“I conclude then, that though the difference between people’s ideas of Decent Behaviour often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between difference of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, ‘Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather — surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simple about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believes there were no mice in the house.”

All well and good but, how do you, or C.S. counter the real argument?

Societies develop moral codes to benefit society. It logically follows that members of those societies will be indoctrinated with ideals that sustain those societies. Most societies will, therefore, encourage helping others. This accounts for similar moral codes around the globe without invoking religion.

HaggisBasher Posted:

It’s bumerting a claim just as sure and narrow-minded as any other, with no principle evidence to back it up. Science has not provided any empirical data to disprove the existence of God. And it is simply ignorant for an atheist to condemn another for a belief in a higher power, since they are simply as unsure as the rest. I heard someone (a proclaimed atheist) mention science as their Truth and their reason to refute the existence of a god or gods, but as far as I recall from my high school science clbumes half a decade ago, Scientific fact only does not mean anything is proven, only that it has not yet been disproved.

Clbum of ‘03? Cool. We’ll talk about the standards for theories in a bit. Theories aren’t facts, but they are closer than you may think.

End argument part 1.

I, in fact respect your viewpoint, and am a Christian. Think of this as a debate with name calling. I just believe that my faith has to fly in the face of proven science and yell “but I’m the exception.”