis 3

3:1. Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?

3:2. And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat:

3:3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.

3:4. And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death.

3:5. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

3:6. And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband, who did eat.

We Catholics call it Original Sin, and it is with us to this day.

[bigsigh]

What is a post-natal abortion?

[GSlob]

"What is a post-natal abortion?"
Sounds oxymoronic to me - if abortion, then not post-natal, and if post-natal, then not an abortion. So I do not know, and think that the question should be addressed to those who used the word, not to me.

[bigsigh]

It must be these doctors who want to kill the kid if it doesn't die right away during an abortion. That's all I can think of.

[GSlob]

Then there is a proper name for it: infanticide. Why confuse people by using exotic vocabulary? But anyway, let those using highfalutin and complex words express themselves with more clarity. Everybody would benefit.

[bigsigh]

I agree. The word murder would do it for me.

[TAdams8591]

"morality is God's word, atheists should judge these cases differently from religious people, and their responses should rely on different justifications."

Not true. Religion has helped to shape the world atheists live in, and thereby shape them.

In order to arrive at such conclusions, one would have to study atheists who have grown to maturity in complete isolation from the rest of us and our world. To my knowledge that is an impossibility.

[tenn2005]

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillows of human happiness, these finest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge in the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on the minds of particular structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle.”

George Washington
Farewell Address to the Nation
September 17, 1796

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks~

Sometimes, the best speeches/addresses by a president is their farewell address.