Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Query: what is the terminology for a moral consequent, anyone I have forgotten?

Example:
Killing now 10000s will result in the flourishing of 10000000000s.

It may be sad but a moral truth may be able to be made from that.

There may be a spectrum of intrinsic values defined by biology, however these are NOT objective (i.e. background independent laws).

Also, you have to define good and bad, from my interpretation they appear interchangebly syntax, I desire the cognitive properties (semantics) of morilty.

If one wants, does not want rape, is the property necessary, it appears to be social, and NOT natural.

There is a term for this concept, do you know what it is?

Religion?

Not certain, I cannot remember, however if the universe (perhaps a multiverse) approaches infinity, how is the ultimate moral fate determined?

Furthermore, what if more conscious (analogous) entities arise?

Does evolution not refute the concept morality?

It may be possible that synthetic life may also satisfy a sentience quotient, yet may not have neurology.

The concept of morality only seems to have meaning for pack animals so a single all powerful being would on it face not be concern about morality now would it?

Harris suggests that humans are conscious beings, therefore it would entail that humans appear to be the only "pack of animals" that have moral meaning, what does this mean for humans that have "no empathy", yet are conscious?

Omnipotentcy may be independent of morality.

As for an omnibenevolent God, the infinite regress properties would be uncertain of how this immaterial entity interprets morality, to suggest "not be concern" is an appeal to rationalism/ridicule, logic is independent of normative assertions.

Christians suggest that humans are moral agents.

Also, I suggested evolution, being that selection pressure refutes the concept of what is generally interpreted as good/flourishing.

Well, I said I wasn't going to say any more; but here goes: Regarding the controversy (such as it is) over my first post in this topic: I wasn’t saying that atheists are to blame for Communist totalitarianism any more than saying Catholics today are responsible for the Inquisition. That's all I care to say. I think I'll restrict my posts to the game threads from now on. Shouldn't be any acrimony there.

A concept of morality has utilitarian value from an evolutionary point of view. So-called morality, a social contract, benefits the community with a greater breeding opportunity--natural selection, the "survival of the fittest," is concerned with the species, not the individual. Any individual who survives is fit--the fittest species is that which provides the best breeding opportunity. Anything which mitigates in favor of that enhanced breeding opportunity, therefore, has the utilitarian value to which i referred.

Claims about the necessity for a theistic basis for functional morality, for a functional social contract, are specious for pretty obvious reasons. Polytheistic religious creeds provided moral codes which were functional, even though the majority of adherents of organized religion now agree on monotheism, even when they theologically agree on nothing else. Therefore, a moral code doesn't rely on either theological plausibility nor on a confessional consensus to produce an effective behavioral guide. Finally, the most obvious objection to the theistic claptrap about morality is that religious adherents and religious leaders have, through the ages, committed gross criminal enormities whithout destroying either their religious confessions or their social authority. Religion has never made an evil man good, nor the lack of if made a good man bad. Claims of moral superiotiry by theists are absurd--all that matters is the utility of any given moral code, and evolution will weed out the losers.

On this thread it's the atheists who claim to be morally superior, is that equally absurd?

Although i consider this to be a typical example of your obsession with arguing only for agument's sake, i'll just respond by pointing out that this ipse dixit statement of yours is without foundation. If you mean that flannel-mouthed fool Bill, he is an atheist, not the atheists.

You just cannot resist trying to pick a fight. You're obsessive.

There's nothing wrong with trying to be even handed, but if you want to view that as picking an argument, then so be it.

--

Take note also of the studies done showing that open declare atheists are far less likely by percent of population to be in prison at least in the US then non atheists.

Thats ony because they never get elected in the first place unless they profess some beief in a community-sanctioned spirit man.

There was nothing "even handed" about it. You're a legend in your own mind.



That's not "even handed," that's alleging a fault on the part of atheists which you by definition are not ascribing to the theists. Spare us the "even handed" bullshit. You're just trying your typical obsessive attempt to pick a fight. I strongly suspect that you'll show it further by attempting to get the last word--something else you obsessively try to accomplish.

LOL and take note that Jefferson got elected president so we had have what amounted to an atheist President very early on.

I love him going through the new testament Jesus story and taking out all the supernatural elements he found there.

Footnote I went to the Gutenberg website and could not find the "Jefferson's Bible there for some reason. I find that odd indeed.

Here is where you can get the Jefferson's Bible online.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

I know of no good reason to assume that Mr. Jefferson was an atheist.

LOL.........of course before Darwin research explained how complex animal life came to be without the need of a creator atheist thinking persons tend to be more Deists but Jefferson was indeed either an atheist or a near atheist.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

In neither of those quotes does he deny the existence of a god, and in fact in the second quote he speaks of a supreme being as though it exists. You may well laugh, the ignorant are often amused by what they cannot comprehend, which in your case, is damned near everything.

EDIT": I see that while i was typing, you edited your post to remove the second quote. That's understandable, as it undermines your thesis. You're kind of slow though, because otherwise, you'd not have posted it in the first place, so that you present deceit is now so obvious.