“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

[Diogenes]

It is a common topic on this forum, variously phrased, that morality not only comes from God, but comes from the god 'I believe in.'
Christopher Hitchens famously challenged people to find a moral statement that could not be sincerely uttered by an atheist.
"No takers," he claimed.
Stated another way, Hitchens wrote, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Conversely, Hitchens and many others can easily find many examples of immoral statements made in the name of God or of religion.

The question for debate is whether either of these statements can be refuted.

[1213]

...“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”[/b][/size]
...
The question for debate is whether either of these statements can be refuted.

When Christians makes a claim, it is expected for them to prove it. Why it is so that atheists can make claims and they don’t have the same burden of proof?

[TRANSPONDER]

That's really irrelevant. Rationally, even when atheists are contesting a claim, they should give good reason why.

So with morals, ethics and decency, atheists have at least the burden of explaining why they do not buys the goddunnit claim. Because animals have instinctive behavior - traits. The more social a pack or tribe is, the more behavior becomes important and the individual feels a code of behavior, a sense of what's right and what isn't and sense of identity.

In humans, these become even more developed, with the Id becoming a separate entity, customs in various countries becoming different, like art or music, but always uncannily the same. As Paul said, this stuff is written on our hearts. Or, to put it another way, encoded naturally in our DNA, but elaborated by developed society.

It is evolution to credit for all this, not a god (name your own), and even if the Believers reject this (as they do) it is a decent alternative hypothesis with some supportive evidence, and that is discharging as much burden of proof as any theist has a right to expect.

[bjs1]

It is a common topic on this forum, variously phrased, that morality not only comes from God, but comes from the god 'I believe in.'

I notice that you start by talking about morality coming from God, but then switch to morality coming from religion. These are obviously very different things.

Stated another way, Hitchens wrote, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
― Christopher Hitchens

I have no idea how anyone could confirm or refute this statement. It is an ideological statement of faith.

Christopher Hitchens famously challenged people to find a moral statement that could not be sincerely uttered by an atheist.
"No takers," he claimed.

Of course there would be no takers. Assuming nothing is hampering speech, all human beings are capable of making the same moral statements. A skinhead could talk about valuing all people equally regardless of skin color or ancestry. A vegetarian could encourage people to barbeque a hamster. It is questionable if their stated beliefs would lead such people to actually say these things, but we can all sincerely say the same things.

Conversely, Hitchens and many others can easily find many examples of immoral statements made in the name of God or of religion.

Yes, religion has resulted in people doing many immoral things. Just as a lack of religion has resulted in people doing many immoral things. Your point?

[TRANSPONDER]

The point is I would say the atheist apologetic claim "The world would look as it is if there was no god". In other words, there is no reason to suppose there is one. The problem is that God - apologists argue from a faith - basis every time. They assume that God - not just god but Their god - exists until 100% disproven. If one used the materialist default and the axiom that it is the god - claim that bears the burden of proof, then the point is - if you can propose a valid alternative to goddunnit for any of the usual apologetics: Life, the universe en morality, then there is no good reason to believe in any god, let alone Biblegod.

I'm going to ask this in the hope that one Theist apologist is able to think rationally just once.

Do you get this? Do you understand how the logic works? Do you understand that goddunni is not the Default theory? The, even Gap for god arguments like 'no morality without God' which are fallacies even if science had no hypothesis, would be invalid? But if science does have an answer - that morals ethics and decency existed before religion did and religions have just been grabbing the credit and control ever since, then the religious claim to be a source of morality let alone arbiter of it, fails totally?

If you don't get it or deny it I understand; faithbased apologetics can't or won't Get It because, once they do. Faith come crashing down like a Chinese Tofu- Dreg apartment block.

[Diogenes]

It is a common topic on this forum, variously phrased, that morality not only comes from God, but comes from the god 'I believe in.'

I notice that you start by talking about morality coming from God, but then switch to morality coming from religion. These are obviously very different things.

Obviously the are the same thing.

