What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you going to add anything of worth to this thread or just continue spamming with ad hominems (like the one directed at Rob) or idiocies like your last post?

If you would cease to spout your ad hominems, the total amount of insults spouted on RHP would certainly be reduced by more than 75%, marauder.

So, why don't you do us all a favour ......

What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?


Well there is communism and fascism .... and there are of course the blessings of secular liberalism, such as the right to kill your own unborn children, your handicapped born children, to kill other people such as demented persons, ..... and of course, last but not least, yourself, assisted and unassisted.

So you see every form of secularism has its own groups of human beings who can be killed for the greater good of society. As you can see they all have their own forms of mass-killings to offer. It of course depends on whom you want to get rid of in order to be able to make an educated choice between the three.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?


Well there is communism and fascism .... and there are of course the blessings of secular liberalism, such as the right to kill your own unborn children, your handicapped born children, to kill other people such as demented persons, ..... and of course, last but not least, yourself, assisted and unassisted.
...[text shortened]... on whom you want to get rid of in order to be able to make an educated choice between the three.

🙄🙄😴😴

I may be a bit slow on the intake, but usually when one writes something like this/that, they're drawing a sort of equals sign between the two. Right?

atheism/skepticism

Hmmmm...

Atheism, just like theism, doesn't really offer anything, now does it? Skepticism? Well that's just a sound approach to anything new. Just don't let skepticism blind you. Use it as a tool, and you'll find it very, very useful. Much more so than the more usual tool of reason; naïvity.

Are you skeptic about the non-existence of God or the existence of God? Or are you simply a blue-eyed believer in one of the two?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. What use is atheism/skepticism, if any? Not that is has to be useful: it could merely be empirically or logically warranted. But, crucially, utility is not reducible to, nor necessarily even positively related to, warrant. Indeed, the relation may be negative: for example, theism/credulity may be, on balanc ch circumstances? Why should warrant always be a greater source of moral obligation than use?

Freedom from religious laws. Avoiding spending time trying to reconcile religion with science. Having a moral system that one can decide upon oneself, instead of being imposed from without. Etc.

But let's suppose that, on the whole, atheism/skepticism is less useful than theism/credulity, albeit more warranted. (For example, only theism cements social bonds, despite being intellectually problematic). Could an atheist/skeptic ever be under an obligation not to promulgate atheism/skepticism under such circumstances?

Yes.

Why should warrant always be a greater source of moral obligation than use?

Huh?

Why do theists (that being anyone who believes in any god(/s)) on this forum seem to be of the opinion that anyone who is an atheist (not believing in any god(/s)) is necessarily bad? I am an atheist but I don't go around raping and killing! Not because I won't get into heaven if I do kill people, but because I don't believe in hurting people, or putting systems in place that allow people to be hurt. I don't rape and kill because I, not someone else, choose not to! To be perfectly honest I think that gives me more, not less, morals than any theist who only behaves because they're scared of the potential consequences.

Now, there is going to be an outburst at that statement, I'm not sure by whom, but someone will. I have a question for you, dear reader. How can you possibly know the way your life and morals would be if we were in a universe where god didn't exist? Under those circumstances raping and killing might be the norm for you but it wouldn't change anything for me.

Anyhoo, my point is that morals and theism are not correlated. If anything atheism offers a clear view of a universe where god does not exist. Likewise, theism offers a clear view of a universe where god does exist. Theism and atheism are choices for each individual to make themselves, and have no bearing on the real world. Unfortunately theists often choose to reject the real world for a 'spiritual realm', which as far as I can see has no physical or logical basis.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Unfortunately theists often choose to reject the real world for a 'spiritual realm', which as far as I can see has no physical or logical basis.

Perhaps the moral implications of the so-called science you hold dear have escaped you. While much can be said in support of survival of the fittest, on a human scale, such ideology is disasterous.
True, the embarrassing attempts at melding church with the state throughout European (and, on a small scale, American) history have been proof positive of man's fallen nature. However, more embarrassing, more disasterous have been the attempts to eradicate the establishment policies of God for nations, regardless of spiritual affiliations.
Outside of those establishment policies, clearly delineated in Codex 1 of the Law, man degenerates into a class which makes animals blush.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps the moral implications of the so-called science you hold dear have escaped you. While much can be said in support of survival of the fittest, on a human scale, such ideology is disasterous.
True, the embarrassing attempts at melding church with the state throughout European (and, on a small scale, American) history have been proof positive of man ...[text shortened]... early delineated in Codex 1 of the Law, man degenerates into a class which makes animals blush.

