NationStates Jolt Archive

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

bad troll!

And ignorance is bliss thus Atheism/Crik = bliss

Atheists don't think the world is meaningless, atheists try to explain it.
Also, we are humans, that means we need happiness, love and friends just like any religious folk. As such, a social model, rules and laws are needed. We have gut feelings telling us what is right and wrong to do in a society, and we care about other people without any kind of superior being telling us to. Aye?

Atheism =/= Immorality

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

*sigh* I don't need a God to tell me what's right and what's not. Or to scare me into doing what's been written down as "right" in His Book, for fear of sulfurous lightning bolts striking me and mine dead.

*makes popcorn and settles in to watch*

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

Oh dear. All non-religious types MUST be teh ebil :rolleyes:

bad troll!

And ignorance is bliss thus Atheism/Crik = bliss

*lol*

As such, a social model, rules and laws are needed.

Why would anyone care about these rules/laws?

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?Not morality, ethics. And they've been around a lot longer than you can imagine.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

Here we go again. Atheism does not equal Nihilism. Plenty of people believe that while there is no inherent meaning to life out there you make your own meaning. And morality comes from reason and logic.

Why would anyone care about these rules/laws?

Atheism =/= Anarchy

Why would anyone care about these rules/laws?Self preservation. Societies in which no one cares about these laws collapse and no longer exist. It's that simple.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Morals and ethics in no way require the threat of a cosmic spanking. Most people get them from parents more than religion.
Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? See above. I don't need a god to know what is right and wrong.
Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you?There is a gut feeling, it just isn't because of god.
Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless?Personal satisfaction with oneself? The world isn't meaningless without a god anymore than it is with a god.
With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy?Again, see above. Additionally, we don't need meaning to be happy. How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?
the fuck?

Atheism =/= Anarchy
And anarchy != lawlessness

Why would anyone care about these rules/laws?

Because we all want to live happily? Excuse me, but going around stealing and killing other people is not exacly my ideal of happiness. Leave alone the stealing and killing, the being respectful towards other humans and animals is fine enough. We are all different, and we all have different views of the world, but it doesn't mean we can't respect each other in what we all want to do (as long as it doesn't harms others).

Oh dear. All non-religious types MUST be teh ebil :rolleyes:


Yes because asking a few questions is exactly the same as that:rolleyes:

If I am against atheism, even someone who can just about add 1 and 1 together will know that doesn't make me think atheists are evil.

Thats like saying that someone who would rather live in a communist society thinks that all capitalists are evil.

Self preservation. Societies in which no one cares about these laws collapse and no longer exist. It's that simple.

Or that. I failed horribly to explain that and just rambled around about happiness. :p

... where would any sense of morality come from?

Golden Rule, FTW!

Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from?

It's odd to me that religious types seem to feel that people need to feel obligated to not do harm to others.

What about not doing harm to others just cause it's the right thing to do, instead of through "obligation" to some dogmatic principle?

Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you?

You're under the mistaken impression that secular people have no way of discerning right from wrong.

Plenty of religious people have had this particular problem as well.

Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless?

Check the Heinlein quote in my sig for one possible answer.

With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

Oh I don't know, we seem to be muddling along just fine so far. ;)

Are people still feeding this one? Must be since it's still around. Getting old, though...

Why would anyone care about these rules/laws?
the same way animal societies obey their social rules......human societies rules are instinctual......

Atheism doesn't mean immorality. It doesn't take a magical sky dude to tell me right from wrong. In fact, some folks theorize that a basic morality is instinctive to humans. However, if you need to believe in god in order to restrain yourself from going on a crime spree, please feel free to kneel and pray all you want.

Science H. Logic, we would actually have to base our rules and morality around things we can grasp and understand! No more imaginary or incomprehensible beings to dictate our laws, just what we know and understand! SCIENCE BE PRAISED!

Because we all want to live happily? Excuse me, but going around stealing and killing other people is not exacly my ideal of happiness. Leave alone the stealing and killing, the being respectful towards other humans and animals is fine enough. We are all different, and we all have different views of the world, but it doesn't mean we can't respect each other in what we all want to do (as long as it doesn't harms others).

