Words of Tonio: Reasons Why I'm An Atheist and Not a Theist.

Every one of these ideas, natural moral code, etc. has been put forth very long ago, been subject to intense scrutiny.....and all have been shown to be lacking. There is absolutely no imperative in any of it, and no foundation on which to support it. You present an Atheist code of conduct as though it is somehow absolute and applies to all men at all times.....when it does not.

WHY do no harm? Where is the value in respecting others? If me and my men can beat the shit out of all of you, and enslave you for our own enjoyment, then why should we NOT do that? What is WRONG with doing so? You do not address this question..........if you can, I would love to hear it.

As for Purpose.....sounds like Exstentialsim to me.......haven't you heard, Existentalism died out in the thirties, because it turns out man does have a nature, if even a very limited one (And the whole superman thing did not work out very well......what with Hitler and all). Jean Paul Sarte, perhaps the greatest mind of the Existentialist movement, himself recanted his positions.......or haven't you heard?

Also, your interpretations of the Theist argument....which are really not stricly Theist at all but rather aimed at a particular theology...... are so oversimplified and so misunderstood as to be useless. If things were as simple as you make them out to be here, religion would have died out a very long time ago.....or do you think the majority of people are so stupid they do not see what you see?

Nevertheless....there is a grain of truth in what you say.......so I do not totally disagree.....and I certainly understand your motives.

Sorry Tonio, no sale.

You present 'do no harm' as dogma, with absolutely no reasoning behind it. You simply assume that doing no harm, and respecting the 'rights' of others is a 'natural' conclusion of living. It most certainly is not. What do you have to back up this moral code?...or do you think we all just 'feel it' instinctively? That is an old idea, and holds no water.

Yes, I would agree that beating the shit out of you and forcing ,my will on you is doing harm, but you give no reason as to WHY it is WRONG to do harm to others......nothing at all there, just the assertion. That is simply not enough for an ethical foundation.....and please do not give me the 'morally wrong by definition' argument....that would be beyond ridiculous.

If it is not Existentialism, is sounds EXACTLY like it......man is free to define himself being the central theme of Existentialism........if you are not talking Existentialism, then what are you saying? Please clarfy.

Theistic arguments have everything to do with a God concept, not dogma. If we wiped out all religious texts tommorrow, and wiped out all human memory of organized religion, we would do NOTHING to eliminate the central question of God. Also, some religions, like Buddhism, do not have the sorts of 'man made deities that can make things better' that you allude to. Native American Mysticism has no book of dogma either........nor do many other native religions in the Amazon, for example, or in the south pacific islands......all are Theists. Your reference to the Bible, The Torah, and the Koran is unmistakable. Maybe you were trying to be general........maybe you simply have a limited understanding of different Theistic world views that exist on this planet and how they work, what they believe.

No, you were not talking about Theism in general......that is what I am doing. Here is the central question of Theism......How can Man have a foundation for Ethics without the concept of God? Forget about organized religion, forget about religion alrtogether......get to the God CONCEPT itself and tell me why it makes no sense. Give me a FOUNDATION for your moral beliefs based solely on scentific fact and empirically verifiable proofs. Convince me that doing harm when I can, and can get away with it, is morally wrong. You view of God is simplistic and competely misses the central point. As I said if it was as simple as you, and most of you atheists make it out to be, religion would have died out a very long time ago.....unless you simply think you all are the first to think of these things and human beings have been incredibly stupid for all these centuries. I can assure you, you are not the first to think of these things.....they have been thought of, debated, dissected in great detail, revised, dissected again, and pretty much settled......most of them centuries ago by men far more intelligent than you and I.

I am inviting you to be the first in human history to come up with an alternative to God. So far, no one has been able to do it, and all other moral foundations have failed.....slipped off the precipice into the chasm of Ethical Relativity.....which is no ethics at all. I am all ears, and genuinely intersted....I have been looking myself for thirty years.....and all my arguments have come up short......and they were the same as yours thirty years ago, make no mistake......I was the founder of the Church of Radical Anti Christianity in my day......but I have learned much since then.

Is your mind open, or closed?