There is no 'God' or gods, except what is imagined and claimed by religion. All people, except sociopaths (whether they claim to be religious or not), believe in basically the same morality. Do not murder or rape or steal from members of the tribe. The Bible would have you believe that somehow the Israelites made it all the way to Mt Sinai without morality until 'God' told them how to act with [there are several different versions) the absurd and supernatural claim of the Decalogue being inscribed in stone by their supernatural and imagined god. This is poppycock of course. All cultures, including those that predate the Hebrews, have the same basic moral code. Children are inatelly moral. Dogs and other social mammals act with the same morality. Social animals cannot survive together without a sense of reciprocity and fairness. Yet Christians try to claim they are unique; that their supernatural 'god' gave them morals by writing on a stone tablet.

Re: the complaint about atheists not needing evidence, while demanding it of theists: more poppycock. Non theists and anti-theists support their claims with scientific evidence. Theists make extraordinary, supernatural things (things that do not exist in nature). For such claims they should have extraordinarily powerful evidence, yet they have none... nothing but an appeal to the [non existant] supernatural.

For the nth time:




and...

Children can tell, to an extent, what is good and bad, and often act in an altruistic fashion. “Giving Leads to Happiness in Young Children,” a study of under-2-year-olds concluded. “Babies Know What’s Fair” was the upshot of another study, of 19- and 21-month-olds. Toddlers, the new literature suggests, are particularly equitable. They are natural helpers, aiding distressed others at a cost to themselves, growing concerned if someone shreds another person’s artwork and divvying up earnings after a shared task, whether the spoils take the form of detested rye bread or precious Gummy Bears.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 165443013/

[bjs1]

The point is I would say the atheist apologetic claim "The world would look as it is if there was no god". In other words, there is no reason to suppose there is one.

Is that the point? What part of this thread made you think that this is the point that this thread was building towards?

[bjs1]

It is a common topic on this forum, variously phrased, that morality not only comes from God, but comes from the god 'I believe in.'

I notice that you start by talking about morality coming from God, but then switch to morality coming from religion. These are obviously very different things.

Obviously the are the same thing.

Of course they are not. Saying that religion and God are the same thing is like saying that physics is the universe. Human understanding of something is clearly not the same as the thing itself.

There is no 'God' or gods, except what is imagined and claimed by religion.

You are free to make that claim. It holds exactly as much weight as a theist who claims the reverse without offering any evidence to support the claim.

All people, except sociopaths (whether they claim to be religious or not), believe in basically the same morality.

Yes, morality is relatively consistent. A universal moral code seems to exist. It is the basis of the moral argument in favor of God.

The Bible would have you believe that somehow the Israelites made it all the way to Mt Sinai without morality until 'God' told them how to act with [there are several different versions)

As far as I am aware, no version of the Bible teaches this.

Yet Christians try to claim they are unique; that their supernatural 'god' gave them morals by writing on a stone tablet.

It would certainly be strange if Christians actually claimed to be unique because of the 10 Commandments, since those are also the foundation of Jewish ethics.

Re: the complaint about atheists not needing evidence, while demanding it of theists: more poppycock. Non theists and anti-theists support their claims with scientific evidence.

Great! Please start doing this at your earliest convenience!

[Diogenes]

You are free to make that claim. It holds exactly as much weight as a theist who the reverse without offering any evidence to support the cliam.

Hmmmm... This appears to be an effort at using the English language, but if it is an attempt at logic and meaning (let alone English) it falls considerably short, if in fact that was the goal. I confess the 'word' "cliam" is unknown to me.
In any event I already gave ample evidence of how homo sapiens, as well as other social animals, have morals without the need of a fake story about a god writing them with a magic fingernail upon a stone tablet.

Evidence? You want evidence?
Again [sigh]

The appeal to a goat herder's guide to the universe is not evidence.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]

Thank you for pointing out my typo in such a polite and charitable manner. I have corrected my error.

You did provide evidence that there is a universal moral code – a claim that I, like most Christians, agreed with. This is normally seen as an argument in favor of theism.

Perhaps you could provide evidence for one the claims you made that I didn’t explicitly state my agreement with.