What about all the people who would love to go around stabbing people, killing people as that makes the live happily, who are not doing so at the moment due to their religious/moral beliefs?

Yes because asking a few questions is exactly the same as that:rolleyes:

If I am against atheism, even someone who can just about add 1 and 1 together will know that doesn't make me think atheists are evil.

Thats like saying that someone who would rather live in a communist society thinks that all capitalists are evil.

No, you thinking that atheists are evil comes from the fact that you think morality only comes from God. I would give you an example, but I would just be copying and pasting your entire OP.

Are people still feeding this one? Must be since it's still around. Getting old, though...

It's been a slow day. Feed them juuuust enough to keep them alive, and barely interesting.


Barely.

Are people still feeding this one? Must be since it's still around. Getting old, though...

have to do something between masturbating I guess…

What about all the people who would love to go around stabbing people, killing people as that makes the live happily, who are not doing so at the moment due to their religious/moral beliefs?

Maybe then they would have to stop stabbing and killing people because of the real consequances, such as a long jail sentence and possible vigilante justice. SCIENCE BE PRAISED!

have to do something between masturbating I guess…

Or if you happen to be somewhere that's not an option, troll-feeding will do.

How could objective morality exist without a god?

have to do something between masturbating I guess…

Wash your hands?

How could objective morality exist without a god?

Quite easily, though you cannot see it.

You heard of this thing... Now what do they call it... Ah yes, common sense. It's much better than any religion.

I personally don't need a book written by some old crazy man to know what's good and what's wrong. If someone wants to live by an old dusty book, well, that's fine for me, just keep out of my way just like I keep out of yours.

Quite easily, though you cannot see it.

The majority of athiest do not believe in an objective good.

You heard of this thing... Now what do they call it... Ah yes, common sense. It's much better than any religion.

I personally don't need a book written by some old crazy man to know what's good and what's wrong. If someone wants to live by an old dusty book, well, that's fine for me, just keep out of my way just like I keep out of yours.

Are you aware that some peoples common sense is different to others?

What about all the people who would love to go around stabbing people, killing people as that makes the live happily, who are not doing so at the moment due to their religious/moral beliefs?

What about 'em?

The psychos come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. Doesn't mean the devout ones don't snap just as often as the rest.

Why this example? Why are religious people always bringing up outlandish scenarios to try and prove their points?

None of the rest of us worry about such things on a daily basis...perhaps you need a to draw a little more courage from your faith. ;)

The majority of athiest do not believe in an objective good.

You know the majority of atheists personally, and have asked them?

What about all the people who would love to go around stabbing people, killing people as that makes the live happily, who are not doing so at the moment due to their religious/moral beliefs?

That's because people are stupid, simple as that. It's sad that they need a mental idea of God and false morallity to stop them from turning to crime. While that might be one of the good things about religion (problably stopped a few crimes), doesn't mean we need religion to stop us from "immorallity". Also, it's just like everything else, look at all the religious folk that DO commit crimes and say they are in the name of God? Look at all the religious folk that DO commit crimes and pray for redemption afterwards? That exists. Just like atheists that commit crimes, and atheists that don't commit crimes, and same about religious folks.

Why don't you ask again when you're done with college, repugnant little troll vandal.

Why don't you ask again when you're done with college, repugnant little troll vandal.

He'd have to finish high school first.

Maybe then they would have to stop stabbing and killing people because of the real consequances, such as a long jail sentence and possible vigilante justice. SCIENCE BE PRAISED!

Fair point, but what about things that don't deserve jail or punishment etc..

Why would anyone bother to be nice to people? Help people? Not be a nusciance? Be sensible?

The majority of athiest do not believe in an objective good.

The majority of my friends are atheists or agnostic/atheist and they all do believe in an objective good. Hell, I'm atheist and I never commited a crime in my life, nor I plan on doing it. I've always helped people the most I can. While "good" and "evil" are terms that can be used to many things by different people, I'm talking about a basic set of rules that allow us to live in relative harmony with each other.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

Yes because asking a few questions is exactly the same as that:rolleyes:

If I am against atheism, even someone who can just about add 1 and 1 together will know that doesn't make me think atheists are evil.