"You present 'do no harm' as dogma..."
Exactly How?

"You simply assume that doing no harm, and respecting the 'rights' of others is a 'natural' conclusion of living."
I never presented it as a conclusion to anything.

"What do you have to back up this moral code?...or do you think we all just 'feel it' instinctively? That is an old idea, and holds no water."
*sigh* Here's what I mean. Example, you see a man beating on a another man, following the philosophy, you would step in and stop him. Example, an armed robber bust into the bank, following the philosophy you would do as the robber says because not doing so would lead to someone get injured or killed. You starting to get it?

"Yes, I would agree that beating the shit out of you and forcing ,my will on you is doing harm, but you give no reason as to WHY it is WRONG to do harm to others."
Okay, to answer your example:
1. It's deferential to the species
2. It would lead to a great amount of resentment from the group being forced and will lead to future fighting or worse.

"If it is not Existentialism, is sounds EXACTLY like it."
I agree it sounds like it, but It's not to that extent.

"Theistic arguments have everything to do with a God concept, not dogma."
Of course dogma is in MANY of their arguments

"Also, some religions, like Buddhism, do not have the sorts of 'man made deities that can make things better' that you allude to."
Buddhism is not a theistic religion, so why bring it up.

"Maybe you were trying to be general........maybe you simply have a limited understanding of different Theistic world views that exist on this planet and how they work, what they believe."
The formal

"As I said if it was as simple as you, and most of you atheists make it out to be, religion would have died out a very long time ago..."
Do you have anything to prove that?

"I am inviting you to be the first in human history to come up with an alternative to God. So far, no one has been able to do it, and all other moral foundations have failed"
Okay, the oldest moral foundation, the natural foundation. Also, don't tell me that the man-made concept of deity is a success story, because it has been anything but one.

"Is your mind open, or closed?"
Just about to ask you the same thing.

Look Tonio, In any discussion there are tell tale signs if one party has any clue what they are talking about. For example, if this were a discussion about airplanes and you did not know what an altimeter was, that would indicate a certain level of ignorance of the subject matter.

In this case you have brought up two such indicators. The first is your comment about deism versus theism, and your supposition that I am confused about the two. Deism refers to the 'unmoved mover', as it is classically called...the God, or Gods who created everything and then just walked away. This is an idea most famously discussed by David Hume, some 200 years ago in his "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", which was in a part a rebuttle to Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason". He suggested many such scenarios.....like a young, inexperienced God who saw what a mess he made, and then walked away like a kid who just knocked over the cookie jar......or a committee of Gods, who, like most committees, could not come to agreement, so they compromised and came up with the typical sort of disaster governments are known for.

I am well aware of the difference, Tonio, but my statement had to do with native tribes that have no written documents. They do however have oral traditions handed down from generation to generation, and their Gods are clearly involved in their day to day lives.....far from the unmoved mover concept. That is theism, not deism.......you are clearly the one confused.

I let that one go as a minor point, trying to show me how educated you are. Then you came at me with these sophomoric *sigh* , 'are you starting to get it', comments and, as a topper you offer up the 'natural moral foundation'.

Tonio, you are like the guy who dresses up in chaps and spurs but has never sat on a horse, or seen a cow. People without a background in this subject might be fooled by you, but not me. You have absolutely zero formal education in this, and you have no idea how ridiculous you sound trying to pull it off. If you were able to admit that, and were not condescending about a subject you clearly have no expertise in, I might just consider following through with you on this. But you do not.....you are a caught liar sticking to his story, and I have neither the interest nor the time for that sort of person. Hell, it is quite obvious to me that you do not even have a grasp of the question let alone any possible answers to it.

Why don't you look it up for yourself.....your arguments are only a few thousand years old....there is plenty written about them.

Tonio, now you are just being an idiot. That is exactly what Deism is, and you are the typical atheist who knows nothing at all about the subject. I am not insulting you, Tonio, I am calling the thing what it is........abject ignorance on your part. If you had ever bothered to actually study the subject, you would at least know that, but you have not and you will not.You think that you, above all others who have come before you in human history, have it all figured out. You are quite wrong, Tonio, quite wrong indeed, and your ignorance of the subject is so severe that you have no idea whatrt the question even is...which is why you can feel so sure of your sophomoric 'natural moral code' argument that has been shown to be full of BS for several hundred years. If I were to explain it to you, you clearly would not be able to understand the explanation...that is how ignorant you are.

