I would agree that Christians believe thier morality comes from God, but that's simple not reality. Humans often don't know why they do what they do and we guess afterwards as to the reasons behind our actions. It also seems unlikely that an atheist reasoned thier way to morality as well. Though it does seem that moral pregress can be made with reason.

@JeffB initially, it doesn't seem terribly unlikely to reason yourself to morality. The golden rule is all you really need to that end, and it's not hard to reasonably imagine a solid reason for abiding it. but it does depend on more factors than we'd like to admit. For example as surprised as I am that Christians can reason their way around the bad parts of their beliefs and arrive at a moral conclusion, I'm even more surprised at how many atheists can completely ignore reason and politically side with the Fundamentalist hypocrisy of white males crying about how oppressed they are. So it can and does go either way for sure, for pleasant and not so pleasant surprises out of both. One's sense of or lack of tribalism may have more to do with the strength of their morality than belief or lack thereof does.

@Matias "No claims?"

Are we to assume, then, that you have exhausted the body of written data on the subject? It sounds like you're claiming to be an expert on mental disorders.

@Matias Magical thinking sums up religion in a nutshell. You ever consider that psychiatrists are simply unwilling to set themselves at odds with the majority by stating what is a (rather painfully obvious) fact? You think atheists get a bad rap, how do you think an entire branch of medicine that actively condemns religion would have fared?
Faith, at its core is a mental sickness.

@Matias You do understand that your only consistent response has been a weak appeal to authority, right? Just curious.
I don't need to provide citation as to prove water is wet, or fire is hot.

@Matias Sure thing. I mean, your wrong, and a sad pedant to boot, but its ok.=D Fire hot, Water wet, Faith in the unprovable mental illness.

@Matias and yet you continue to exhibit it.
Crazy is just another term for mental disorder.
as in you just discredited your own argument by effectively doing exactly what you said you shouldnt do.. =D

Thanks

@Matias also
[campuspress.yale.edu]

or does freud not count either?

Excellent description. John Wathey gives a plausible biological explanation of this phenomenon in his book, “The Illusion of God’s Presence”.

[amazon.com]

@Matias you may be right. i will reserve judgment, since it is possible for wars (for example) to have one stated objective/cause but a different actual objective/cause. god seems always to be on the side of the righteous attacker! (we want your little piece of earth, which might have oil in it, or be blocking our trade route, or be populated by people who look or pray differently from how we look or pray, or just be there and we want it... but god said it was ours and here we come to take it!)

g

I don't see any of that as evidence for a God, though it doesn't preclude the possibility of such. Being open-minded doesn't require accepting the claim that any of this is evidence, only to consider it in good faith. The existence of the universe doesn't point to what gave rise to it. The presence of life is evidence only for abiogenesis and some mechanism of evolution, not a supernatural catalyst. Consciousness likewise doesn't tell us anything beyond its own existence, and even that is hidden except subjectively. Free will isn't a given and, indeed, many of us deny it as anything more than an illusion unless we couch it in terms of compatibilism, but even if we could demonstrate libertarian free will we'd still have all our work ahead of us to show it's somehow the result of a God. Those are all arguments from ignorance, i.e., literally the God of the gaps argument, where we say, "I don't know something important about this phenomenon, so it must be God / demons / magic / crystals / poltergeists / aliens / psychics / Sasquatch / etc." By that same reasoning, mental illness was once considered "evidence" for demonic possession before we understood that there were mental disorders of various sorts. It's also invalid to appeal to authority and/or popularity, e.g., "Many of the most brilliant and creative people throughout history have been deeply religious, and even today, approximately half of all scientists believe in God." What does that prove? I could point out that more esteemed scientists who belong to the academies of science are overwhelmingly non-religious, but that's also an invalid argument. Many of the most brilliant and creative people throughout history were also racist and thought it was just dandy to own other people based on the color of their skin, but that doesn't mean we should consider slavery as a viable option for contemporary society.

@resserts I didn’t say one way or the other whether there is a God. I don’t know anything about that, or even if the question has meaning in human terms. IMO there’s no such thing as the supernatural. There’s just the aspect of nature that we can not perceive directly or understand in terms of our space/time/matter model of reality. That aspect is dazzling, overpowering, and staggering in its implications.

All I’m saying is that there is evidence. Each person has to consider that evidence and decide if the evidence is persuasive or meaningful. Just because there is evidence doesn’t mean the issue is proven.
If you want to say that the evidence is not sufficient or is not persuasive, then fine, but if you shout THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE, then to me that is the sign of a closed mind, one protecting a dogmatic world view.

@resserts You are correct. My so-called “appeal to authority” proves nothing about theology. I was not trying to prove anything about theology. What it proves is that having religious sentiments does not imply stupidity or cowardice as is often implied on this forum.