Thats like saying that someone who would rather live in a communist society thinks that all capitalists are evil.

Well ok then, to turn your thread back on yourself. Why would you assume a lack of faith = a culture turning into chaos? Aren't most of the middle-eastern countries more faithful than the western ones? Are they all truely happy? Jihad anyone?

....and the comment about atheists being teh ebil was just an off-the-cuff remark.

Having faith does not make you happy/morally correct/non anarchistic. Many atrocities have been carried out in the name of religion since the dawn of time.

Morality etc. comes from your upbringing, from your parents, your peers etc.

I'm an atheist, I do help people if they need it, I've never hurt anyone, stolen anything, destroyed property or done anything that bad.

I will answer anything else you have to ask.

He'd have to finish high school first.

Touche

Fair point, but what about things that don't deserve jail or punishment etc..

Why would anyone bother to be nice to people? Help people? Not be a nusciance? Be sensible?

Because we are human beings. Simple as that. Do you honestly believe that only the commands of a Higher Being keep human society from dissolving in a welter of blood and horror? Is your world-view that bleak? Who's been putting these things in your head, child?

Fair point, but what about things that don't deserve jail or punishment etc..

Why would anyone bother to be nice to people? Help people? Not be a nusciance? Be sensible?

Same reason. What compels a christian to be nice to people? Heaven? Is that it?
Well, I know many good christians, but guess what, I know a lot of christians who couldn't care less about the well being of other people, and only care about themselves.

Because we are human beings. Simple as that. Do you honestly believe that only the commands of a Higher Being keep human society from dissolving in a welter of blood and horror? Is your world-view that bleak? Who's been putting these things in your head, child?

No, nice assumption though. Wouldn't expect much else then baseless asumptions from you though.

I believe that a sense of purpouse and of award after you're life will inspire a society much more to do good then a society with no meaning or purpouse.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

It's called the Golden Rule. Genetically, humans are predisposed to reciprocate good behavior and punish anti-social behavior.

Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy?

You're assuming here that an atheist culture would not recognize meaning, but it would simply not recognize divine meaning. There is a difference.

An atheist culture could, for instance, recognize personal flourishing as the ultimate good and that which gives meaning to life. People would desire to achieve what is good and to do good based on their desire to flourish, which they would recognize as the form of their well-being as human individuals. They would recognize flourishing as desirable, not merely desired, because it is what is in their best interests as living beings.

No, nice assumption though. Wouldn't expect much else then baseless asumptions from you though.

I believe that a sense of purpouse and of award after you're life will inspire a society much more to do good then a society with no meaning or purpouse.

Sticks and stones ...

Why is assuming that human beings will help each other baseless?

Sticks and stones ...

Why is assuming that human beings will help each other baseless?

I meant the other part, about me believing that devine command is the only way that people will do good, is an assumption.

No, nice assumption though. Wouldn't expect much else then baseless asumptions from you though.

I believe that a sense of purpouse and of award after you're life will inspire a society much more to do good then a society with no meaning or purpouse.

So "follow these rules or you'll burn forever" is better than "follow these rules or else you'll be punished"?

Of course there are more examples of the religious "sense of purpose" and "afterlife reward" causing more harm to society than there are atheistic ones.

I meant the other part, about me believing that devine command is the only way that people will do good, is an assumption.

Going by the OP, it seemed a reasonable one to make.

This is either a troll, or a laughable Christian.
Assuming it isn’t a troll…

I find it really funny when religious people make comments about how god is the only source of morality. If the only thing that keeps you from being a pillaging homicidal maniac is the fear of hell, then you are going there anyway. Pretending to be a good person because you are afraid of hell does not make you a good person.

Someone around here used to have a quote in their sig line which basically said:

You will always have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things, but for a good person to do evil, that takes religion.

Badly paraphrased, but I think it gets the point across.

So "follow these rules or you'll burn forever" is better than "follow these rules or else you'll be punished"?

Of course there are more examples of the religious "sense of purpose" and "afterlife reward" causing more harm to society than there are atheistic ones.

No, i am not talking about punishment or "rules" at the moment. Just a sense of fulfillment, purpouse, meaning.

