really fed up with the rampant ignorance that enshrouds the term 'atheist'. many theists and religious zealots cling fast to the fallacious assumption that atheism is inherently amoral. let's assume they are correct and then we'll uncover the absurdities that result from such a position:
atheism is just a-theism, and means a lack of belief in a god or gods -- nothing more does it mean in a general sense. therefore, theism and atheism cover the entire space concerning belief in the existence of a god or gods. translation: without exception, each person is either a theist or an atheist, and there is absolutely no other possibility concerning their belief in a god or gods, nor is there any middle ground.
children who have not yet reached any type of religious maturity are atheist -- by definition. guess what, a lot of them are bastards too. since our fundie friends have assured us that heaven is full of children and that no one can enter heaven unless they are become as a child, that must mean that heaven is altogether teeming with bastard atheists. if atheism is inherently amoral, then why would religiously ignorant children (atheists) be granted passage into heaven?
warning to theists: your little ones are atheists, so you'd better run right home and squeeze the atheism out of them and by all means hurry, for christ's sake.
clearly, there is nothing inherently amoral about being an atheist. claiming to be an atheist says absolutely nothing of one's morality.
COROLLARY: when someone tells you they are atheist, remember that you know extremely little about them at this point, and you should kindly hold off judgement of them until you actually get to know them. also feel free to talk to them like human beings in a way altogether unlike the man i met earlier today whose ignorance prompted me to write this post. when he called me a 'bastard atheist' i guess he didn't realize what a compliment that was.
Originally posted by LemonJello really fed up with the rampant ignorance that enshrouds the term 'atheist'. many theists and religious zealots cling fast to the fallacious assumption that atheism is inherently amoral. let's assume they are correct and then we'll uncover the absurdities that result from such a position:
atheism is just a-theism, and means a lack of belief in a g ...[text shortened]... when he called me a 'bastard atheist' i guess he didn't realize what a compliment that was.
I've been reading Schopenhauer from time to time, and just last evening, he had something to say about this.
"Just imagine if all the criminal laws were suddenly declared by public proclamation to be abolished; I do not think that either you or I would have the courage to go home alone . . . under the protection of religious motives. On the other hand, if, in the same manner, all religions were declared to be untrue, we should go on living as before under the protection of the laws alone without any special increase in our fears and our precautionary measures."
from "On Religion"
He then continues to point out how religions often have negative moral effects.
After 40 odd years of doing the right thing by the family, sunday school, church choir, even later as an intercessor I was asked by my vicar if I believe in The Immaculate conception, the Living God and Jesus as our Saviour and the resurrection. I said yes to each... but being asked straight, created questioning.
I took a couple of years to reach my decision and I haven't been back to church. I feel totally relieved of the burden of living up to peer pressure to conform to christian beliefs which have no base or creedence whatsoever.
Do things of your own volition and live to keep your conscience clean.
Live life as yourself, you only have one life... there is no reincarnation.
I am happily an atheist but guess what I still love and treat people as I would have them treat me.
If you dismissed the miracles as unexplained events which amazed people into exaggerated media spin at the time and added an extra "o"in the middle of god, take the d from devil, then sacked the rich churches in favour of a grassy hill then things may make some sense.
I know Atheists are not amoral, but you must admit your morals have no basis for absolutes, since it is your own design. Human beings, or animals as atheism would see it, are not a good basis for authority.
Originally posted by Langtree I know Atheists are not amoral, but you must admit your morals have no basis for absolutes, since it is your own design. Human beings, or animals as atheism would see it, are not a good basis for authority.
I disagree. Morals do have absolutes, whether you've had them handed to you by a "higher power" or not. For instance, killing another in cold blood is wrong. I didn't need the bible to tell me that. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", that's a moral absolute that doesn't need the endorsement of mythical godsons.
As to your final point, I'm going to assume you think only "god" can be a good basis for authority. Since the bible is a work of man (despite what many in this forum think), then it too cannot be used as a basis for moral authority. Where does that leave us?
Originally posted by Langtree I know Atheists are not amoral, but you must admit your morals have no basis for absolutes, since it is your own design. Human beings, or animals as atheism would see it, are not a good basis for authority.
but you must admit your morals have no basis for absolutes, since it is your own design.
i must admit no such thing. this is precisely what i strongly disagree with and is the whole basis for my initial post.
said plainly without any window dressing: the existence of god is not a necessary condition for morality. nor is the perceived existence of an imaginary god a sufficient condition.
Originally posted by David C I disagree. Morals do have absolutes, whether you've had them handed to you by a "higher power" or not. For instance, killing another in cold blood is wrong. I didn't need the bible to tell me that. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", that's a moral absolute that doesn't need the endorsement of mythical godsons.