So go ahead, feel as smug and self righteous as you wish. I don't care. I approached you to feel out how serious a contender you were for an intelligent discussion, but you proved yourself to be typical and oh so average. You lack the basic foundations on which to discuss the issue, so there is absolutely no point in it. Get it? Of course not. You think that all those people who studied philosophy for years and years are no better equipped for these questions than some dipshit off the street....that everyone is simply born an expert when it comes to this stuff. Tha's fine with me, Tonio, you can believe whatever you wish. Doesn't change a thing.

"That is exactly what Deism is..."
Deism: Belief in deity without belonging to any theistic religion.

"...you are the typical atheist who knows nothing at all about the subject."
You're typical pretend know-it-all that would gab on about a topic without making any real points and when someone see through your act, you would resort to insulting the skeptic.

"You think that you, above all others who have come before you in human history, have it all figured out."
I never claimed to have it all figured out. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

"...which is why you can feel so sure of your sophomoric 'natural moral code' argument that has been shown to be full of BS for several hundred years."
Seeing that the "sophomoric" natural moral code have worked for millions of years with Humans and other animals. I can safely say that it isn't bullshit as you claimed.

"If I were to explain it to you, you clearly would not be able to understand the explanation...that is how ignorant you are."
Oh please, do explain oh "wise" one.

"So go ahead, feel as smug and self righteous as you wish. "
You're doing enough of that for the both of us.

"You think that all those people who studied philosophy for years and years are no better equipped for these questions than some dipshit off the street....that everyone is simply born an expert when it comes to this stuff."
Wow, the only thing you're doing right so far is shoving words down my throat.

OK, Tonio, you're on.

First of all, however, you need to be honest.....let's just see who is pretending here, shall we?

Have you ever had any formal philosophical study? Yes, or No, and if yes, how much? I need to know so that I know what concepts I can use fairly and which I should be wary of. Fair enough? For the record, I earned my degree in Philosophy in 1983, and have been a student of it for most of my life.

Next, deism.....a minor point, but one you are desperately ignorant of. If a deity exists, it has two options, either interact with the world, or not. The way deities let themselves and their wishes be known (and yes, this is all in the eyes of the believer) is through theology...........and theology means religion. This much you yourself have said......or wherever you copied your definition from....you seem to do little more than copy, paste, and add a three word comment of your own. Now, try to grasp this very simple concept...............a silent deity, one without a theology and without a religion is, by definition, an 'unmoved mover'. It is a mover by virtue of it's being a deity, and it is unmoved by virtue of it having no thelogy and no religion to go with that theology. We're never going to get to the good stuff if you get stuck on two plus two equals four.

For this next part I will use your method, as chicken shit as it is.......

"You think that you, above all others who have come before you in human history, have it all figured out."
I never claimed to have it all figured out. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

In fact, Tonio, by simply asserting this 'natural moral code' without anything to back it up but a couple of lame examples of how it works, you have done just that. Every moral code you can think of, or that you can find on Wikipedia, or whereveryou get this stuff, has been thought of before, and been debated back and forth by some rather brilliant minds, most of them several hundred to a thousand years ago, or more.
You present the natural moral code as though it is a done deal and the case is closed. You give me a 'sigh', and a 'are you getting it yet' as though I am an idiot for questioning you. You have indeed presented your case as though you, above all others, have it all figured out.....when the fact is, the historical fact is, no one has ever been able to defend any moral code without ultimately invoking faith. That's not me Tonio, that just history talking.

