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.

Particular "atheist" may be moral people, but that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism itself can not account for morality. Atheist (the lack of a belief in God) can not account for anything really. Nothing can be derived by the atheist position alone. Atheism has no epistemology, no metaphysics, no ethics, nothing beyond atheism. As a premise, nothing can be determined from atheism. So atheism itself is indeed amoral.

But by my "world view" there are no true atheist. There are only Christians, and theists. Now theist are of two types: 1) the kind that acknowledge God, 2) the kind that deny God. The kind that deny God (those that claim to be atheist) are also known as fools. The kind that acknowledge God but reject Christianity are morons. This is technically speaking of course. 😉 Some are apparently intelligent people. But that has nothing to do with atheism.

Originally posted by LemonJello
leopards, gazelles, lions...these creatures do not have the capacity for rational thought. people do. bad examples do not merit attention.

I agree, animals are not capable of abstract thinking. But the atheism can not account for the rational mind of man.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Isn't the point that atheists are capable of morality?
Surely this is true.
If an atheist's morality is similar to a theist's morality, so what?...

Interestingly enough, theism itself can not account for morality either. As a starting point, it is not much better than atheism.

There is a God, therefor....what?

Originally posted by Coletti
Particular "atheist" may be moral people, but that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism itself can not account for morality. Atheist (the lack of a belief in God) can not account for anything really. Nothing can be derived by the atheist position alone. Atheism has no epistemology, no metaphysics, no ethics, nothing beyond atheism. As a premise, not ...[text shortened]... of course. 😉 Some are apparently intelligent people. But that has nothing to do with atheism.

you are correct to say that the general atheist makes no positive assertions. rather he abstains from making the positive assertion of the theist. and yes, an empty set of propositions does not define morality.

but you are ignoring my actual claim. my claim is that many people falsely assume that the atheist is necessarily an immoral person. my claim is also that the existence of god is not a necessary condition for morality, and i have already given many reasons why i think this claim is correct.

you are also dead wrong to say that there are no true atheists. this is a false claim commonly made by theists to define atheism out of existence. it fails miserably time and time again.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Isn't the point that atheists are capable of morality?
Surely this is true.
If an atheist's morality is similar to a theist's morality, so what?
Does the theist need to look askance at the atheist's morality, even if it is the s ...[text shortened]... ice versa ...
What is important here, the morality or the source?

If they have ideas of right and wrong, don't they have morality?
I believe the questions we have been having are going deeper than
that though. Why for example are actions right and wrong, and are
there rights and wrong that are true no matter what humans want?
If there are rights and wrongs that are true no matter what humans
want, they cannot be man made, if this is true...who made them?
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
you are correct to say that the general atheist makes no positive assertions. rather he abstains from making the positive assertion of the theist. and yes, an empty set of propositions does not define morality.

but you are ignorin ...[text shortened]... heism out of existence. it fails miserably time and time again.

I disagree that atheist makes no positive assertions, they assert that
god is an empty value, there are no gods to believe in. This isn't the
same thing as having god as a null value. They also actively push the
position that all theist are wrong, that too is an assertion which
requires a positive assertion that there are no gods to believe in.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I disagree that atheist makes no positive assertions, they assert that
god is an empty value, there are no gods to believe in. This isn't the
same thing as having god as a null value. They also actively push the
position that all theist are wrong, that too is an assertion which
requires a positive assertion that there are no gods to believe in.
Kelly

you are mistaken that atheists 'actively push the
position that all theist are wrong'. some atheists do, but the general atheist does not. in fact, the general atheist does not say that the theist is necessarily wrong -- he merely observes that the theist has not adequately substantiated his claim that god exists. this observation is not a positive assertion. you are confused and you are making rash generalizations because you think all atheists are strong atheists. i am in fact a weak atheist.

i don't want to seem rude because i like you KJ, but you are demonstrating exactly the kind of ignorance that leads people to assign incorrect labels to atheists.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I disagree that atheist makes no positive assertions, they assert that
god is an empty value, there are no gods to believe in. This isn't the
same thing as having god as a null value. They also actively push the
position that all theist are wrong, that too is an assertion which
requires a positive assertion that there are no gods to believe in.
Kelly

It's an interesting situation - but I accept that the atheist does not take a positive position of the existence of God. However, even if he did, it would not matter. That is because the assertion that God exists (theism) does not in itself give us any useful knowledge. Everyone knows God exists (according to Romans) and so are without excuse for denying God. All men are theist - but that will not save them.

Knowing there is a God does not lead to knowing the God of the Bible. Nothing can be derived or deduced from the axiom that God exists. No moral code can be determined, no soteriology will result, no eschatology, no epistemology. So even if everyone admitted to what they know is true - it would not help them.

Now the self proclaimed atheist does no assert there is no God, he merely asserts he does not believe in God. One is a universal claim that would apply to all people. The other is a personal statement of faith. Atheists have a least one personal statement of faith: I believe there is no god.

Originally posted by Coletti
It's an interesting situation - but I accept that the atheist does not take a positive position of the existence of God. However, even if he did, it would not matter. That is because the assertion that God exists (theism) does not in itself give us any useful knowledge. Everyone knows God exists (according to Romans) and so are without excuse for denying ...[text shortened]... nt of faith. Atheists have a least one personal statement of faith: I believe there is no god.

