And aengus, oh no it most certainly is not:

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

Add to that all the millions who never deign to marry in the first place to procreate.

Is a 50% divorce rate “sacred”?

The 50% divorce rate is a media myth.

All the “News”?

/sigh

No. Again, you’re erecting straw men and burning them gleefully.

You saying that that’s the truth doesn’t make it so.

I haven’t erected any straw men; I have only dissected your own words, nothing more.

Calling me a bigot is ridiculous because I’m citing reasoning derived from atheist philosophers themselves.

These “atheist philosophers” you are referring to don’t speak for all atheists, do they?

If you deny that an atheist can have the same objective morality as a theist for the same reasons, you are showing bigotry by not acknowledging that atheists can be precisely as reasonable as theists when it comes morality. Truly objective morality does not depend on God’s existence.

It’s simple, reasonable truth. Atheists, in adopting their own moral code or none at all, are perfectly rational. Where they lapse is in assuming they have any right to enforce that code on others.

I don’t mean this offensively, but you don’t seem to understand what rationality means. A belief system, such as an atheist’s subjective morality you keep referring to, can be 100% consistent internally, but that doesn’t make it rational.

Someone who adopts his/her “own moral code” is not truly being rational/objective; he/she is being emotional/subjective by definition.

Reason (or rational thought) does not necessarily lead to the golden rule.

Rational thought DOES necessarily lead to the Golden Rule! If a person’s thinking doesn’t lead him/her there, it is because that person isn’t actually thinking rationally.

There aren’t many truths, there’s just one for everyone. Denying the idea that rigorously following logic/rationality leads to that one truth is an irrational sentiment.

When one does not presume a stable, external source for moral good (or even positive goals), it is up the individual to define good and evil as they see fit – or to not define them at all.

An atheist can base his/her morality on Logic/Truth itself, which is stable and external; they aren’t limited to the subjective morality you have pigeonholed them in. You haven’t shown you have understood this concept yet.

What relevance has the golden rule to anything? Certainly I agree that it’s a generally good way to live, but why should an atheist agree unless they choose to do so?

The Golden Rule basically states that you should respect others the way you wish to be respected. That is what true morality is.

The relevance is that an atheist can choose to believe in that simply because it’s true, without having to believe in God in order to come to the conclusion that that kind of morality is the only good kind.

Atheism puts every individual 100% in control of what is good and what is bad – they define their own meaning for life because the universe does not provide them one. I’m not constructing an original idea here based on bigotry. I’m simply referencing Nietzsche, who you’d apparently do well to read. Every atheist must cope with the implications of their void on their own terms … and there’s no reason why one person’s take on reality should be more valid than another’s? Why should an atheist conclude that life itself is good? They are not required to do so.

Nietzsche was but one atheist, and he literally was certifiably nuts. He doesn’t speak for all atheists, not even close.

All atheists are not in agreement that each individual is 100% in control of determining what’s good and bad. Do you honestly believe that all atheists on the Right believe that too? You should ask some sometime…

An atheist can have an objective definition of sanity the same way anyone else can, so no, your assertion that they have no reason to value one person’s take on reality over another’s is not tenable.

Now, I, as a theist, claim that my belief in God is rational. And it’s also based on reality. But I’m engaging in a hypothetical where I assume atheists are correct in their views when I make my statements. You aren’t. Hardly makes for a fair discussion, does it?

You shouldn’t speak for me like that, especially considering that it grossly misrepresents where I am coming from. To demonstrate that you shouldn’t speak for me, I will tell you that even if I didn’t believe in God, I’d have the same morality I do now. I call it “fairness”-no double-standards for oneself and others allowed! I arrived at this view of morality by thinking about it logically; it isn’t dependent on anything I happen to believe.

I am a theist as well, but my eyes are open enough to see that many atheists have the same view of morality that I do. Plenty of atheists believe in the Golden Rule simply because it’s the only correct way to operate; plenty of them understand that any other version of morality is false.

That belief reveals your own bigotry towards atheists i.e. they aren’t as capable of being reasonable about morality as theists are, which is offensive to atheists who believe in the Golden Rule. Following rational thought to its conclusion leads to the knowledge that ‘Golden Rule’ morality is the only true morality that exists, and one sure as Hell (pun both un- and intended) can come to that conclusion without being a theist, can’t he/she? If not, why not? You haven’t supplied a reason (saying atheists can’t do it doesn’t explain why they can’t.)