I work out of town, Tonio, and I will be gone until next weekend. Please, show me how bright you are........defend the natural moral code through either scientific method, some empirically verifiable proofs (you do know what empirical means, right?), or through some sort of dialectic I can sink my teeth into........but be prepared to defend your dialectic.......in the end it didn't go over too well for Mr. Hegel......you do know who he is, right? The one thing you cannot say, because that would imply faith and that would imply God, is that you 'believe'. Tell me where human rights come from...tell me why an individual must recognize human rights, must respect them, and why doing harm unto others is somehow incumbent on all of us.....even those of us who have decided our own purpose....which you have said you are in favor of......is to dominate you and the world. Tell me wy the natural moral code takes precedence over the notion that "might makes right".

Please, try to do it without copying and pasting my remarks.....I know what I said already. Next weekend we can have a good time going over your arguments....they ought to be just dandy.

"Have you ever had any formal philosophical study? Yes, or No, and if yes, how much?"
Not much, however I wasn't being really philosophical when typing it. Of course, that's just me.

"If a deity exists, it has two options, either interact with the world, or not. The way deities let themselves and their wishes be known (and yes, this is all in the eyes of the believer) is through theology"
So what's you're saying that a deity doesn't have the option to interact with the universe anonymously? That's what I'm getting out of that statement. So a deist is a person who believes in a deity or deities that do not interact with the universe in anyway? What about people who believe in a deity or deities that interact with the universe anonymously? Who are they then?

"In fact, Tonio, by simply asserting this 'natural moral code' without anything to back it up but a couple of lame examples of how it works, you have done just that"
Nothing to back it up? Okay, look at the social behavior of most animals including us. Notice how they would act help their species and act to avoid or eliminate any threats to it. They do this to preserve their species just as we do. That is what I was talking about. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

"you do know what empirical means, right?"
What was the point of even typing that? Even if I didn't knew what that word meant, I could have just look it up in a dictionary.

"Please, try to do it without copying and pasting my remarks."
No and stop crying about it.

Yes Tonio, you are so predictable. I will answer your questions......then you answer mine.

As for deism.......I do not know why you are wanting to argue a minor point, but what the hell. There is absolutely no difference, Tonio, from the perspective of the believer, which is the only perspective we can consider for the purposes of this definition, between a deity that acts 'anonymously' and one that does not act at all, which makes your point moot.

If believers in a deity believed that he, or she, acted anonymously in the world, and some such mischevious Gods have been worshipped, that would constitute a theism.....again making yout point moot.

Can we move on from the definition of deism now? If you want to know more, look it up. I guarantee you wll find plenty about the unmoved mover concept.

Now, for your' natural moral code'. You say we can take our ethics from observed animal behavior.....great.

I have twelve dogs, Tonio. A couple are small and weak, a couple are old and frail, a couple more are disabled....bad hips and such.....and a couple are young and strong. Pretty much like any dog pack in the wild.....or any wild popuation of any animals. Wha we observe, Tonio, is that the strong will attack the weak and the frail and the disabled. The young healthy males will fight for dominance, and the winner of their battle rules the group. As a moral code, this equated to might makes right. If one dog has something another wants, and the other is stronger, he takes it. Is that the kind of moral code you are talking about? In some populations, Tonio, challenngers actually die when fighting for dominance.......so if two men fight over a woman, and one kills the other, are you saying that is perfectly moral? When lemmings become overpopulated, they follow each other off a cliff and commit mass suicide........is that what we should do? Mice, when overcrowded and short on food, will eat one another. Do you advocate cannibalism for the poor and hungry? Other mouse populations do not carry in aid to the starving group, Tonio, they don;t give a damn........is this how we should treat humans in need?

I can't believe you are actually serious about this as a moral code. Why do you think the concept of God arose in the first place........so may millenia ago? Most people, Tonio, perceive a differencebetween Man and all other animals. This difference, a moral conscience, is the foundation of virtually every religion that has ever existed. The idea that man is out of sync, if you will, with the rest of nature, and that his drive and purpose is to return to that state of harmony with whatever forces and powers that be is at the heart of every religion.

There is a fantastic video going around of a dog, a Husky, I am proud to say, going into a grocery store and stealing a bone. Have you seen it? Do you think anyone has a mind to prosecute the dog for theft?

What does the natural moral code say about lying? How about justice? Love?

