Atheism and morality

Originally posted by shavixmir
You seem to be displaying one of the 7 deadly sins.

yes i am a sinner, whether its deadly or not remains to be seen 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have to point out that my lack of belief in God does not depend in any way on the Theory or Evolution or abiogenesis, or the Big Bang or any other science for that matter. It is founded on one thing, and one thing only - an absence of reason for believing in God.

How about the creation of the heavens and the earth and the promise
of eternal life. There are many other reasons that could be given but
that is good enough for me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about the creation of the heavens and the earth and the promise
of eternal life. There are many other reasons that could be given but
that is good enough for me.

No, I am afraid my beliefs are not given to bribery. I do not believe things because I want them to be true.

What I do find interesting is how many Christians put a lot of store in eternal life, but whenever I start a thread on the matter or ask questions about it, nobody wants to talk about it because you all know that it doesn't actually make any sense. You desperately want something that is logically impossible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am afraid my beliefs are not given to bribery. I do not believe things because I want them to be true.

What I do find interesting is how many Christians put a lot of store in eternal life, but whenever I start a thread on the matter or ask questions about it, nobody wants to talk about it because you all know that it doesn't actually make any sense. You desperately want something that is logically impossible.

The Holy Bible says all things are possible with God.
Isn't that a more optimistic viewpoint?
Why do you want to have such a pessimistic viewpoint
as atheism? Even if you could prove Christianity is not
true, what benefit would you or I get from knowing it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says all things are possible with God.
Isn't that a more optimistic viewpoint?
Why do you want to have such a pessimistic viewpoint
as atheism? Even if you could prove Christianity is not
true, what benefit would you or I get from knowing it?

Well why not believe in Father Christmas and fairies while you are about it? Or are you too pessimistic?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well why not believe in Father Christmas and fairies while you are about it? Or are you too pessimistic?

I feel happy for those that get enjoyment out of anything.
Why be so gloomy and sarcastic?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I feel happy for those that get enjoyment out of anything.
Why be so gloomy and sarcastic?

And I feel sorry for those who delude themselves into believing in magic beings in the sky because they cant find any better sources of happiness. What annoys me about it is that you don't even realize that by deluding yourself for your own entertainment, you are harming others (by preaching anti-science rhetoric for example).
Why not just take drugs?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you think that to base an argument on a supposition is a sound basis, then its castles made of sand for you Meester Hameelton. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't have principles, precepts, ordinances, or anything else for that matter, that is why its use is an absurdity.

“...if you think that to base an argument on a SUPPOSITION is a sound basis, then ...” (my emphasis)

what “SUPPOSITION” ?

Reminder of my post:

“How many times must I repeat myself before you finally get it; THAT IS MISSING THE POINT!
Suppose the spaghetti monster DID have principles and there IS a holy spaghetti monster Bible and was NOT made-up recently etc?


“..this thread is not about the existence or non existence of God, its about atheism and morality and whether the atheists thinks of his morality as superior. ...”

the answer for most atheists is “no” i.e. they do NOT think they are morality superior. In fact, on these forums, more often than not, when somebody DOES claim to be morality superior, it is usually the theist that claims this just for believing the absurdity that there is a supernatural god and also claims we atheists are morality inferior for not doing so. So, enough of this hypocritical crap. “


Now, are you referring to the “Suppose the spaghetti monster DID have principles and there IS a holy spaghetti monster Bible and was NOT made-up recently etc? “ part?
If so, then saying some statement like this were I say “suppose” something X, where it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that I am NOT saying X is actually true, is NOT making a “SUPPOSITION” because, OBVIOUSLY, I am not ASSUMING that something X is actually true but rather I am just saying, for the sake of argument, SUPPOSE X is true thus that argument is clearly NOT “based” on a “SUPPOSITION” as you said.
If not, then where is the “SUPPOSITION” in that post of mine that you are referring to that, according to, is what I “base an argument on”?

You have so far said absolutely nothing to even begin to debunk any of the arguments I put in this post and other recent posts Possibly because you haven't read what I actually said carefully enough.
In fact, you have repeatedly said irrelevant statements in responce to my posts while I and some others have repeatedly debunked your claims and arguments.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...if you think that to base an argument on a SUPPOSITION is a sound basis, then ...” (my emphasis)

what “SUPPOSITION” ?