But even if I had been trying to prove something about theology, there would be absolutely nothing wrong or illogical about appealing to authority. The opinion of experts is, in fact, evidence. Haven’t you heard of expert testimony in court? What about the global warming advocates who cite that 97% figure? Appeal to authority, no? Apparently appeal to authority is only allowed if you agree with the premises of the person doing the appealing.

@WilliamFleming You cited those things as evidence that justifies religious beliefs — however, you are correct that you didn't specify a God in that, though I hope you understand why I assumed that's in part what you meant based on context and the fact that you referenced scientists' belief in God, but it sounds to me now like you're equating religious evidence with awe and wonder, perhaps what some would label spirituality. If that's the point you're making, and basically just saying "there's stuff we don't know," then I agree with you at least superficially. But beyond that, I don't know what you're making a case for. Evidence for what? Are you making the case that we simply don't understand these things yet, or are you making the claim that there is something supernatural and that we cannot understand such things because they lie outside our reality? If you're making the latter claim, I still don't see those things as evidence. We're still talking God of the gaps (but don't take the "God" part there literally, as it's not intended in argument to be literal).

I disagree that appeal to authority is valid in this context, unless you can show how anyone's belief in religion or God illustrates the truth of the claim. You mention global warming and rightly specified experts. We're not talking about 97% of the general public, we're not talking about 97% of general scientific workers, we're not even talking about 97% of the members of top science fellowships, but rather 97% of climate scientists who are accomplished in this particular field, have deep knowledge and understanding regarding climate and what influences it, and whose work can and is scrutinized and challenged at every turn. That's what makes it more than an appeal to authority or an appeal to popularity. In contrast, scientists' belief or disbelief in specific or denuded religious concepts doesn't provide us with useful information about those beliefs. Most people are reared with some religion, and it has a psychological impact, but it doesn't illustrate anything about the mechanics of the world, and reasons for belief are many and varied without a unifying scientific basis to show expertise that might lend credibility. But, I take this back to my earlier statement that the vast majority of scientists at the very top levels do not in fact believe in religious concepts or in God specifically. I still don't think that's a valid argument, but if you do then are you counting the non-religious mindset of elite scientists as a mark against your own argument? I honestly hope not, but I question how you're determining what is and is not evidence. It seems to me that evidence has to be more than a lack of understanding of what or how something is, or the opinions of people whose expertise necessarily lies in the physical world. I'm not trying to single you out, because I see a lot of people make claims about the world with similar feelings of "if you don't fully understand something then any unfalsifiable metaphysical explanation must have merit." It's really only that which I'm pushing back against, because I consider such thinking at best misguided and in some cases quite harmful (e.g., in terms of alternative medicine).

Regardless, thanks for having taken my response seriously and providing clarification. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position in any way, as I always try to address the opinion as it is and never misrepresent it for the sake of a cheap strawman argument.

@resserts Thanks for your response. It’s been a stimulating interchange.

@resserts Sorry but I just cannot resist making one more reply. Here are some opinions from some of those very top level scientists you referenced—the founders of modern physics:

Werner Karl Heisenberg:
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Niels Bohr:
"I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."

Sir Arthur Eddington:
"The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff."

"We are no longer tempted to condemn the spiritual aspects of our nature as illusory because of their lack of concreteness."

"The scientific answer is relevant so far as concerns the sense-impressions... For the rest the human spirit must turn to the unseen world to which it itself belongs."

Max Planck:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

I am openly and without shame appealing to authority.

@WilliamFleming Ah, but those quotes show only that even brilliant people can fall victim to arguments from ignorance. They don't understand the mechanism by which some observable phenomenon works, so they appeal to a higher power which can magic anything into existence. Isaac Newton, a religious man, and truly brilliant, couldn't explain the motion of the planets when taking into account the gravitational forces of other celestial bodies. With two-body physics, his equations worked just fine, but when accounting for all the rest he couldn't reconcile it and thought the planets wold fly out of orbit. He appealed to the hand of God, then, to explain how the planets remained in orbit. Fast forward a couple hundred years, Pierre-Simon Laplace solved the problem and was able to predict the motion of the planets with more advanced models. After Laplace published his work, Napoleon read the work and confronted Laplace, asking him why nowhere within his writing had he mentioned the Creator of the universe. Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis." He understood the problems and their solutions, and he didn't need to appeal to metaphysics or magic to explain it — but we repeatedly see people make these appeals to God or other mysticism whenever they reach the limits of their knowledge and understanding.

@resserts I’m not sure if I agree. In those quotes, the physicists were speaking in general terms about their religious sentiments. They were not attempting to explain anything about nature, and certainly not by postulating some god or other. Well, maybe Planck was postulating universal consciousness as a matrix for all matter, but he must have had good reasons for that statement. He didn’t just throw up his hands and say, “God did it”.

My opinion is that true religion has nothing to do with explaining reality. It is the realization that reality can not be explained except superficially. It is to be aware, appreciative, and grateful. It is a way of life. It is not something to be proven or disproven. I guess organized religion hasn’t gotten the word yet.

