1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?

Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world — and there clearly are — then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

2. Are you saying that science can answer such questions?

Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors — ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.

3. But can’t moral claims be in conflict? Aren’t there many situations in which one person’s happiness means another’s suffering?

There are some circumstances like this, and we call these contests “zero-sum.” Generally speaking, however, the most important moral occasions are not like this. If we could eliminate war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse, etc. — these changes would be good, on balance, for everyone. There are surely neurobiological, psychological, and sociological reasons why this is so — which is to say that science could potentially tell us exactly why a phenomenon like child abuse diminishes human well-being.

But we don’t have to wait for science to do this. We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience.

4. What if some people simply have different notions about what is truly important in life? How could science tell us that the actions of the Taliban are in fact immoral, when the Taliban think they are behaving morally?

As I discuss in my book, there may be different ways for people to thrive, but there are clearly many more ways for them not to thrive. The Taliban are a perfect example of a group of people who are struggling to build a society that is obviously less good than many of the other societies on offer. Afghan women have a 12% literacy rate and a life expectancy of 44 years. Afghanistan has nearly the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world. It also has one of the highest birthrates. Consequently, it is one of the best places on earth to watch women and infants die. And Afghanistan’s GDP is currently lower than the world’s average was in the year 1820. It is safe to say that the optimal response to this dire situation — that is to say, the most moral response — is not to throw battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read. This may seem like common sense to us — and it is — but I am saying that it is also, at bottom, a claim about biology, psychology, sociology, and economics. It is not, therefore, unscientific to say that the Taliban are wrong about morality. In fact, we must say this, the moment we admit that we know anything at all about human well-being.

5. But what if the Taliban simply have different goals in life?

Well, the short answer is — they don’t. They are clearly seeking happiness in this life, and, more importantly, they imagine that they are securing it in a life to come. They believe that they will enjoy an eternity of happiness after death by following the strictest interpretation of Islamic law here on earth. This is also a claim about which science should have an opinion — as it is almost certainly untrue. There is no question, however, that the Taliban are seeking well-being, in some sense — they just have some very strange beliefs about how to attain it.

In my book, I try to spell out why moral disagreements do not put the concept of moral truth in jeopardy. In the moral sphere, as in all others, some people don’t know what they are missing. In fact, I suspect that most of us don’t know what we are missing: It must be possible to change human experience in ways that would uncover levels of human flourishing that most of us cannot imagine. In every area of genuine discovery, there are horizons past which we cannot see.

6. What do you mean when you talk about a “moral landscape”?

This is the phrase I use to describe the space of all possible experience — where the peaks correspond to the heights of well-being and valleys represent the worst possible suffering. We are all someplace on this landscape, faced with the prospect of moving up or down. Given that our experience is fully constrained by the laws of the universe, there must be scientific answers to the question of how best to move upwards, toward greater happiness.

This is not to say that there is only one right way for human beings to live. There might be many peaks on this landscape — but there are clearly many ways not to be on a peak.

7. How could science guide us on the moral landscape?

In so far as we can understand human well-being, we will understand the conditions that best secure it. Some are obvious, of course. Positive social emotions like compassion and empathy are generally good for us, and we want to encourage them. But do we know how to most reliably raise children to care about the suffering of other people? I’m not sure we do. Are there genes that make certain people more compassionate than others? What social systems and institutions could maximize our sense of connectedness to the rest of humanity? These questions have answers, and only a science of morality could deliver them.

8. Why is it taboo for a scientist to attempt to answer moral questions?

I think there are two primary reasons why scientists hesitate to do this. The first, and most defensible, is borne of their appreciation for how difficult it is to understand complex systems. Our investigation of the human mind is in its infancy, even after nearly two centuries of studying the brain. So scientists fear that answers to specific questions about human well-being may be very difficult to come by, and confidence on many points is surely premature. This is true. But, as I argue in my book, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a huge mistake.

The second reason is that many scientists have been misled by a combination of bad philosophy and political correctness. This leads them to feel that the only intellectually defensible position to take when in the presence of moral disagreement is to consider all opinions equally valid or equally nonsensical. On one level, this is an understandable and even noble over-correction for our history of racism, ethnocentrism, and imperialism. But it is an over-correction nonetheless. As I try to show in my book, it is not a sign of intolerance for us to notice that some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living.

9. What is the difference between there being no answers in practice and no answers in principle, and why is this distinction important in understanding the relationship between human knowledge and human values?

There are an infinite number of questions that we will never answer, but which clearly have answers. How many fish are there in the world’s oceans at this moment? We will never know. And yet, we know that this question, along with an infinite number of questions like it, have correct answers. We simply can’t get access to the data in any practical way.

