Stephen Fry tells it as it is........

[db]

You're in no danger of offending me Gavin and I have no intent to offend you

I personally don't see having a baseline for morality as evidence of god or any kind of 'rule book'. I see morality as another thing which evolves.

As an example, only 60 years ago Rosa Parks (I think) was arrested in the USA for refusing to give up her seat to a white person on a bus. Perfectly morally acceptable to most people then. Nowadays, hopefully, very few would accept this.
Racism is one of many moral issues mankind has fought over, we still have a long way to go in my opinion but what I consider to be 'right' seems to be winning.

Humans have evolved complex social structures and relationships no other creature on earth has managed, this is why we no longer live within the constraints of natural selection, learned morality in many ways is the reason for that. We no longer have to be the strongest to survive, in fact we actively look after the weak and the sick. This is how we evolve now, not physically but socially. Only in the psychopathic worlds of multinational corporation management or politics do we still see the weak destroyed for personal gain!
To take your point about Hitler, if he'd had his way and created his version of the world, would his morality become accepted? Possibly, but I don't think so. For one, his view of the world was impossible to maintain and would inevitably self-destruct, as most dictatorships have done throughout the ages.
However hard they try to destroy it, kindness and understanding and all that hippie sh*t will prevail. Not because god makes it so, but because we are human and we've evolved to enjoy being nice to each other. The only way humankind can continue to flourish is by being nice, simple really!

[MrNorm]

I hear you, but I still think you are missing the point. It may have been accepted 50 years ago that Rosa Parks was wrong, but the question is WAS it actually wrong? Same with Hitler, it's a thought experiment to illustrate a single point - is something right or wrong REGARDLESS of how many people believe it to be so, or does how many people believe it DEFINE right or wrong.

I believe that Rosa Parks was right regardless of whether society thought so at the time. I believe our sociey thinks some things are right that are actually wrong. And belief in God grounds that belief - it means it's logically consistent to believe that some things are actually right - always, timelessly. (again don't get caught up on whether it's true that there is a God or not, or which morals are correct, that's a different discussion - only that its a logically consistent belief)
 
You say that morality evolves, I see the point you make but I don't think you really mean that at the time it was ACTUALLY right that Rosa Parks had to give up her seat for whites? It looks like you think it was ACTUALLY wrong, even though society said it was right? On what basis do you think that? (if you do) Why is your opinion any 'better' than theirs? Again just like the favourite colour preference. You may prefer your view of how society should live but you can't claim it is 'right'or expect anyone else to be obliged to act in a certain way.
To be consistent, the atheist has to be able to say "I prefer my view, but I have no basis to tell you your view is wrong - it's just a different opinion". And I don't think that you, or most of the population really think that. 
Some athiests do, because it is the logical conclusion of materialism (that matter is all that exists). And VERY few actually live that way. For those that do, I think they are incorrect, but logically consistent in that particular area. they could say the same to a theist - that they think they are incorrect, but logically consistent, that's fair enough.
But we would both say that someone who claims objective moral values exist, yet also believes that there is no 'higher power',  God, etc is actually inconsistent, so wrong on at least one of those views.

Right.... better do some other stuff! At this rate car will never get done.. Oh wait, it isn't....

[db]

Ok my brain hurts now!

To stick with Rosa, even if the majority believed it right, enough knew it was wrong and were willing to put their lives on the line to show people how cruel and unfair apartheid was. The bravery and determination of these simple folk who make a stand and change our perception of the world are the ones who lead human social evolution, they teach the rest of us what's right or wrong.
I think you're right that we have an inner sense of right and wrong, where we disagree is where that comes from

[Pete]

If you have no moral compass you cannot know what is right or wrong, and right or wrong is determined by the majority.........but only as a snapshot in time and this changes........

[Mick]

What sort of higher being instructs it's disciples to send a 10 year old girl into a busy market with explosives fastened to her body ? or goes into a school and kills 90 children along with their teachers ? or burns a man to death in a cage ? or treats women like third class citizens ?
One that belongs in the dark ages.

[MrNorm]

I think most of us agree that we actually do have 'an inner sense of right and wrong'. And that's pretty normal - most people do! Most of us believe that it would always be wrong, in any era, race, religion, or society to (for example) torture a small child for fun - even if everyone believed it were right, it would STILL be wrong. That's the way most of us FEEL. But unless you appeal to something outside of our closed system, you can't make the case to justify that with REASON. There's no mechanism on a Materialist/Darwinist perspective to claim that objective moral values (moral 'laws') exist, they are just social conventions that change over time - Pete is right they would be determined by the majority.
It's OK to believe that but just be aware it means that you can't claim another society, or person is factually wrong in their moral outlook - which is what Stephen Fry was doing - he was claiming God was wrong because he feels that way, but actually his own beliefs dictate he is not in a position to make that claim - it's faulty reasoning

A theist though, has sound reasoning to claim that some things really are wrong, and ironically, agree that in reality, a malevolent, horrible being is wrong and unjust. So I agree with Stephen Fry, I can actually make his point on his behalf because I believe in God! But not the God that Stephen Fry is criticizing.
My answer to Micks question would be 'a fictional one'. Those people aren't serving any real God, just their own evil desires.