"Atheistic morality is pretty simple, "do no harm". Avoid any actions or lack of action that maybe detrimental to others. It is the natural moral code"........why Tonio? Why do no harm, if by doing harm I can get what I want? Why should I give a damn about you and your family. Why should I not kill you and them to take what I want? That is how it is done in nature Tonio....survival fo the fittest......might makes right.


In short, Tonio, the 'natural moral code' is no moral code at all, becuase morality is unique to human beings.

Now, answer my question.

Tonio, I could care less about how you want to define deism and whether you get it or not. If you care, study the subject....I will not expect you to contact me when you finally get it. I've made it as simple as I possibly can in this forum. If you want to fight simple logic, go ahead, but I have better things to do.....seriously.

Preservation of the species is not a moral code, Tonio. I could kill everyone on the planet save a few that I choose......that would preserve the species, but would that mass murder be moral? Is that what you want to argue for? Do you want to say Hitler did nothing wrong because he did not threaten the survival of the species? Stoning homosexuals to death does absolutely nothing to threaten the survival of the species....does that mean it is moral to do so?

To establish a moral foundation you have to tell me WHY you have value to me, and vice versa, why you have rights, where they come from, and why I must, in order to be moral, recognize and respect them. To do that without a God concept, you have to come up with something better than 'because I believe it'. So far, in the entire history of mankind, no one has been able to come up with that something better. Every argument has always come down to 'because I believe it'. Ever had a child ask you over and over again "Why?" Take you moral code and ask that question over and over again to every answer you come up with in defense of the code.
What do you end up with? Because YOU believe it. THAT Tonio, is faith. THAT, Tonio, makes you and every atheist no better than the people you love to belittle and ridicule and feel so superior to.

Now, I am still waiting for an answer........

........defend the natural moral code through either scientific method, some empirically verifiable proofs (you do know what empirical means, right?), or through some sort of dialectic I can sink my teeth into........but be prepared to defend your dialectic.......in the end it didn't go over too well for Mr. Hegel......you do know who he is, right? The one thing you cannot say, because that would imply faith and that would imply God, is that you 'believe'. Tell me where human rights come from...tell me why an individual must recognize human rights, must respect them, and why doing harm unto others is somehow incumbent on all of us.....even those of us who have decided our own purpose....which you have said you are in favor of......is to dominate you and the world. Tell me wy the natural moral code takes precedence over the notion that "might makes right".

I have answered your questions, now answer mine.

Tonio, I do not feel superior to anyone, nor do I think of myself as some 'super being'.....but if your ego is bruised because I happen to have more knowledge of this subject than you do and it males you feel better to think so, go right ahead. I am not the one who put up my reasons for belittling the faith of others on this website. Seems to me that is feeling superior....or need I remind you of your own words..........

"1. Morality

Atheist: Despite what most theists claim, atheists do not lack morals. Atheistic morality is pretty simple, "do no harm". Avoid any actions or lack of action that maybe detrimental to others. It is the natural moral code.

Theist: Theistic morality is entirely based on holy books of their particular religion. Books written by people basically promoting their world views and claiming it is inspired by a deity, an angel, or any other spiritual being, and as a theists you must follow these man-made moral codes, no matter how depraved, hateful, and cruel it maybe.

My Choice: Atheist, because I do not wish to follow the views of some guy centuries ago I know nothing about".

...........that sure comes across as though you think your moral code is superior to theirs.......yet, when pressed, we find that you have no more of a defense of or foundation for your moral code than they do for theirs. In fact, your 'natural moral code' turns out to be no moral code whatsoever!!!!

You have acused me of being a faker, someone who wants to pretend to know something but is not willing to back it up. I found that amusing and decided to indulge you. I asked you a very straightforward question regarding the foundation of your moral code. You do not have one........as I knew you would not.......but instead of examining that, you want to argue about the definition of deism, and argue against the concept of an unmoved mover.......a concept that has been common knowledge for centuries......but you apparenty missed out on. Again, you may want to characterize my saying that as feeling superior, when in truth it is a simple statement of apparent fact.