It is apparently the firm belief of the "Christians" here that Man is total scum. Lovely.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps the moral implications of the so-called science you hold dear have escaped you. While much can be said in support of survival of the fittest, on a human scale, such ideology is disasterous.
True, the embarrassing attempts at melding church with the state throughout European (and, on a small scale, American) history have been proof positive of man ...[text shortened]... early delineated in Codex 1 of the Law, man degenerates into a class which makes animals blush.

Come on then Freaky, educate me on the morals of science then. Also, whilst you're at it, educate me on why scientists are in some way less moral than non-scientists.

You also seem to think that 'survival of the fittest' is a terrible thing, whilst at the same time espousing the virtues of the capatilist system. How can those two viewpoints not be mutually exclusive?

I don't believe that in the absence of law that man degenerates necessarily into chaos, after all, laws themselves are human inventions. I just think that man is far far better at imagining ways to hurt and swindle each other than any other species...

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is apparently the firm belief of the "Christians" here that Man is total scum. Lovely.

Man is total scum. Sounds like a defense lawyer. Nonetheless, Christianity teaches that all have fallen short of the glory of God, and does not differentiate the varying degrees of the same. Just short.
Of course, there is the mention that even our righteousness is like a woman's soiled uh, menstrual rag, but that's another matter, altogether.
What is evident, however, is that God saw fit to redeem ones such as us, which, in my opinion, makes us the center of the universe. Kind of like the scummy center of the universe, but the center, even still.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Man is total scum. Sounds like a defense lawyer. Nonetheless, Christianity teaches that all have fallen short of the glory of God, and does not differentiate the varying degrees of the same. Just short.
Of course, there is the mention that even our righteousness is like a woman's soiled uh, menstrual rag, but that's another matter, altogether.
What is ...[text shortened]... of the universe. Kind of like the scummy center of the universe, but the center, even still.

That's something atheism/skepticism has to offer as compared to your warped religion: it doesn't rely on self-loathing.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I don't believe that in the absence of law that man degenerates necessarily into chaos

Well, for one, a scientist considers all data prior to drawing a conclusion. This, you failed to do, by objecting to something not asserted. No one claimed scientists are in anyway morally inferior to "non-scientists" (what is that, by the way? Aren't we all, in varying degrees, scientists, in the true sense of the word?).
The mistake that some scientists make is in applying their understanding of the biological models to the real, moral world, or worse, failing to make the distinction between the two.
Capitalism, to which I assume you refer, is survival of the fittest, but with an important caveat: the consumer. That consumer, that judge, throws the whole evolutionary model on its ear. Unless, of course, you are willing to admit there is a cook in the kitchen, as it were.
Out of curiosity, how is it that man is far, far better at imagining ways to hurt and swindle?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's something atheism/skepticism has to offer as compared to your warped religion: it doesn't rely on self-loathing.

Having no religion, and certainly no self-loathing, what does a/s offer now?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Having no religion, and certainly no self-loathing, what does a/s offer now?

A more healthy self-image than believing that you and your fellow human beings are filth. It's no wonder all the "Christians" on this site sound like lunatics; hating yourself and your brothers can't be good for your mental health.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, for one, a scientist considers all data prior to drawing a conclusion. This, you failed to do, by objecting to something not asserted. No one claimed scientists are in anyway morally inferior to "non-scientists" (what is that, by the way? Aren't we all, in varying degrees, scientists, in the true sense of the word?).
The mistake that some ...[text shortened]... ut of curiosity, how is it that man is far, far better at imagining ways to hurt and swindle?

JVG: Out of curiosity, how is it that man is far, far better at imagining ways to hurt and swindle?


Since Man is better at imagining than all the other creatures we know of, that's hardly surprising. The fact remains that even primitive man generally acts in socially constructive ways without a gun or rock to his head. That's our nature as social animals.