As to your final p ...[text shortened]... rum think), then it too cannot be used as a basis for moral authority. Where does that leave us?
Originally posted by telerion I've been reading Schopenhauer from time to time, and just last evening, he had something to say about this.
"Just imagine if all the criminal laws were suddenly declared by public proclamation to be abolished; I do not think that either you or I would have the courage to go home alone . . . under the protection of religious motives. On the other hand ...[text shortened]... igion"[/i]
He then continues to point out how religions often have negative moral effects.
that's very interesting.
would you go so far as to say that strict adherence to the law results in a superior moral code than strict adherence to, say, the bible?
admittedly, i am not sure such a conclusion is valid, but on the other hand, the question doesn't ask much since both the law and the bible were written by men.
Originally posted by LemonJello translation: without exception, each person is either a theist or an atheist, and there is absolutely no other possibility concerning their belief in a god or gods, nor is there any middle ground.
Well, that depends on the definition of "theism" and "atheism". In a narrow sense, "theism" is used for a belief in a god / gods who is / are immanent and transcendent. If you use that definition, deists and pantheists are not theists, but they are obviously not atheists either. And "atheism" can either just mean a lack of belief in a god or gods, as you say, or it can mean a belief that there is no god. Using the second definition, an agnostic would be neither theist nor atheist.
Otherwise, I entirely agree with you. I have had people wonder why I was a quite nice person even though I didn't believe in god. If that means that they are only nice because of their faith, that sounds kind of scary. If they would lose their faith (it happens), would they go around and steal, kill people etc.? I guess (or hope) most of them wouldn't, they just don't really think about what they are saying.
Originally posted by Nordlys Well, that depends on the definition of "theism" and "atheism". In a narrow sense, "theism" is used for a belief in a god / gods who is / are immanent and transcendent. If you use that definition, deists and pantheists are not theists, but they are obviously not atheists either. And "atheism" can either just mean a lack of belief in a god or gods, as ...[text shortened]... uess (or hope) most of them wouldn't, they just don't really think about what they are saying.
yes, you are absolutely correct. the definition of atheism is often narrowed until it is technically a definition of a strong version of atheism. in fact, if you were to go around asking people on the streets 'how would you define an atheist?', i think the vast majority of people would actually define some version of a strong atheist., ie, someone who asserts that there is no god. this only adds to the confusion concerning the inherent discrimination against atheists.
Originally posted by Langtree I know Atheists are not amoral, but you must admit your morals have no basis for absolutes, since it is your own design. Human beings, or animals as atheism would see it, are not a good basis for authority.
Who wrote the bible? Humans
Who reads the bible? Humans
Who interprets bible? Humans
What chance that the whole thing is a human construct?
Absolutes in christian morality? They shift with the tide, they have no absolutes. They claim a basis for absolutes and then make it up as they go along.
Give me an example ofyour church's moral teaching that all jesus cultists agree with
Originally posted by David C I disagree. Morals do have absolutes, whether you've had them handed to you by a "higher power" or not. For instance, killing another in cold blood is wrong. I didn't need the bible to tell me that. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", that's a moral absolute that doesn't need the endorsement of mythical godsons.
As to your final p ...[text shortened]... rum think), then it too cannot be used as a basis for moral authority. Where does that leave us?
Where do the laws for murder originate? The Old Testament established that. In atheism, man is the ultimate rule, but he is not an absolute basis right and wrong. Everything you quoted comes from God, which a true dye in the wool atheist, must not accept, if he is to be consistent.
Originally posted by Langtree Where do the laws for murder originate? The Old Testament established that. In atheism, man is the ultimate rule, but he is not an absolute basis right and wrong. Everything you quoted comes from God, which a true dye in the wool atheist, must not accept, if he is to be consistent.
Read Joshua carefully and then say the OT outlawed murder,,
Originally posted by David C I disagree. Morals do have absolutes, whether you've had them handed to you by a "higher power" or not. For instance, killing another in cold blood is wrong. I didn't need the bible to tell me that. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", that's a moral absolute that doesn't need the endorsement of mythical godsons.
As to your final p ...[text shortened]... rum think), then it too cannot be used as a basis for moral authority. Where does that leave us?
Okay, when a leopard kills a gazelle is that murder? If while eating
the gazelle the leopard killed, a lion walks up to the leopard and takes
the body of the gazelle away so it can eat it instead, is that stealing?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay Okay, when a leopard kills a gazelle is that murder? If while eating
the gazelle the leopard killed, a lion walks up to the leopard and takes
the body of the gazelle away so it can eat it instead, is that stealing?
Kelly
leopards, gazelles, lions...these creatures do not have the capacity for rational thought. people do. bad examples do not merit attention.
I AM
26 Jun '05 00:27
Back to Top