Comment by Galen on May 1, 2010 at 1:32pm
Nice!
Comment by Wesley on May 1, 2010 at 1:39pm
I would also like to add to what Richard said...the ability to adapt, adopt, and change as we learn and grow. I don't want my moral code to be written into stone. I want it to allow for the possibility of future growth and expansion.
Comment by Shine on May 1, 2010 at 1:50pm
I agree, I don't think that moral outcomes should ever be completely impervious to change as new circumstances arise. I do hold that there is some measure of absolutism in morality in that the process of determining moral outcomes is a static function; however, with different variables throughout time and space the process will produce variable results. I think that by recognizing some measure of absolutism we can still safely condemn the gross humanitarian crimes of other cultures. Otherwise, if everything is entirely relative, it is difficult to logically claim a basis for condemnation. But by holding human reason and the process of moral determination as an absolute entity, I think that we can then logically judge and condemn atrocious acts in societies other than our own.

Okay, that was ridiculously obtuse and longwinded. Can you tell that I just took a break from writing my term paper for English? Lol ;)
Comment by Ian Brennan on May 1, 2010 at 8:35pm
Dawkins is brilliant, simply and lucidly communicating how reason and facts have helped even the religious lot climb out of thier backwardness. Everyone should see this clip, if ever atheist want to claim 'epiphanies' this is one.
Comment by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on May 1, 2010 at 11:27pm
"Atheism cannot have any sense of absolute morality." *Face palm* What the is "absolute morality?!" I doubt we would really want a morality that consists of a rigid set of unbreakable rules. EVERY RULE HAS AN EXCEPTION - one of the #1 laws of life I have discovered. Absolute law does not allow exceptions. "Thou shalt not lie. - What if someone wants to kill your child and holds a gun to your head demanding where he is? Would you lie then? If you're following rigid "absolute morality..." then you would be immoral. Insane isn't? TWO THUMBS UP AND FIVE STARS!!! ^_^
Comment by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on May 1, 2010 at 11:34pm
Ha. I wrote the below post before I watched the whole thing. Dawkins just said basically the same thing as I did, except his was better phrased and more witty. ^_^ WELL DONE!!
Comment by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on May 2, 2010 at 1:32am
Hey Shine... I'm gonna borrow this embed code for a heated debate with a theist who thinks atheists can't have morals... thanks and I hope you don't mind.
Comment by Shine on May 2, 2010 at 5:29pm
Go right ahead, Sky. :)
Comment by Pamela Skinberg on May 2, 2010 at 8:08pm
The difference between Dawkins and the rest of us (okay, probably not the ONLY difference!) is that he is cool under fire, able to rationally logically and unflappably defend his (and our!) position in the face of those who would tear him apart. I completely agree with his position that "morality" has nothing to do with religion, and that in the absence of religion, morality emerges in its truest form.......

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 28 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service