The hardest thing to do when examining metaphysical ideas, Tonio, is to let go of our own emotional and ego attachments to our arguments. All of this talk of God and morals is based, ultimately on belief, science is incapable of going there, and we all very much want to KNOW.......which makes it a tricky business. I fully understand the atheists discomfort with faith. They rage against the very notion, consider it akin to believeing in any old fairy tale our favorite guru happens to make up. That is too bad, because they, and you, are missing out on so much. I know, because I used to be one of you. I do not think it is possible to be a serious student of philosophy without going through the atheists stage,or the existentialist stage either.

Here's the thing, Tonio. The philosophers who have covered these topics throughout history were very smart guys. The arguments they make are very powerful. So, when one reads them, in order, as philosophy students do, each one seems to have come up with the ultimate answers to all the big questions.......for a time. A young student is not yet equipped to see the holes in the arguments, for the most part, so they pass over the weak points and the entire argument tends to be quite impressive. A student is then inclined to adopt the view of whichever philosopher he or she, read last. Then, of course, one moves on to the next, who shreads the last, and the student gets a whole new perspective......likely to be shreaded when he gets to the next philosopher in line. It is not until one has gone through the entire history, and understands it, that one is equipped to put the whole ball of wax together, to see the links between ideas, the veins where this school of thought branches off of that one, the holes in new arguments, often based on arguments that have come and gone long ago. It can be, for the serious student, a gut wrenching process. Just imagine having your entire world view shattered every few months or so.

There is a defininte progression to it, though invisible to the philosophically uneducated masses. Notions we take for granted, like private property for example, never existed until they came up in philosophical circles, were debated for decades, and then, decades later trickled their way into laymens heads. Philosophy has historically been a good sixty to a hundred years ahead of society, and that is true today, though most people have no idea.

The point of telling you this Tonio is not to tell you that I am superior to you because I have studied this, but to tell you I understand the frustration you must feel when pressed......we ALL feel it. I desperately wanted to KNOW. I walked out of my first Epistemology class and dropped philosophy altogether for a whole year when I realized that I could never KNOW ANYTHING with absolute certainty. I was not just crushed, I was pissed off. It took me a whole year of studying on my own, and living and observing, before the revelation one needs to break through that seemingly impenatrable barrier (If I cannot know anything with absolute certainty, then how is any of this better than those who see the world as a free for all and us as idiots for bothering to care? What the hell difference does any of this make and what is the point?). I went back to my Epsistemology professor, who I called Dr. Doom, and talked to him. He smiled when I expalined my revelation, and he let me take the final and get credit for the course I had walked out on a year earlier....and I walked out publicly, Tonio, it was not just one of those quit going back things. I was pissed and I walked out of class. I do know where you and all the atheists are coming from Tonio, probably better than any of you do!!

Point is Tonio, you simply do not have a leg to stand on. That is not me feeling superior, that is the truth. In the end, any moral code is based on faith. In fact, we base a whole hell of a lot more than ethics on faith, we just do it so habitually we do not even realize we do it. The key for the atheists is to stop getting so hung up on the idea that religion must be taken literally. Some people get quite literal, yes, and those people are whakos.....there are a number of them right here on SH who have attacked me quite nastily. They go too far in one direction while the atheists go too far in the other.....and both love to hate me. I'm cool with that because I understand why. They, and you, are still stuck on needing to KNOW. You think knowing is superior to believing, and, in a twisted way, so do they. They want to believe so much that they insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the earth is five thousand years old and there was this great flood and Noah gathered the animals two by two, etc. etc. Those zealots need to KNOW their faith is right so badly that they will shut off everything else, including common sense.

Both of you are doing the same thing, and both of you are missing the point. It's not at all about knowing Tonio, because we can't.

That's as far as I will go. Hate me if you like, Tonio, but, for your own sake, be honest with yourself about your own beliefs, and don't think you are any different than the rest of those believers out there. That is the first step toward learning, Tonio.

Wow, here you admonish me for being a dick, and look at what you do...........you give a definition, which I already gathered thank you very much, instead of a reason.

Not cool, Tonio, not cool at all.

Ever heard the Rush tune with the lyric, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".......? It applies here, Tonio. I am asking WHY you have made the choice you have, not WHAT choice you have made.