Bizarro No. 1 on January 24, 2009 at 4:01 AM

/sigh

No. Again, you’re erecting straw men and burning them gleefully. Calling me a bigot is ridiculous because I’m citing reasoning derived from atheist philosophers themselves. It’s simple, reasonable truth. Atheists, in adopting their own moral code or none at all, are perfectly rational. Where they lapse is in assuming they have any right to enforce that code on others.

Reason (or rational thought) does not necessarily lead to the golden rule. When one does not presume a stable, external source for moral good (or even positive goals), it is up the individual to define good and evil as they see fit – or to not define them at all. What relevance has the golden rule to anything? Certainly I agree that it’s a generally good way to live, but why should an atheist agree unless they choose to do so?

Atheism puts every individual 100% in control of what is good and what is bad – they define their own meaning for life because the universe does not provide them one. I’m not constructing an original idea here based on bigotry. I’m simply referencing Nietzsche, who you’d apparently do well to read. Every atheist must cope with the implications of their void on their own terms … and there’s no reason why one person’s take on reality should be more valid than another’s? Why should an atheist conclude that life itself is good? They are not required to do so.

Now, I, as a theist, claim that my belief in God is rational. And it’s also based on reality. But I’m engaging in a hypothetical where I assume atheists are correct in their views when I make my statements. You aren’t. Hardly makes for a fair discussion, does it?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 24, 2009 at 3:50 AM

I am saying I will accept what he says at face value and hide and watch. If he becomes a bomb thrower like most of that profession then I will add him to a long list of folks who never see my money. Unless they are part of the bail out obviously.

Absolutely! The designed function of that particular cavity remains the same no matter the gender.

Incorrect. My presupposition is that the only morality that has validity across multiple people is one they themselves do not define, but is instead set by something greater than themselves. Why must I abide by another’s moral code? What happens when two codes conflict? Atheism contains no naturalistic answer to these questions because there is none from that perspective. Morals are individually and socially constructed. It comes down to might making right – the strongest can enforce their code. Nothing else matters.

Indeed, atheists can and often are consistently unbigoted … but there is no compelling reason why they should be. And no guarantee that rationality always leads that direction.

Fear of judgment is utterly rational if you believe that judgment is real. But it’s not about fear so much as having reliable, unchanging standard for right and wrong. Complete moral relativism is the only rational response to a naturalistic world.

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 24, 2009 at 1:52 AM

What you said here doesn’t really contradict what I said before. I said that your presupposition was irrational because it was dependent on something other than rationality, by which I meant your belief in God, which you on one hand affirm (without realizing it), but on the other deny.

You say you presuppose that morality is valid when defined by something greater than oneself, while you also presuppose that objective morality is congenitally alien to atheism (“Complete moral relativism is the only rational response to a naturalistic world”), which is ridiculous if atheists can indeed have a moral code based on rationalism, not emotionalism. However, you believe that atheists cannot be compelled by rationality alone to be moral!!! Huh?!?!?!

That belief reveals your own bigotry towards atheists i.e. they aren’t as capable of being reasonable about morality as theists are, which is offensive to atheists who believe in the Golden Rule. Following rational thought to its conclusion leads to the knowledge that ‘Golden Rule’ morality is the only true morality that exists, and one sure as Hell (pun both un- and intended) can come to that conclusion without being a theist, can’t he/she? If not, why not? You haven’t supplied a reason (saying atheists can’t do it doesn’t explain why they can’t.)

I don’t think anyone here acted like that. The left in general and Hollywood in particular has gone out of their way to push their agenda on the public. You can’t even watch a stupid TV show anymore without some anti-American subtext. I am sure some of that will change with the new president. It is disheartening and you can’t deny it is a bully pulpit. The only way we can fight back is to boycott their product. For the most part, that’s what I do. And it sad because I think Mr. Hanks is a good actor and I have enjoyed his work. He, of course, can believe anything he likes but to use his celebrity to chastise others and/or promote something I don’t believe in will require me to use the only weapon I have. Also, it is easy to say you are sorry (which he didn’t actually say) after the words are spoken but they are out there. I always told my kids not to do or say anything they weren’t willing to see on the front page of the paper.

Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 11:48 PM

I don’t quite know where you are coming from.

Do you believe he sincerely regrets what he did? If so, are you truly forgiving him if you still hold his offense against him?

If you believe he’s insincere, how exactly are you giving him the benefit of the doubt like you said you were willing to do?

Your assertion there is based upon the presupposition that morality is dependent on something other than rationality, which makes it irrational. Fear of God’s wrath for being immoral certainly falls under that category.