There are many questions about human subjectivity — and about the experience of conscious creatures generally — that have this same structure. Which causes more human suffering, stealing or lying? Questions like this are not at all meaningless, in that they must have answers, but it could be hopeless to try to answer them with any precision. Still, once we admit that any discussion of human values must relate to a larger reality in which actual answers exist, we can then reject many answers as obviously wrong. If, in response to the question about the world’s fish, someone were to say, “There are exactly a thousand fish in the sea.” We know that this person is not worth listening to. And many people who have strong opinions on moral questions have no more credibility than this. Anyone who thinks that gay marriage is the greatest problem of the 21st century, or that women should be forced to live in burqas, is not worth listening to on the subject of morality.

10. What do you think the role of religion is in determining human morality?

I think it is generally an unhelpful one. Religious ideas about good and evil tend to focus on how to achieve well-being in the next life, and this makes them terrible guides to securing it in this one. Of course, there are a few gems to be found in every religious tradition, but insofar as these precepts are wise and useful they are not, in principle, religious. You do not need to believe that the Bible was dictated by the Creator of the Universe, or that Jesus Christ was his son, to see the wisdom and utility of following the Golden Rule.

The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering. Consider the Catholic Church: This is an institution that excommunicates women who want to become priests, but it does not excommunicate male priests who rape children. The Church is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. When we realize that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being, we can see that the Catholic Church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology. It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.

11. So people don’t need religion to live an ethical life?

No. And a glance at the lives of most atheists, and at the most atheistic societies on earth — Denmark, Sweden, etc. — proves that this is so. Even the faithful can’t really get their deepest moral principles from religion — because books like the Bible and the Qur’an are full of barbaric injunctions that all decent and sane people must now reinterpret or ignore. How is it that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are opposed to slavery? You don’t get this moral insight from scripture, because the God of Abraham expects us to keep slaves. Consequently, even religious fundamentalists draw many of their moral positions from a wider conversation about human values that is not, in principle, religious. We are the guarantors of the wisdom we find in scripture, such as it is. And we are the ones who must ignore God when he tells us to kill people for working on the Sabbath.

12. How will admitting that there are right and wrong answers to issues of human and animal flourishing transform the way we think and talk about morality?

What I’ve tried to do in my book is give a framework in which we can think about human values in universal terms. Currently, the most important questions in human life — questions about what constitutes a good life, which wars we should fight or not fight, which diseases should be cured first, etc. — are thought to lie outside the purview of science, in principle. Therefore, we have divorced the most important questions in human life from the context in which our most rigorous and intellectually honest thinking gets done.

Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning. It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values — allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals — is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.

Related posts

• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• Being Good Without God Is Natural (4)
• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• Science Can Answer Moral Questions (3)
• Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant (3)

Reason to Believe: Does God Exist?

• Existence of God: Ontological Argument
• Problem of Evil I
• Problem of Evil II
• Pascal’s Wager

Rationality and Belief

• Ethics of Belief: Evidentialism v. Pragmatism
• Racism and Belief
• Stereotypes and Belief
• Scientific Reason or Scientific Faith?
• More on Science and Faith

Mind and Body

• The Mind-Body Problem 1
• The Mind-Body Problem 2
• Robots and Functionalism

Freewill, Determinism, and Responsibility

• Hard Determinism
• Compatibilism I
• Compatibilism II
• Libertarianism

Morality and Right Conduct

• Moral Variation Across Cultures
• Utilitarianism
• Ethical Egoism
• Famine

Cross-posted from Morgantown Atheists

Related posts

• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• Where Do I Get My First Slave? (6)
• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• Homosexuality is a SIN, The Bible Says So! (11)
• Don’t Give Up! (2)

I agree, the debate is over. Creationism has no validity. We are evolved creatures, and part of our evolution is a basic sense of morality. Not a moral absolute, of course, but even apes and dogs have been shown to have morals. We don’t need god to be good. In fact, I’d say god makes it harder to be good for the right reason, especially since the god of Abraham is so amoral.

Related posts

• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)
• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant (3)
• Homosexuality is a SIN, The Bible Says So! (11)

Here is a typical argument from a christian.

“Patti: Homosexuality is a sin and it is in black and white in the bible.”

Patti is right. But Lacey shows what else the old testament claims are sins, which we no longer follow in our modern society:

“So is not treating your body like a temple (no more Doritos and bon bons, no more Coke or Pepsi or ice cream or potato chips!). And ladies should have their head covered. And in Deuteronomy, a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin, and she should be executed if she is not… and that anyone who commits adultery should be stone to death.