@WilliamFleming Heisenberg says God is waiting at the bottom of natural sciences, suggesting that there's something about science that makes him think there's a God, and because there's no scientific publication from him showing the rigorous testing he did to illustratd this, I'm left to conclude that he was referring to things he couldn't explain. Eddington says there's something of the spirit we don't understand, so science fails us and we must look elsewhere. But what is he basing this on? What evidence that there is a metaphysical reality of any sort, other than there are non-concrete things he can't fully explain? Planck is saying he doesn't have a ready explanation for how atoms are held together, so he's invoking a consciousness (I'll call it God for simplicity) as a matrix that hold all matter together. I think it's clear that at least part of their rationale is that there are aspects of nature that they cannot explain and they turn to some form of metaphysics to fill in the gaps of their comprehension. /2¢

@DangerDave Woah, man!

While I realize (in retrospect) how you could take what I said in this way, when I said "these" I literally meant this in application only the six "myths" that @Matias posted. Again, I can see how it can come across as you took it, but that's not at all what I was going for.

My subtle point was that in the way @Matias is countering these "myths" spreading, he using six myths about what non-theist beliefs are. I don't like how he is putting up straw-men here.

@Matias Fair enough. Raising awareness of a problem is a first step.

I do think an exposition (even very brief) on what the actually critically-defensible positions should be instead, and why those six oversimplifications (and in some cases outright falsehoods) carry it too far, would be much more helpful to the community and to specific individuals, though.

Take the "History for Atheists" blog for example of what I mean. (Of course that guy goes way more in depth than anyone could be expected to here.)

Re: had anyone really said that last one?
Yes, in regards to Stalin.

@JeffB that is a misrepresentation. Hitchens is not saying Stalin was motivated by religion.

@SimonCyrene fair enough.
He was saying that religion was the cause. Which is similar. But I'll concede your point.

@Matias
Any proposal for censorship (or even self-censorship) requires verifiable support.
The items you listed require discussion and refutation, not censorship.

Can we no longer call the gunpowder that is used for non-killing purposes gunpowder? It still exists. Do we have to go looking for another name for it now, or is it still gunpowder?

@skado What you call thumb tacks (a more apt term imho), we call drawing pins. Even though they will have little chance of being used to pin down drawing paper, they are still drawing pins. Their name and origin irrelevant to their usage.

@273kelvin
Maybe irrelevant to their usage, but not at all irrelevant to our communication about them or to our understanding of them. We really need a common understanding of a word or concept before we can productively discuss it, else we're all spinning our wheels.

My question is, what are we to call the religions that were not invented to control the masses? ...so that we both know what the other is talking about?

@skado Just as in gunpowder, it is unnecessary to know its origins to avoid its effects. It matters little whether it was invented by the Chinese for entertainment. We simply need to duck and take cover. A mechanic or automotive engineer will have no need of the knowledge that the spark plug came from Voltaires pistol, as a method of igniting gasses. Anymore than you need to know that crazy glue was invented as a battlefield temporary suture, when fixing your sandals.
A victim of domestic abuse need not take any notice of the intentions of their abuser. It is in fact counter productive to give any credence to the words "But I really love you". It is the effect and usage of a system that counts.
The road to hell may be paved with good intentions but when the bombs start flying. What care I from whence they came. It may be lost like the origins of the Hatfield and McCoy feud. It is as irrelevant as a New York Times article to a swatted fly.
All religions, yes all religions are hell bent on telling you how to live your life. However benign the motivation, it is always someone who thinks they know better than you what you should do. The fact that this is usurped and taken to control human behavior is inevitable as day follows night.

How can you claim that Nazism and Communism did not perpetrate large amounts of violence? Please explain.

I misspoke. Please see my correction.
@Matias

@Matias You have obviously never read it, don't make a fool of yourself by parading your ignorance.

@Matias I know it is from the 19th century I own a copy and have read it several times, it is a respected historical treatise, is still quoted and used today and is still thought of as an in depth examination of the history of and evolution of religion world wide, it's purposes and foundations in superstition, influences on secular government and cultural impact both universally and individually.
It is not an insult to point this out to someone when they dismiss a major work of scholarship as "a huge compilation of religious myths" A title better applied to the Scriptures of this world.
Saying "The Golden Bough is from the 19th century. Don't you think that research about the origins of religions has made some progress during the last 120 years? " Is comparable to claiming "Origin of the species" is a work from 1859 and so has no baring of the study of evolution today, because so many people have built on it and it is never quoted now.
Twaddle.
I recommend it to anyone seriously trying develop an understanding of the pernicious entanglement of religion in to government, the psychology of religious gullibility and the power of Priesthood, be it religious, shamanistic, or sorcerous.

As for insults, to paraphrase the old maxim "If it talks like a blatherskite, writes like a blatherskite, then chances are what you are reading are the prattling pontifications of a blatherskite."

@Matias but scholars are still expected to read them