[dirtboy]

a history of hate speech

Hate speech? You really wanna take the liberal victimhood approach here?

[BibChr]

Unusually candid. Far more revealing than he intends, I’m sure.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[BertWheeler]

Professor Myers very aptly expressed what ALL atheists and agnostics believe anyway. No real shock. Most people become atheits because they have a very strong emotional need to deny the judge. But why do they want to deny the judge? Did they do something horrific in their life? Most likely.

Atheists are atheists becuase they have a psychological imperative driving them to deny the judge.

Atheism is just a form of denying the judge.

[DManA]

the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them.

True. The universe groaned when sin came into the world.

[count-your-change]

Maybe he just needs a hug.......and some anti-depressives.

[mjp]

Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either (i.e., God)

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.
Ps.14:1, Ps. 53:1

[dmz]

The fact that Myers and others continue to blast Christianity reveals that they really do believe in God, but want to suppress that knowledge. This is further confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy.

<><><><><><><><>

Unassailable logic, that. Not.

I hate unicorns. Despise them. Therefore they exist.

[Cicero]

The usual Darwinian answer to the morality problem is to argue that although the strongest and most selfish win the contest of the survival of the fittest, perhaps natural selection builds in a certain kind of “altruism,” so people won’t just kill randomly.

For instance, if you kill your mate before she gives birth to your fit progeny, that would be counterproductive to the survival of the fittest. And to extend that, if you kill your neighbor randomly, that might weaken your defense when another tribe raids your cave.

The result of such species-determined “altruism” seems to be, I would suggest, tribalism. With tribalism you only kill your fellow members if they threaten your desire for power over them and lots of mates. Or you respect the alpha male because it’s your only choice and second best to being the alpha male yourself.

That’s the usual state of human beings—tribes, constant warfare with neighbors, enslavement of people outside the tribe, and so forth. That’s about the best that Darwinism can offer.

You might even say that Islam is a good Darwinist religion. Submit to those who are stronger than you, conquer and enslave all the other tribes, take as many wives as you can handle and let the weaker males go to the wall.

[Texas Songwriter]

Meyers - "...anyone could go on a killing spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest and self interest of others, who would try to stop you."

So, the killer is unconstrained in the kill. Those who try to stop him from killing are unconstrained in their trying to stop him. Analysis: - the strong man prevails....Rex-lex. Hitler was the strong man. Therefore Hitler did nothing wrong. Stalin was the strong man. Therefore Stalin did nothing wrong. Mao was the strong man. Therefore Mao did nothing wrong. If Myers stated otherwise, then please clarify what the man said. And if the murderer did not offend a moral code, should he be punished, and why?

This is fast becoming the predominent worldview in America and the West today. The only constraining social force is the Christian worldview which says ..."Thou shall not murder." Myers says, "Murder, if that suits you."

We all have to make choices.

[70times7]

Huh? I read what the guy said, but I don't see how it inadvertently reveals the truth of scripture.

I think he is either short sighted or ignorant regarding philosophy to (seemingly) go so exclusively w/ Hobbs.

[whattajoke]

It seems AiG is not immune to massive leaps of logic and faith when discussing philosophy just as they are not immune to it with science.

I'll start at the end - on the original PZ Myers post, which AiG forgot to link, the third commenter back in August wrote, "... prepare to be quote-mined by the god bots as an example of an atheist with no morals at all..." It took 'em a few months, but they've caught up finally.

I urge you to read the comments. There are some very interesting points made in them - much more than in either the original Wright article, the Myers blog post or AiG's misunderstanding of the issue.

Myers's screed is in response to another article which states that morality is "derived" by some greater force. So it's not like Myers just woke up one day and decided to write that humans have no morals. In fact, he wrote nothing of the sort: "First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them."

Is that not true? And really, what's untrue about the rest of the paragraph quoted? Does the belief in Christian God prevent you from going on a murder spree, or does something else? If you were born an Aborigine, does that mean you'd have no morals? You surely aren't Amish, but one could argue they are "more moral" than you. On and on.

The argument has no weight. Humans have had morals since the dawn of time (I know, I know, your "dawn of time" was only a few thousand years ago).

Anyway, AiG states, "Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either (i.e., God) in his worldview." Did he? Honestly, did he say there was "no morality?!" I read it differently.

The mere fact that many humans over many years have lived moral lives without your brand of Christianity coupled with the fact that many Christians have acted horrifically immorally over that same time period sort of derails this entire "argument."

"but they weren't true Christians. Got ya.

[MarianoApologeticus]

How is this news?!?!?! :o)

At least they agree:
Richard Dawkins,
“nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”
No wonder that when told, “Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.” He answered, “You could say that, yeah.”

Dan Barker,
“There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares...what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t [matter]. The Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.”
He also states “Darwin has bequeathed what is good,” “abortion is a blessing” and that Jesus was “a moral monster.”

William Provine,
“there is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans either.”

And oh, by the way, don’t forget to me “nice” because they say so (in the manner of a non-sequitur).