In Mark, divorce is prohibited. I assume for homosexuality you are referring to Leviticus 18A:6 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.” A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: “A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed.”

Leviticus is a holy code written 3,000 years ago. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics (no poly cotton blends), eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig (there goes football!).

I believe in morality, which is doing right regardless of what I am told.. not in religion which is doing what I am told regardless of what is right. You’re welcome to your own interpretation of the bible and of politics, of course, but for me, I need more than “the bible says so” to justify certain things in this world and certainly to judge them.”

I would add that the bible as a code of ethics is just about bankrupt. Even the few good things that Jesus said are not unique or special to the bible. I certainly don’t need to turn to it for anything, never mind my morals and ethics.

How many times have you discussed morals with a christian and they say something like, “If god didn’t exist, I’d rape, murder and steal!” Those people need religion, if that’s the only thing holding them back from their psychopathic and sociopathic drives.

For me, I’m quite happy to be a good person just because it’s the right thing to do. What about you?

Image found here.

Related posts

• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• Being Good Without God Is Natural (4)
• 10 Reasons To Believe In god? (24)

Before I read this paper, I thought Dale McGowan‘s take on Santa to be the best way to handle it. In a nutshell, he says Santa is a dry run for letting kids reason their way through the fact that Santa is a myth, to then figuring out that religion is mythical, as he puts it, Santa is “the ultimate dry run for a developing inquiring mind”. It makes sense in a way. But then my friend Joe told me about his experience as a kid.

Joe really believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. Then one day a kid in the playground told him it was all a pack of lies. Joe believed him and went home crying. He was devastated. When Joe and I talked about the McGowan philosophy of Santa, I figured out that in theory it seems like a great idea, but maybe in practice it could backfire and cause a lot of unhappiness and pain for kids who don’t get to reason it out for themselves but are told by other children.

And is it necessary to lie to children about a mythical jolly old fat man? Does it increase their happiness, improve their moral fiber? Does it make them better little people, or better adults down the line? And is there an alternative to lying about Santa?

First, there are 3 alternatives, according to Ernâni:

• Disbelief: The parent tells the child Santa Claus is not real
• Neutrality: The parent does not inform the child one way or the other
• Pretense: The parent invites the child to pretend there is a Santa Claus.(page 13)

…inviting to pretend there is a Santa Claus is morally superior to encouraging to believe. (14)

I never thought of this as an option, but it makes sense. You get all the good fun of Santa but you don’t get the lies and beliefs in those lies.

What about short term pleasure and pain? Here is what Ernâni has to say:

The extent to which the pleasure of children and adults justifies the Santa Claus lie depends on the amount of pleasure available from non-deceitful alternatives. The alternative that most closely replicates telling children there is a Santa Claus involves inviting children to pretend there is one. Although pretending something is real is fundamentally different from believing it is, as I have argued, many of the emotions evoked by an object believed to be real are also evoked by objects supposed to be fictional. Children and adults derive great pleasure from creatures of their imaginations, as witnessed by the large crowds at movie theaters. Children who are old enough to know she is fictional still derive great enjoyment from the pretense that Cinderella is a real person with real hopes. And, it is easy to replicate the gift-giving aspect of the Santa experience, which is surely a significant factor in the child’s enjoyment. (15-16)

Interesting and thought-provoking, don’t you think? This is even more important:

One reason the justification of the lie cannot be a matter of the short term pleasure is that the purpose of parenting is not only or even primarily to maximize children’s happiness and minimize their suffering. A major purpose of proper parenting is to foster the child’s moral and cognitive development. Much more important than whether Santa belief is conducive to happiness in the short term is the question whether it is conducive to a child’s moral and cognitive development. (17)

How true! It’s all about raising a child to be moral and to think for themselves throughout their lives. So it isn’t just the short term gain you need to think about, but the long term consequences.

Here is where I really agree with Ernâni:

When parents tell their children about Santa Claus they encourage belief, not imagination. (17) Evidently, insofar as increased imagination is supposed to be what is gained through the Santa Claus experience, this can be much more effectively pursued by having the child pretend that Santa is real, rather than believe he is. (18)

Perhaps belief in Santa Claus is beneficial in that it fosters a “sense of magic” and “magical . . . thought” (Breen 2004). A magical occurrence, in the sense in question, would seem to be one which violates the laws of ordinary reality. Why should it be beneficial for a child to believe that there are things that work in unheard of ways? (18)

The similarity between the child’s belief in Santa and adult religious belief has been widely acknowledged. Children often think of Santa as having many of the same characteristics as God, to the extent that upon discovering the truth about Santa, some children question the existence of God as well.

