What Christianity Really Says

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree with all of that except the 'no morality' bit. I think some atheists have a superior morality than some of the ones pushed by theists, but neither group have a single view on the matter.

An Atheist has no reason (or right if they are truly Atheist) to declare any act "immoral." If life has no ultimate meaning and nothing exists for each of us other than this physical life, then anything goes. Even the (lame) argument that an Atheist's "morality" stems from their concern for what is "good for the human race" makes absolutely no sense because the human race's survival doesn't mean anything--and isn't necessarily good. Maybe it's better that the human race die off so "Mother Earth" can quit being destroyed. That idea is just as moral as ANY other from an Atheist perspective.

A true Atheist is a Nihilist. Everyone that claims not to believe in a creator--while claiming not to be a Nihilist--is on some level, an Agnostic. Yeah that's right I said it.

Hang on here. Morality doesn't depend on Christianity.

Morality, which anyone usually has a basic understanding of, is usually reinforced by parents and teachers be they theist or not.

Being a non-Christian is no defence in any courtroom against any of the henious crimes that have been attributed to atheists on this thread.
And everyone is well aware of this.

Even Adolf Hitler developed a form of Nazi Christianity. But I am sure that was just politically motivated. 🙄

Originally posted by caissad4
Even Adolf Hitler developed a form of Nazi Christianity. But I am sure that was just politically motivated. 🙄

It's amusing that this is the only apparently acceptable time to use the nazi and Hitler argument.

Originally posted by sumydid
An Atheist has no reason (or right if they are truly Atheist) to declare any act "immoral."

You clearly have a very different definition of the word 'immoral' than I do. What is your definition? It appears that to you, morality is doing whatever you have to to avoid getting punished by God.

.... because the human race's survival doesn't mean anything--and isn't necessarily good.
What does the human race's survival mean to you? How does theism make it more meaningful to you than to me? How does it make it necessarily good?

Maybe it's better that the human race die off so "Mother Earth" can quit being destroyed.
Oh, so now keeping mother earth in good shape is 'good'. Where does that come from? Your religion?

A true Atheist is a Nihilist. Everyone that claims not to believe in a creator--while claiming not to be a Nihilist--is on some level, an Agnostic. Yeah that's right I said it.
And I would argue that everyone who believes in a creator is no different ie they too are nihilists. I say that the meaning of life is based on what value I give it, you say it is based on what value God gives it. But there is still no 'objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value' in either view. In fact I would argue that a claim of 'objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value' is contradictory to the definitions of the words.

Originally posted by kd2acz
Hmmm, I suggested no such thing... I just asked a question. I'm sorry.

Sorry, divegeester was the jokester, not you (on that count).

I see you still have no interest in any references to dispel your ignorance on such matters. What a shocker.

Originally posted by sumydid
An Atheist has no reason (or right if they are truly Atheist) to declare any act "immoral." If life has no ultimate meaning and nothing exists for each of us other than this physical life, then anything goes. Even the (lame) argument that an Atheist's "morality" stems from their concern for what is "good for the human race" makes absolutely no sense becaus ...[text shortened]... not to be a Nihilist--is on some level, an Agnostic. Yeah that's right I said it.

🙄🙄

Read some books on secular ethics.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Helping a loved one is not 'morality', it is self serving behavior, you would know this being an evolutionist.

Interesting. So, Jesus' teachings act to reinforce self serving behavior? Some great morality source you got there! Oh wait, according to you, his instructions to love and help your neighbors don't constitute 'morality' talk!

He ...[text shortened]... ise non-selfish motivations. Would you like a reference to dispel your ignorance on this?[/b]

No, I'm sure there are plenty of 'studies' to support your pov irrespective of whether there are plenty of other studies which may present a counter view; in social studies this is usually the case. But remember we are discussing morality and twitehead was suggesting that helping a family member was in some way a moral behavior, I'm saying it isn't.

Originally posted by divegeester
No, I'm sure there are plenty of 'studies' to support your pov irrespective of whether there are plenty of other studies which may present a counter view; in social studies this is usually the case. But remember we are discussing morality and twitehead was suggesting that helping a family member was in some way a moral behavior, I'm saying it isn't.

You're saying a bunch of things in this thread, virtually none of which seem correct. What about that whole thing about how atheism is a "philosophy"? That was another joke, right?

By the way, you do realize that your argument is one big contradiction, right? You cannot say on one hand that atheism cannot give you morals; and then claim on the other that atheists, in virtue of their atheism, are committed to some version of hedonism. You cannot say that atheism cannot account for any moral dimension; and then claim that atheism is a "philosophy", wherein normative dimension is implicit to how you use the term. Again, you ought to figure out what exactly you intend to argue.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're saying a bunch of things in this thread, virtually none of which seem correct. What about that whole thing about how atheism is a "philosophy"? That was another joke, right?

By the way, you do realize that your argument is one big contradiction, right? You cannot say on one hand that atheism cannot give you morals; and then claim on the other ...[text shortened]... to how you use the term. Again, you ought to figure out what exactly you intend to argue.

I think I've been completely coherent in this thread; unlike your little rant here where you claim I'm saying things which in fact I haven't.

However, I do think atheism is a philosophy and way of thinking; you may disagree of course.

Originally posted by divegeester

However, I do think atheism is a philosophy and way of thinking;

You must be using an unusual definition of "atheist" or "philosophy" or maybe "think".

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You must be using an unusual definition of "atheist" or "philosophy" or maybe "think".

No, it's called "disagreeing with you".

Several atheists here have stated that the main reason they come to this forum is to convert theists from their foolishness, a couple have said that there have been some theists who have become atheists because of the interactions here with atheists. Actually it sounds more like proselyting.

This may not be your view of atheism, but then atheists are not a homogeneous group... are you?

Originally posted by divegeester
but then atheists are not a homogeneous group...

... yet you say they share a philosohy?

Apart from a non-belief in a supernatural being what is this shared philosophy?

Originally posted by divegeester
No, it's called "disagreeing with you".

Several atheists here have stated that the main reason they come to this forum is to convert theists from their foolishness, a couple have said that there have been some theists who have become atheists because of the interactions here with atheists. Actually it sounds more like proselyting.

This may not be your view of atheism, but then atheists are not a homogeneous group... are you?

Actually it sounds more like proselyting

I call it - 'freeing those shackled by their fears'. Although i think i may have to work on a more user friendly title.

Originally posted by divegeester
I think I've been completely coherent in this thread; unlike your little rant here where you claim I'm saying things which in fact I haven't.

However, I do think atheism is a philosophy and way of thinking; you may disagree of course.

No, you haven't been coherent. You started off by saying that atheism implies no morality. Then you said that atheism commits one to the maxim do whatever pleasures yourself. But that maxim exemplifies some version of hedonism, which has moral dimension because it relates one's own pleasure to the good. So you contradicted yourself. Again, I would suggest you do some research on 'atheism' and educate yourself on what it is in the generic sense and also what different versions there are in a more particular sense (like strong versus weak, etc, etc). But, as I mentioned, in none of those senses is 'atheism' itself a "philosophy" in the way you intend the term.

Your argument in this thread is a another diluted variant of that gem of an argument that simply contradicts itself, such as when a theist claims that atheism cannot provide one with any moral commitments and then turns around and says atheism is directly responsible for providing all sorts of bad or undesirable moral commitments.