An atheist can be as consistently unbigoted as the most righteous Christian by using reason alone.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Incorrect. My presupposition is that the only morality that has validity across multiple people is one they themselves do not define, but is instead set by something greater than themselves. Why must I abide by another’s moral code? What happens when two codes conflict? Atheism contains no naturalistic answer to these questions because there is none from that perspective. Morals are individually and socially constructed. It comes down to might making right – the strongest can enforce their code. Nothing else matters.

Indeed, atheists can and often are consistently unbigoted … but there is no compelling reason why they should be. And no guarantee that rationality always leads that direction.

Fear of judgment is utterly rational if you believe that judgment is real. But it’s not about fear so much as having reliable, unchanging standard for right and wrong. Complete moral relativism is the only rational response to a naturalistic world.

You said it, and you meant it.

Take it and own it.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 23, 2009 at 10:33 PM

I don’t think anyone here acted like that. The left in general and Hollywood in particular has gone out of their way to push their agenda on the public. You can’t even watch a stupid TV show anymore without some anti-American subtext. I am sure some of that will change with the new president. It is disheartening and you can’t deny it is a bully pulpit. The only way we can fight back is to boycott their product. For the most part, that’s what I do. And it sad because I think Mr. Hanks is a good actor and I have enjoyed his work. He, of course, can believe anything he likes but to use his celebrity to chastise others and/or promote something I don’t believe in will require me to use the only weapon I have. Also, it is easy to say you are sorry (which he didn’t actually say) after the words are spoken but they are out there. I always told my kids not to do or say anything they weren’t willing to see on the front page of the paper.

I’m not a Mormon. Indeed, I’ve made any number of criticisms of Mormon theology and the flawed historical claims of the LDS Church. But never would I argue that Mormons, as a whole, are anything less than exemplary Americans (indeed,……

Here you go.

This thread is about money. Tom Hanks has a thriving little show on HBO about fringe Mormons and polygamy. He’s the executive producer of Big Love. I am sure few Mormons watch but to bash them and make a buck off of them is pretty crass.

Hollywood is bleeding money, they probably won’t get any of the bailout, I may be unkind but I am also skeptical. But I agree, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 9:14 PM

1) I am glad you are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. TH, while a Leftie, has never shown himself to be as vile and nuts as Oliver Stone or Sean Penn, for example.

2) TH bashed the Mormons, but later apologized. If he’s sincerely sorry for what he did, why would anyone continue to be concerned with his previous stupidity? We don’t need people on the Right to act like MoveOn, and not move on…

OMT: Sorry folks, but the thought of a man sticking another man in his back side….. Don’t think that was the intended use for that particular cavity. Trying to make it so is not going to happen in my lifetime.

Keemo on January 23, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Does the thought of a man sticking another woman in her back side bother you as much as the thought of a man doing that to another man? If not, why not?

And the irony to all of noneya’s rantings is that while there’s no reason for an atheist to look down on a gay person, there’s also not necessarily any reason for an atheist to treat a gay person well either. There’s no particular reason why an atheist shouldn’t be a bigot of any variety if it suits their purpose in the moment. That it sees no irony in mocking the religious traditions that gave rise to the freedoms it enjoys should give it pause. But, as is the case with the Angry Bile Spewer sub-species of troll, that particular capacity has not been observed.

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 23, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Your assertion there is based upon the presupposition that morality is dependent on something other than rationality, which makes it irrational. Fear of God’s wrath for being immoral certainly falls under that category.

An atheist can be as consistently unbigoted as the most righteous Christian by using reason alone.

Not to pick nits here, but I see no apology. I see “I shouldn’t have said it” but no “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”. That’s rule #1 in any apology.

Matticus Finch on January 23, 2009 at 4:09 PMBINGO! +1

A non-apology apology is a statement in the form of an apology that is nothing of the sort, a common gambit in politics and public relations.

Utah, we have a problem.

pain train on January 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM

An apology doesn’t require formal statements like “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” to convey true regret. When someone admits he’s wrong the way Hanks did, it counts as an apology, going by the strict definition of the word, unless he was lying when he said he was wrong for saying what he did.

Respectfully, piglet, it has so much more to do with simply “handing over the word ‘marriage’”…it’s allowing two people the same exact rights two other people have. Prop 8 and the like do nothing but keep something away from people.

JetBoy on January 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM

What rights do straights have in regards to marriage that gays don’t? Oh, that’s right – NONE. No one in the US has the right to marry whomever they might want to, whether they are straight or not. Gay men and women can already marry women and men, respectively, just like straight men and women can.

You need to face the truth that your real issue is that you want to create a new right by changing the definition of marriage, not extend gays a right they in actuality already possess.