Most vile concept/aspect of atheism.

Originally posted by Halitose
Isn't the burden of proof on the atheist to provide a tenable non-theistic ethical theory?

No. The burden of proof lies with those who advance a thesis, in this case the 'existence' of god(s). Atheists do not accept this hypothesis on the strength of the evidence produced so far.

Originally posted by Halitose
Isn't the burden of proof on the atheist to provide a tenable non-theistic ethical theory?

Not if either a) the claim at issue is that atheism is incompatible with a tenable ethical theory or b) there is no tenable theistic theory. Besides, there are any number of secular ethical theories out there, with which I'm sure the vast majority of theists are unfamiliar. So, if a theist is unfamiliar with the breadth of ethical theories out there, then (issues of burden of proof aside) why should we take their skepticism seriously? Of course, if they have a general argument the conclusion of which is that God is necessary for morality, then the atheist would have to respond. I'd be happy to respond to any such argument, if it was presented in perspicuous form (i.e., a valid argument with premises explained and defended). Do any of you theists out there have such an argument?

Originally posted by Nargaguna
No. The burden of proof lies with those who advance a thesis, in this case the 'existence' of god(s). Atheists do not accept this hypothesis on the strength of the evidence produced so far.

So by your reasoning you don't subscribe to any ethical theory. Congratulations.

Originally posted by bbarr
Not if either a) the claim at issue is that atheism is incompatible with a tenable ethical theory or b) there is no tenable theistic theory. Besides, there are any number of secular ethical theories out there, with which I'm sure the vast majority of theists are unfamiliar. So, if a theist is unfamiliar with the breadth of ethical theories out there, then (i ...[text shortened]... with premises explained and defended). Do any of you theists out there have such an argument?

Fair enough. I think the closest to a challenge that you'd get from the theistic camp would be the argument that distinction cannot be made between good and evil unless there was some absolute point of reference.

Originally posted by Halitose
Fair enough. I think the closest to a challenge that you'd get from the theistic camp would be the argument that distinction cannot be made between good and evil unless there was some absolute point of reference.

Why does the absolute ethical point of reference have to be theistically derived?

Originally posted by Halitose
Fair enough. I think the closest to a challenge that you'd get from the theistic camp would be the argument that distinction cannot be made between good and evil unless there was some absolute point of reference.

But every secular ethical theory does postulate criteria that distinguish moral rightness from moral wrongness. If that is the theistic argument, then it just reveals lamentable ignorance on their part of secular ethical theory.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Why does the absolute ethical point of reference have to be theistically derived?

It doesn't. I'd like to see you do it, though.

Originally posted by bbarr
But every secular ethical theory does postulate criteria that distinguish moral rightness from moral wrongness. If that is the theistic argument, then it just reveals lamentable ignorance on their part of secular ethical theory.

Aren’t these criteria arbitrarily assigned by the preference of the postulants?

Originally posted by Halitose
Aren’t these criteria arbitrarily assigned by the preference of the postulants?

No. What gave you that idea?

Originally posted by Halitose
It doesn't. I'd like to see you do it, though.

Are you serious? Plenty of ethical theories have simple absolute points of reference having nothing to do with god; hedonism is a good example. In that case, the rule is simple: if some course of action brings pleasure to the individual making the decision, it is ethically correct, and if not then it is ethically neutral or incorrect. I'm not a hedonist, so this is not an ethical absolute I accept, but I can't differentiate it from theistic ethical absolutes in the sense that it doesn't seem any more or less absolutely correct than they do.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, from my interpretation he was attempting to say that atheism is nonsense, and we [atheists] know this to be the case. We still, however, "moronically" defend our non-belief in something we know to be false.

Makes no sense whatsoever. I want him to prove his claim, or retract it - simple as that.

Nope. Tet. was correct. I was saying that atheists knows that religion was in 100% nonsense.

Originally posted by David C
...and the Oscar for most melodramatically delivered non-sequitur of the year goes to...whodey!

To begin with I would just like to thank the academy. I would also like to thank all those who made this possible. I would like to thank God and his cohorts of coarse, as well as beelzebub and his minions, and all my freinds. This includes my deist freinds, my theist freinds, my theist-deist freinds, my atheist freinds, my agnostic freinds.......ect. Without all of you this just would not have been possible. Thanks again

Originally posted by bbarr
How does any of this follow from atheism? I'm an atheist, and I think that the purpose of life is to live well. Of course I think that we are animals, but we are also very special animals. We are conscious, reflective animals that can love and think and create; we are animals that can imbue our lives with meaning by virtue of what we value and how we live. ...[text shortened]... take seriously your claims about the possibility or justification of secular ethical theories.

We all live for various things that seem to give our life meaning. In the end, however, all is vanity because we are mortal. Have you ever read the book of Ecclesiastes? It was written by Solomon who was reported to be the wisest man who ever lived. He had all the money in the world, all the women in the world (which included about 800 concubines), and was king of the land. Who could ask for more? However, he realized that it was all vanity. He was after all a mortal man. All of his treasure would go to others eventually. All of his women would die along with him. It was all fleeting and vain. Its a good read if you get the chance. It gives you a little different perspective on life and makes you think a little.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not sure why any of us secular folk ought to take seriously your claims about the possibility or justification of secular ethical theories.

The atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self-contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self-contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.

This is an bandied assumption made by your particular brand of theist, but which fails to cut the mustard in any way. To make a claim like this you must demonstrate that:

A) Why moral absolutes should be held as opposed to an evolving set of morals which reflect the changing world views.
B) Why it is self-contradictory in nature should it be non-absolute.
C) How the theistic worldview can defend moral absolutes where atheism cannot.

Whether it is your god or human society that governs the moral state of any given population, makes little difference to the conduct of men. Thousands of theists act immorally and thousands of atheists act immorally. Also thousands on both sides act morally as a matter of everyday existence. This alone is sufficient to demonstrate that moral behaviour is not retained by any one side as a matter of faith or the lack of it, but rather as a matter of humanity and the cooperation that is required for existence.

Give me one reason why I cannot act morally and be an atheist. Since atheism is not a state of belief and says nothing about what other values I hold as a person, it is not sufficient to dscribe my worldview or how I treat my fellow humans, theist or otherwise.