Reminder of my post:

“How many times must I repeat myself before you finally get it; THAT IS MISSING THE POINT!
Suppose the spaghetti monster DID have principles and there IS a holy spaghetti monster Bible and was NOT m esponce to my posts while I and some others have repeatedly debunked your claims and arguments.

As far as i can tell you have not uttered one syllable to state why the morality of the Christ in comparison to anything else is superlative. If you have not accepted the morality of the Christ as the pinnacle of moral excellence then either you have supplanted it with something else or you have developed your own morality. This is what this thread is actually about. I point out the irrelevance of your assertions and what do you do? you reiterate them again, what is it about, 'this is not about the existence or non existence of God that you do not understand?'. Is it so very hard to grasp?

Here are your own words, 'Suppose the spaghetti monster DID', if that is not a supposition, then what is it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As far as i can tell you have not uttered one syllable to state why the morality of the Christ in comparison to anything else is superlative. If you have not accepted the morality of the Christ as the pinnacle of moral excellence then either you have supplanted it with something else or you have developed your own morality. This is what this thread n words, 'Suppose the spaghetti monster DID', if that is not a supposition, then what is it?

“...As far as i can tell you have not uttered one syllable to state why the morality of the Christ in comparison to anything else is superlative. ...”

do you EVER read my posts? How on earth does this relate to my post? It is totally irrelevant. I never said/implied that “the morality of the Christ in comparison to anything else is superlative”. You have just completely changed the subject.

“...This is what this thread is actually about..”

...and has nothing to do with what you and I was just discussing.


“...Here are your own words, 'Suppose the spaghetti monster DID', if that is not a supposition, then what is it? ...”

here is what I ACTUALLY said:

“Suppose the spaghetti monster DID have principles and there IS a holy spaghetti monster Bible and was NOT made-up recently etc? “

There is NO supposition in that above suggestion because I am OBVIOUSLY NOT saying the spaghetti monster exists and you OBVIOUSLY know it and that is highly dishonest of you to pretend that I am saying the spaghetti monster exists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have to point out that my lack of belief in God does not depend in any way on the Theory or Evolution or abiogenesis, or the Big Bang or any other science for that matter. It is founded on one thing, and one thing only - an absence of reason for believing in God.

I see. So what you are saying is there is no rational explanation for your disbelief? I could accept it if you said that there was a lack of evidence, or a scientific explanation for the cause of...well...everything. However, to say that empirical data does not factor into your decision, then that is either untrue (a lie if you will) or some of the sloppiest thinking I've seen in these forums.

One can find volumes upon volumes of rational thought on the existance of God. Some of the greatest minds in history have pondered this very subject and come to the conclusion that the existance of God is indeed rational; admittedly some great minds have come to a different conclusion You may disagree with their perspective, but to say that they have not offered rational arguments, positions or opinions is intellectually dishonest, and unworthy of the quite spirited and excellent discussion that has happened in this thread.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...if you think that to base an argument on a SUPPOSITION is a sound basis, then ...” (my emphasis)

what “SUPPOSITION” ?

Reminder of my post:

“How many times must I repeat myself before you finally get it; THAT IS MISSING THE POINT!
Suppose the spaghetti monster DID have principles and there IS a holy spaghetti monster Bible and was NOT m ...[text shortened]... esponce to my posts while I and some others have repeatedly debunked your claims and arguments.

I refuse to consider any argument that is based on a
holy spaghetti monster.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I feel sorry for those who delude themselves into believing in magic beings in the sky because they cant find any better sources of happiness. What annoys me about it is that you don't even realize that by deluding yourself for your own entertainment, you are harming others (by preaching anti-science rhetoric for example).
Why not just take drugs?

I don't recall preaching anti-science rhetoric. When was this?
Drugs can sometimes be used to cure illness and save lives,
but one needs to know how to use them.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I refuse to consider any argument that is based on a
holy spaghetti monster.

Amusingly, we "have" to consider arguments based on magic blokes in the fecking clouds though! 🙄 😵 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Amusingly, we "have" to consider arguments based on magic blokes in the fecking clouds though! 🙄 😵 😵

This is the spirituality forum which is suppose to be debate and
general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.
We don't need to be sidetracked into debating video games,
monsters, or cartoon characters.