A world without God implies a world without Ethics, because without God there is no foundation for ethics but the whims of whoever, or whatever power is in charge at any given time. For most people, Tonio, that is a problem. Most people believe that rape and murder are wrong no matter who is in charge......Remember Sadaam Hussein's son who had a penchant for rape and murder? Without God, Tonio, he did nothing wrong. Do you believe he did nothing wrong?

Think about this for a minute. I assume you have heard of the code of Hammurabi, yes? Hammurabi ruled Babylon around 1750 BC. His was not the first law code, but it is one of the best preserved and most detailed......it contains 289 laws on issues ranging from murder and robbery to marriage and rental agreements.The entire code is written on an eight foot tall piece of stone....at the top of which is an image of Hammurabi standing before the Sun God Shamash, who is also the God of Justice. Hammurabi has his hand in front of his mouth, as a sign of respect to the God.

What is so very interesting about the code of Hammurabi, from a philosophical standpoint at least, is that Hammurabi, as all other rulers at the time, stands before the God of Justice and humbly presents his set of laws, his ethical standard, to the God for approval. Ethics at that time came from man to God, with man defering to God, seeking approval from God. With Moses, however, everything changed. The story of Moses receiving the tablets from God on Mount Sinai is the first time in history where the laws came not from man to God, but from God to man.

This is hugely significant in the course of human history, Tonio....I do not want you to miss out on this. Stay focused.

For the people who were expected to obey these laws, either those from Hammurabi or those from God, via Moses, this difference is EVERYTHING. Before Moses, people had to trust that their ruler, whoever that may be at the time, had the approval of God. This was generally seen through the success or failure of his rule.....if wars were lost, or crops went bad, then the peope figured he did not have God's approval, and the moral code came into question. If wars went well, and the people prospered....then a ruler could pretty much do as he liked.....whatever laws he might have come up with had to be accepted, he had the approval of the Gods after all.....though I suspect that did not always sit well with the people.

With Moses, that all changes. Now, the King is not the ultimate ruler, God is. Funny thing is, even under Hammurabi, God was the ultimate power.....which is why Hammurabi stands before him in deference, showing respect, seeking approval. For the people, this is liberation, this is certainty. No longer do they have to wonder if their ruler has approval from God, because the laws come directly from God, and even the rulers must obey.

You can see why Rome, for example, might have a problem with this new way of thinking. This God fellow has suddenly become quite a threat to their authority.

Now, think about this, Tonio. At that time, this 'old book by people you know nothing about', was brand new, and represented FREEDOM for the very first time. It represented an absolute that was not dependent on MAN or POWER......here are your words......

My Choice: Atheist, because I do not wish to follow the views of some guy centuries ago I know nothing about.


OK, fine, but by rejecting God what are you left with? By rejecting God, you go back to the way things were before this old guy you know nothing about.....you go back to trusting that whoever is in charge has the approval of the Gods....or worse, that there is no God he needs approval from, and therefore might makes right and he can do whatever the hell he damn well pelases because there is NO higher authority (certainly that is how things were in history before civilization.....law of the jungle, or, the natural moral code).

What one does by rejecting God, Tonio, is make a move not forward, but a move BACKWARD. The wisdom of that old man and his book has been totally lost on the atheist. The very reason Judaism became such an overwhelmingly popular religion, Tonio, is because it represented a HUGE step forward toward FREEDOM from being ruled by MAN, whichever man happened to be the strongest at the time. Do you see that? Is this getting through to you? I'm not being a dick, Tonio, this is an important point that so many people go through their entire lives never understanding.....I want to say it in a way that gets through to you if at all possible.

Yes, the very thing atheists today see as taking away freedom, was something that granted freedom back then, when it was new. That is precisely why it was so popular. People then, as now, generally do not like being ruled by other people. Even the best of rulers back then, those who actually bothered to seek the approval of the Gods....and I doubt all of them did.....were still strong men laying down the law for YOU. People tend to think their rights, their human rights, come from something other than the latest dipshit to sit on the throne. Moses gave them that.