Everyone knows God exists (according to Romans)

the book of romans is wrong -- i do not know that god exists. the claim that all men are theist is likewise wrong -- i am an atheist.

your belief in the ubiquity of faith is also misguided.

your view of the situation is blurry. the general atheist does not assert that he does not believe in a god; rather he is characterized by a lack of assertion and is simply described by a lack of belief in god. this is an important distinction that you have not come to grips with yet.

an example to demonstrate your blurred vision: if you have a young child who has reached no religious maturity, then that child lacks belief in god. according to any sane interpretation, she is an implicit atheist. according to your rantings, she knows god but has somehow rejected him, presumably unbeknownst to herself...but beknownst to coletti.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Everyone knows God exists (according to Romans)

the book of romans is wrong -- i do not know that god exists. the claim that all men are theist is likewise wrong -- i am an atheist.

your belief in the ubiquity of faith is also misguided.

your view of the situation is blurry. the general atheist does not assert that he does not believe in ...[text shortened]... god but has somehow rejected him, presumably unbeknownst to herself...but beknownst to coletti.[/b]

You are confusing the positive assertion that God does not exist, with the non-positive assertion that one does not believe a god exists. There is a difference. As an self proclaimed atheist, I am surprised you do not understand this. As I said, the atheist does not assert there is no God. If you were not so hell-bent on disagreeing with me, you would see that I am agreeing with you.

Originally posted by Coletti
You are confusing the positive assertion that God does not exist, with the non-positive assertion that one does not believe a god exists. There is a difference. As an self proclaimed atheist, I am surprised you do not understand this. As I said, the atheist does not assert there is no God. If you were not so hell-bent on disagreeing with me, you would see that I am agreeing with you.

i am not confused. i am also not hell-bent on disagreement, but i do admit i am being rather picky. your assertion above was not that atheists do not necessarily admit a god does not exist (such assertion is correct and i have no beef with). your assertion was that the atheist makes an assertion that he does not believe in god (just read your preceding post). this claim of yours was what i am disagreeing with. i admit it's picky and am willing to drop this discussion and move on to more important things. feel free to re-read my previous post more carefully.

in short, you seem ignorant on the concept of implicit atheism, and i think this distinction is important only in the sense that it goes against your claims that there are no 'true atheists', as my example about the child demonstrates.

Originally posted by LemonJello
you are mistaken that atheists 'actively push the
position that all theist are wrong'. some atheists do, but the general atheist does not. in fact, the general atheist does not say that the theist is necessarily wrong -- he merely observes that the theist has not adequately substantiated his claim that god exists. this observation is not a positive ...[text shortened]... strating exactly the kind of ignorance that leads people to assign incorrect labels to atheists.

I don't mean to say that 'all' anyone does anything, and did not
mean to push that point. Not all Christian push their beliefs, yet they
have them. We cannot say someone is wrong without having a clue
what right may be. Not being active in proclaiming a point does not
mean they do not have position on a point. So believing God is
a empty term meaning there are 0 gods is a position, and that is
a positive one. If your saying that someone is an atheist because
they are not sure about any god being real and are looking for proof
that sounds more like an agnostic to me not an atheist.

I understand your point about adequately substantiating a claim about
God, personally I don't worry to much about proving God is real, that
is in my opinion God's job not mine.

I'm glad also you don't make this personal as well, it makes having
a discussion interesting not painful.
Kelly

Originally posted by Coletti
It's an interesting situation - but I accept that the atheist does not take a positive position of the existence of God. However, even if he did, it would not matter. That is because the assertion that God exists (theism) does not in itself give us any useful knowledge. Everyone knows God exists (according to Romans) and so are without excuse for denying ...[text shortened]... nt of faith. Atheists have a least one personal statement of faith: I believe there is no god.

I agree with you, I believe God has revealed Himself as you have
said. It does not mean everyone will acknowledge Him, but He has
made Himself known and when everything hidden is revealed no one
will be with an excuse. I also agree simply believing in God does not
mean much either, or all the demons would be safe and they are
not.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't mean to say that 'all' anyone does anything, and did not
mean to push that point. Not all Christian push their beliefs, yet they
have them. We cannot say someone is wrong without having a clue
what right may be. Not being act ...[text shortened]... ell, it makes having
a discussion interesting not painful.
Kelly

I'm glad also you don't make this personal as well, it makes having
a discussion interesting not painful.

Yep! Sometimes it’s hard not to get personal, though, because people “say” things that impact us personally, whether they know it or not. It’s easier is person. Because you can read facial expressions, body language, etc. You can argue hard, and then laugh and give each other a hug. It’s harder to see through the “printed” words here sometimes.

Hope you’re well, Kelly.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Everyone knows God exists (according to Romans)

the book of romans is wrong -- i do not know that god exists. the claim that all men are theist is likewise wrong -- i am an atheist.

your belief in the ubiquity of faith is a ...[text shortened]... him, presumably unbeknownst to herself...but beknownst to coletti.[/b]

As I pointed out to this line or reasoning before, if you assume that
every child is a blank slate not knowing anything until they learn
it...then they do not know their parents, trees, rocks, water, and
everything else. We know they are real, so simply pointing that a child
born does not know or believe only shows that one must grow up to
get understanding nothing more. This to me does not make not
believing in God something abnormal for a new born, if that is true.
Kelly