Hope I did not offend anyone, I'm just trying to point out that the problem of evil and suffering is a universal problem - not just for Christians, but for all world views including atheism. It's not a light question, it's a serious one, and I do believe that Christianity has some good answers - but no pat or easy ones. But the Christian God claims to have died for us, and offers an eternity without any pain or suffering - that sounds like a good God to me.

[Dave-R]

Being cruel and killing people is part of being human.

All humans know what is basically right and what is wrong. But people can also easily find ways to justify their "evil" actions.

Self preservation is a strong emotion in humans. When people feel they or their territory is threatened in any way it overrides all sense of what is right and wrong. It's a very human and higher ape thing.

It has nothing to do with religion.

It has everything to do with Humans being completely incapable of learning from the mistakes of the past.

So all through history we have done the same things to each other for the same reasons. And because we never learn we probably always will.

Christians will kill black men.
Muslims will kill jews.
Buddhists will kill Muslims
Americans will torture Muslims
Muslims will behead Americans
One tribe will kill another tribe even though they look exactly the same. Just as Europeans did not too long ago.

It's easy to do. You just have to stop seeing the "others" as fellow humans. Once you de-humanise a group of people you can do anything with them without any remorse or guilt at all.

As for God. He was fine for explaining the Universe to primitive tribes. If we want to move away from this cycle of violence towards each other we need to put these primitive and childish ideas of gods behind us. Fireside tales told for hundreds of years and later bound into a book is no basis of any rational way of life. People need to open their eyes and see that they themselves make what goes on in the world happen. Not some cave-man spirit.

Faith is just a way of shirking responsibility for our own destiny.

[Dave999]

the only time we will stop killing each other is when we can unite against a common enemy

when the men from mars come

all of our problems will be solved.....

anyway its easy to poke fun at religion when so few are actually in a position to think about it in any greater depth than a bloke with a beard or a special hat who invented everything and is nice to people.

once you get over all of that and try to put in context a universe or universes co existsing in a never ending wax and wane.
and link that to the whole why am i here what have i done and where does it all lead.

yer brain shuts down due to lack of comprehension of the enormity of it all, and the tiny insignificance of you..

and then of course a "We" is not as insignificant as just a "you" or "I"

and thats all fine and dandy as well,

if a few minutes quiet contemplation a week or every lunch time or whenever. helps.....!

thats fine by me

Just don't try to make me do what you want to do when i don't want to do it

I have my own ways of dealing with the things i need to deal with based on what i see and what i have learnt, and nobody blowing themelsves and others up is going to change my mind.

unless you try to strike me down

then i'll have a think

forgive ? or smite with extreme prejudice

Step from me now!.... You have been warned.



Dave

[Dave-R]

I have my own ways of dealing with the things i need to deal with based on what i see and what i have learnt, and nobody blowing themelsves and others up is going to change my mind.

unless you try to strike me down

then i'll have a think

forgive ? or smite with extreme prejudice

Step from me now!.... You have been warned.



Dave

Which is why just simply killing extremists of any kind does not work. It only creates more extremists. You have to try and change their thinking. It's a lot harder and a lot longer term solution. Unfortunately politicians only want short term solutions while they are in power.

[Dave999]

Israel/Gaza

illustrates the point perfectly....way past anything to do with religion, and the orginal reglious driver was based on a simplistic view warped by a
world view ingrained by previous political mistakes (WWII and the partitioning of the middle east (yes that was us)) thus ultimatley had little to do with the religious view attributed as the cause.

too much smiteing not enough thinking...

repeat......on just about every continent.


Dave

[db]

Israel/Gaza

illustrates the point perfectly....way past anything to do with religion, and the orginal reglious driver was based on a simplistic view warped by a
world view ingrained by previous political mistakes (WWII and the partitioning of the middle east (yes that was us)) thus ultimatley had little to do with the religious view attributed as the cause.

too much smiteing not enough thinking...

repeat......on just about every continent.


Dave

Has there been a war anywhere in the world that didn't start with our ignorant meddling?

Has there been a war anywhere in the world that wasn't fought by fighters we trained and armed?

Has there been a war anywhere in the world that our arms companies, our governments and (to be really topical) our banks haven't profited from?

I thought not...

[Bozwell]

bible stories

Sodom and Gomorrah

more stories here

[Dave-R]

bible stories

Sodom and Gomorrah

more stories here

Brilliant.

[Dave-R]

Has there been a war anywhere in the world that didn't start with our ignorant meddling?

Has there been a war anywhere in the world that wasn't fought by fighters we trained and armed?

Has there been a war anywhere in the world that our arms companies, our governments and (to be really topical) our banks haven't profited from?

I thought not...

Of course there has. There has been war for at least 2 million years.

But if it is going to happen anyway...well why not make a small profit from it?
Solders need food. Need clothes. weapons. equipment. tanks planes! transport. Fuel! The list is endless!
Then, once a country is completely destroyed they will need it re-building again! We can supply contractors to do that and the host country can pay for it! At an inflated price of course.

[db]

Conflicts of interest...

Puns intended