Your view, Tonio, is a step backward in time, not forward. You do believe in evolution, don't you? How about evolution of the human mind as well as the body? That is what this is, Tonio, evolution at work. Why do you want to undo what has been done? Why do you want to devolve rather than evolve? That is my qestion to you....and I suspect you have never looked at it in that way......because you are simply not aware of the history.

Now, is religion as we know it today the end all? I doubt it. Will religion as we know it today be replaced by no religion at all, or some new, different sort of religion you and I may not be able to conceive? I strongly suspect the latter will be the case, because the need for God in Ethics, Justice, is like the shark in evolution....it is perfect, and cannot be changed for the better.

Remember Tonio, we are only 2000 years after Christ......1700 since Constantine brough Christianity out of the shadows......other religions that came before lasted far longer..............it is by no means an 'old' religion Tonio...........Hammurabi's code was written as far before Christianity became popuar as we are after......and the gap between Moses and Christ was over 1200 years.....and civilization, written records, go back well over a thousand years before Hammurabi....all the way back to Gilgamesh. Get a little historical perspective on this thing, Tonio.

Why go back to what did not work? I mean, you are free to do so if you like but be aware that you are doing it. Do not kid yourself into thinking that in all these thousands of years you are the first to come up with the ideas you have. At the very least be aware the the matter is nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be in this blog. What you have written here is an insult to all who have come before you, as though they were all complete idiots who could not grasp a simple idea. It is a very complex idea, Tonio, which you have oversimplified to the point where you miss out on the beauty of the last five thousand years of human thought, and it's evolution. That is a huge loss for you.........but it is not too late.....if you choose it.

OK, fair question.

In order to get the bigger picture, you need to let go of the idea of God as some supernatural being. Yes, I know that is what many think of God as, but that speaks more to the psychology of God than the philosophy of God.

Yo have heard the expression that God is the 'Alpha and the Omega', the beginning and the end? If just for the purposes of this immediate part of our discussion, try to think of Giod not as a being, a deity if you like, but as an idea, a proposition.

Every argument is made up of at least two propositions, which lead to a conclusion. However, each proposition is itself a conclusion, right? Therefore, in order to reach absolute knowledge, there MUST be a proposition that serves as both proposition and conclusion....a sort of logical spring from which all else flows. That is the Omega, the beginning of knowledge. Try to think of God as that first proposition, the one that stands alone....both proposition and conclusion in one.

I have an angry wife who thinks I am wasting my time talking to you....so if I have to bolt suddenly, please understand what is happening on this end...she is the boss and I spend time here as she indulges me..........she is the boss because I love her, not because I am whipped...don't get the wrong idea.

Science can doa lot of things. It can, for one, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the historical story of the Bible is false...hence the perception by many that the Bible is nothing but a fairy tale. The one thing science cannot do, howeverm, cannot even come close to, is defining VALUE. Every moral principle is about value....the immoral act is one that violates a percieved value...whether it be the value of our fellow humans, animals, the environment, whatever. as a side noteI will tellyou that Christianity is very weak on the value of animals and the environment.....which is where I personally part ways with it. That is not, however, to say that I do not beieve in God, I do, I just do not necessarily conform to the Christian view of God. Islam has a much more agreeable view of the value of other creatures on this palnet for my liking.....but that is also not to say I am a Muslim. We can get to where i stand later, once you get the primary point....if you get it.

Nevertheless. the immoral act is one that violates a percieved value....that's the point to focus on right now. The question is, what goves something its VALUE. Yes, there are many ways of looking at Value, and many levels of value. It is seen as immoral to steal your money, but not because of thr value of money, but because of the value of YOU. In order for Value to be constant........and by that I mean absolute and true for all men at all times.......it has to be valuable 'a priori'. A priori is a Latin term we use in philosophy. It means 'before existence'. It means that your life is valuable before YOU exist, and because it (your life) is valuable 'in and of itself', 'before existence', I must respect that value. To not respect the value of YOU is to be in violation of an ethical standard that is true for all men at all times. Any other standard of value is relative to place, time, and the given power structure........

Ok, I need to git.....we'll get back this later. Think about it.