The resemblance between the child’s attitude toward Santa and religious belief is only an advantage of belief if encouraging this sort of religious belief is beneficial. (20)

An excellent point! Why would any secular parent need to teach a child to believe in physics-breaking, supernatural magical beings at all? One thing I was thinking as I read this; wouldn’t it also sow a seed of doubt into that child that their parents lied to them about Santa? What else have they lied about?

If religious conviction is essentially belief in the absence of evidence, then the child’s attitude toward Santa is not religious conviction. Again, the child has ample testimonial and other evidence for the existence of Santa. (21)

A plausible inference for the child to draw from the entire experience is a certain skepticism about claims of the existence of unseen things: once bitten, twice shy. And insofar as encouraging belief in Santa encourages belief in the absence of and contrary to perceptual evidence, the supposed advantage must be weighed against the tendency of the child who discovers the truth to infer that believing in things in the absence of evidence is a hazardous affair. (21-22)

I would also like to add, many millions and millions of kids who once believed in Santa never extend the thought process to then doubt God or Jesus. They figure out that Santa is a myth but never take that lesson any further to realize God is too. So it’s not a safe bet.

Ernâni makes a great point about morality and Santa:

Although Santa is still supposed to observe whether children are naughty or nice, this activity is rarely emphasized. And, importantly, it is extremely rare for parents to follow through on the traditional threat that Santa will not give presents to naughty children. Hardly any American child in the last twenty years has found a lump of coal in his stocking from Santa Claus. This is, interestingly, one of the few aspects of the tradition that has earned the condemnation of childhood psychologists. (22)

Does the concept that Santa, who the child admires, single-mindedly fulfills that child’s wishes translate to a child being more generous themselves? I don’t think so. Neither does Ernâni:

Nothing in the experience encourages the child to give. The child’s primary role in the ritual is as recipient. Indeed, a child who might otherwise feel inclined to do a generous deed for other children is apt to think that Santa will take care of their needs. The tradition does include the cookies and milk for Santa. But this is a rather limited generosity, applying as it does only to someone who has done very nice things for the child. Nothing in the behavior points to the importance of being generous to people in general. (23)

What are the alternatives to lying to a child about Santa then, if the goal is to teach generosity?

One non-deceitful thing that might be done to encourage the child to be generous is to tell the child about the importance of generosity. One might encourage the child to give things to others. One might reward the child for doing generous things. In the right circumstances, such encouragement is known to lead to greater degrees of the tendency encouraged. Indeed, such a direct method promises a much higher likelihood of success than the roundabout method of encouraging the child to adopt Santa as a role model. (23)

What an amazing concept! Just teach a child directly without subterfuge!

Now, if the child is taught to just pretend in Santa, what do you teach that child about the beliefs of other children?

Any parent who decides not to encourage belief in Santa faces the question of how the child ought to discuss the issue with children who believe. If it is possible to teach formerly believing children the importance of discretion concerning Santa belief, then it is similarly possible to teach children who never believe the importance of discretion concerning believers. Children who are not told there is a Santa can easily be told that other children are told and that it is important not to ruin their fun by denying his existence. (24)

Ernâni then explains his main reason why it’s not good to lie to children about Santa:

The main problem with lying to children about Santa Claus is that it encourages children to lie. The encouragement happens because children inevitably discover that there is no Santa Claus. And although apparently some children at first believe that parents are similarly under the misimpression that there is a Santa Claus, eventually children discover that they have been deceived. As lately noted, when they discover the truth children are encouraged not to divulge the truth to other children and also to lie to them. Also when children discover that they have been lied to, they reasonably infer that such lying is held to be permissible by their parents and other adults whose opinion they hold in high regard. (25)

The first step involves the child’s discovery that the parent has lied. It cannot be seriously maintained that children do not discover that deceit has taken place. Children of seven or eight understand what is involved in lying. And eventually children understand that although their parents told them otherwise, the parents do not believe there is a Santa Claus. Children therefore
become aware of two facts, both of which tend to encourage the child to lie. First, their parents (and many other adults) lie. Whether children imitate Santa Claus is questionable, but they undoubtedly imitate their parents. Since they observe and are aware of their parents lying, they are more likely to lie themselves. Second, their parents (and many other adults) believe that it is morally appropriate to lie. Children notice that their parents feel no moral qualm about having deceived the children about Santa Claus. It is evident to the child that the parent believes so deceiving the child was morally appropriate. (26)

…notice that the deceit about Santa Claus is part of a larger pattern: the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, being the two main other culprits. Together with these other incidents, the child is likely to draw the inference that lying is thought to be permissible in many cases beyond the Santa Claus situation. (27)

While I think that lying is a major flaw in teaching kids about Santa, I personally feel the worst part is teaching kids that a magical being gives them presents. I think all the points Ernâni makes are extremely important, and that together they make a strong case for simply encouraging children to pretend instead of lying to them.

