Where do atheists get their morals from?

[Barrister]

In my working life I rarely, if ever, care what people believe - I care what they do, and what they intend to do.

As such, I find it easiest to respect what people believe, as it rarely affects my work otherwise.   

You do not consider the beliefs and faith of others relevant when they interact with you and with society in general. They have to justify themselves with facts and reason and they can't appeal to the book.

No.  If I'm dealing with a witness from Libya testifying in a Hijab (like I did last week) she does not need to justify her faith.  I simply respect her belief and allow her hair to be covered while she gives evidence.

She's not using her faith to justify an assertion of fact here. She is using her membership in a class of humanity to justify her access to a special exemption from a requirement of conduct by witnesses. She would need to justify her faith in the truth of the assertion that achmed was embezzling from abdullah's falafel shop.

If she was asserting that her faith told her that BB killed Col. Mustard with a lead pipe in the library then she would need to justify her faith. You are specifically not addressing the issue, the hijab testimony is a red herring.

So you want me to put the existence of God on trial?

Well the thing is - in court you never have first hand evidence.  You only have witnesses, and then experts who give opinions based on what the witnesses have said.  And in court you absolutely never require absolute proof - depending on the matter you only require proof on a balance of probabilities, or proof beyond a resonable doubt.

Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But balance of probabilities?  Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him.  You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible).  And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.

So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities.

[Razgovory]

I'm trying to understand why anyone should have to "Justify" their faith in a court of law.

[DGuller]

Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But balance of probabilities?  Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him.  You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible).  And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.

So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities.

Is this a troll?

[garbon]

I think he's actually trying to get at using one's faith as a justification for one's actions in a court of law...though I'm not sure why.

[Viking]

So you want me to put the existence of God on trial?

Well the thing is - in court you never have first hand evidence.  You only have witnesses, and then experts who give opinions based on what the witnesses have said.  And in court you absolutely never require absolute proof - depending on the matter you only require proof on a balance of probabilities, or proof beyond a resonable doubt.

Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But balance of probabilities?  Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him.  You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible).  And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.

So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities.

I wonder if you don't actually read what I write or you can't understand it. Now you are just making up shit and spreading those red herrings about. I did not say we should put god on trial and you know that is not what I suggested. You are trying to change the topic.

Faith is not justification for issues of fact. You already know this and except when you go to church you live by this.

You keep trying to change the topic. The legal culpability of the rapist is irrelevant when the issue was the state of fact regarding to her consent and his faith about it. The exception given to faithtards using head scarfs is irrelevant when the issue is the use of faith to justify acceptence of fact.

As long as other peoples faith doesn't affect your life then you let them be wrong, I agree with that. When any religion is banned atheism is always banned as well.

[Viking]

I think he's actually trying to get at using one's faith as a justification for one's actions in a court of law...though I'm not sure why.

Because BB is a lawtalker and in his working life he does not accept that faith is a justification for fact. While he is asserting that faith is a justification for morals. That is why I'm bringing up the law issue.

[Razgovory]

I was under the impression that BB was a lawyer, not a moralist.  He's putting people on trial for criminal acts not morality.

[Barrister]

So you want me to put the existence of God on trial?

Well the thing is - in court you never have first hand evidence.  You only have witnesses, and then experts who give opinions based on what the witnesses have said.  And in court you absolutely never require absolute proof - depending on the matter you only require proof on a balance of probabilities, or proof beyond a resonable doubt.

Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But balance of probabilities?  Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him.  You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible).  And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.

So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities.

I wonder if you don't actually read what I write or you can't understand it. Now you are just making up shit and spreading those red herrings about. I did not say we should put god on trial and you know that is not what I suggested. You are trying to change the topic.

Faith is not justification for issues of fact. You already know this and except when you go to church you live by this.

You keep trying to change the topic. The legal culpability of the rapist is irrelevant when the issue was the state of fact regarding to her consent and his faith about it. The exception given to faithtards using head scarfs is irrelevant when the issue is the use of faith to justify acceptence of fact.

As long as other peoples faith doesn't affect your life then you let them be wrong, I agree with that. When any religion is banned atheism is always banned as well.

Actually I am having great difficulty understanding you Viking.  You just make a bunch of assertions that don't seem tied to anything I am saying.

[Viking]

Actually I am having great difficulty understanding you Viking.  You just make a bunch of assertions that don't seem tied to anything I am saying.

If you want to say something and discuss your own issues then start your own thread. You are hurling red herrings pretending they are the issue at hand.

[Razgovory]

No, Viking, you are just being crazy.  And I know crazy.

[garbon]

No, Viking, you are just being crazy.

It's true but then that was clear from the opening post of this thread.

[crazy canuck]

I'm trying to understand why anyone should have to "Justify" their faith.

You could have just ended it there.

[Viking]

sigh... usual suspects though..

naturally nobody has commented on the issues in the OP yet.

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.

You mentioned "memes" as a source of morality.  Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?

Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?

I thought Malthus gave a pretty compelling answer.  It seems you ignored it because the answer did not trash religion.

[Viking]

I'm trying to understand why anyone should have to "Justify" their faith.

You could have just ended it there.

That's because nothing remotely like that was ever said.

I said you can't use faith to justify fact claims. Raz reads the sentence backwards. I called them lying amoral scumbags earlier in this thread and Raz delivers.