What do you think?

Related posts

• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (10)
• 10 Reasons To Believe In god? (24)
• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)

“I think that rationality and free thinking should be promoted and religious crimes and excesses and crimes condemned. What we hear and read about the churches is absolutely disgusting. However, if have a close look at the gospels, I find it to be such a rational, incredibly intelligent sum of stories, considering the time and the audience Jesus Christ was talking to. I think he was one of the greatest rationalists ever!”

I agree with him about reason, rationality and critical thinking. I don’t agree about the bible though. It’s so full of justified hate and bad morals.  I think that overrides the precious few rational or intelligent concepts that are scattered infrequently within. The few good things you can find in the bible are not original either. The Golden Rule, for example. Older than Jesus. Confucious had his own version, so did the Greeks. So there’s really no need for the bible at all!

Also, Jesus said some pretty damned hateful things in the gospels. (see below for just a few) He was forever going on about how if you didn’t follow him you’d burn in hell. That’s not very rational or loving. He also said he talked in parables just to confuse people so they would end up in hell. And he said to hate your family. If you take one message of Jesus and hold it up as a shining example for good rational thinking, you really can’t cherry-pick. You have to take all of his hateful stuff too.
Sure, maybe he said some good things (IF he existed, which I doubt), but it wasn’t anything that amazing when put in context with all the awful stuff he said, or when you think about great thinkers who said awesome things more consistently, like Carl Sagan, Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell or even Ricky Gervais!

Here are a few quotes from and about Jesus that the cherry-pickers missed:

Mark 4:11-12 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Luke 12:51-3 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

And some quotes from and about his dad:
Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Jeremiah 19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend.
Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Numbers 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Numbers 17:12-13 And the children of Israel spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish. Whosoever cometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of the LORD shall die: shall we be consumed with dying?
Deuteronomy 4:25-26 When thou shalt beget children, and children’s children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
2 Kings 6:28-29 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.
2 Kings 6:33 Behold, this evil is of the LORD.

Related posts

• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)
• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 3 – Where Do We Go From Here? EDIT (16)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 2 – Down The Rabbit Hole (16)

Ways to Contact Us:

• AtheistHotline.com
• (304) 534-9440
• atheisthotline@morgantownatheists.com

You can call, email or post a question on the site now. The phone number is to a voice mail system. We are volunteering this service so we will get back to you as soon as we can. Leave your email address if you call, too please. It will be easiest for us to get back to you by email.

Our Goals:

• Let atheists know they are not alone
• Clear up common misconceptions about atheists in general
• Provide people with information resources when needed
• Personal experiences from atheists to help you with your perspective
• Carefully helping people who are questioning their faith – in need of reason, etc.
• Carefully helping atheists who have troubles with their family
• Offering moral support to atheists and people questioning their faith
• Friendly advice from atheists

What we’re NOT:

• Faith crisis hotline
• Not giving out therapeutic advice
• Not a debate hotline
• Not a confessional
• Not a dating service
• We are NOT professionals!
  • Anything you say is not under client professional privilege. If you say something criminal, we will alert the police.
  • We are not legally qualified in any way to give therapy. We are not claiming to do so. We are here only to give friendly advice or information.
  • Anything you do based on information you get through AH is 100% your responsibility.

Here are the Disclaimer and Terms of Service:

By contacting us through email, voice mail or AtheistHotline.com, you state you have read these Terms of Service and agree to them.
Atheist Hotline is provided for informational, educational, fun and amusement purposes only; is not intended to diagnose or treat any person; and is not intended to constitute professional therapeutic advice. While care has been taken in the preparation of the information contained on Atheist Hotline, all information is provided on an “as is” basis without any representation, warranty or condition, whether express or implied, statutory or otherwise, as to: quality; accuracy; completeness; legality; reliability; efficacy; or fitness for any particular purpose. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk, and by using such information agrees to indemnify Atheist Hotline and its content providers from any and all liability, loss, injury, damages, costs and expenses (including legal fees and expenses) arising from such person’s use of the information and resources on this website. Anyone who is in any type of crisis should call 911 now and receive help from trained mental heath professionals.

Related posts

• Ideas About Atheist Groups (1)
• Advice For Freethinking Kids? (14)
• What Level Of Woo Would Make Someone Undateable? (20)
• Sunday Looms Menacingly (10)
• Godblock Protects Your Kids From Religion On The Web (14)