So "follow these rules or you'll burn forever" is better than "follow these rules or else you'll be punished"?

Of course there are more examples of the religious "sense of purpose" and "afterlife reward" causing more harm to society than there are atheistic ones.

Really? The only truly atheistic society I can really think of, is Stalins. Yeah great society there :rolleyes:

No, i am not talking about punishment or "rules" at the moment. Just a sense of fulfillment, purpouse, meaning.

Which isn't exclusive to religion.

It all boils down to "get your fulfullment, purpose, meaning in this way or you'll burn forever".

No, i am not talking about punishment or "rules" at the moment. Just a sense of fulfillment, purpouse, meaning.

People make their own meaning, purpose, etc. of life. I don't need some book to tell me what to do with my life, I've got my own goals to fufill.

No, i am not talking about punishment or "rules" at the moment. Just a sense of fulfillment, purpouse, meaning.

Ok then, other than Jesus, God and your study of the bible, what else do you like? Nothing? Is that really all you have to live for? I surely hope not.
Atheists don't have Jesus, God or the Bible. Why? They aren't logical. They don't make sense, we prefer the truth, or what's closer to the truth.
What drives us then? Basic humanism, we are curious, we seek knowledge.
We like to go out, watch movies, hear music, be with friends and family, sports, travelling and a huge ammount of several other activities. Don't you?

No, i am not talking about punishment or "rules" at the moment. Just a sense of fulfillment, purpouse, meaning.

I find fulfillment and purpose and meaning in my everyday life, in the love I share with my partner of 23 years, in the beauty and majesty of the universe, in books and music and art, all without the promise of a heavenly afterlife or the threat of a hellish one. I find meaning and purpose and fulfillment in the feel of well-knead bread dough under my hands, in the way it smells as it cooks and in the taste of it warm from the oven. No flights of angels are necessary.

Really? The only truly atheistic society I can really think of, is Stalins. Yeah great society there :rolleyes:

So there was no Russian Orthodox church? Try again.

Which isn't exclusive to religion.


But does not apply to athiesm.


It all boils down to "get your fulfullment, purpose, meaning in this way or you'll burn forever".

Most religions don't actually believe in a hell. But for the religions that do believe in a "hell", they at least act as a deterrent.

Really? The only truly atheistic society I can really think of, is Stalins. Yeah great society there :rolleyes:

Look at the religious ones? Well, there aren't many today. Why is that? Because developed countries have freedom of religion. Or you enjoyed when, back in the day, you had to be a catholic or else you'd burn alive in the fire?

Oh and, atheist doesn't define what people are. It's just a factor, you know.

So there was no Russian Orthodox church? Try again.

You fail at russian history.

No, i am not talking about punishment or "rules" at the moment. Just a sense of fulfillment, purpouse, meaning.

I already have that self-actualizing through developing my talents, my character, my self-respect, and a positive sense of life.

But does not apply to athiesm.

And since this has already been shown to be wrong.....



Most religions don't actually believe in a hell. But for the religions that do believe in a "hell", they at least act as a deterrent.

Like I said. "Do it our way or burn forever" is not "fulfillment".

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

unlike you, it isn't a fear of getting spanked by the great cosmic babysitter that stops me from treating other like shit.

It's a philosophy of equality that does not stem from the selfish desire to stay out of hell.


in my mind, religious types are truly some of the most pessimistic, self-centered idiots on the planet.

You think that if it were not for fear of retribution, people would behave like animals. You think so low of humanity that you need to imagine a supernatural punishment for bad behavior, and think that this is the only thing that stops humans from ripping each other apart.

and self-centered?

You believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, being who created the universe in a whim.

And guess what he cares about? you. this is literally the creature who created the entire universe, and he has nothing better to do with his time than to dote over you like an intergalactic nursemaid.


people with your mindset see only what is terrible in humanity, and consider all of us 'heathens' to be monsters without mercy or morality.

any great achievement made by a mortal man is torn from his arms and attributed to the fairy princess. It wasn't the skills of a doctor that saved that man, it was a miracle from God!

If you see your humanity in the mirror and see a monster, that's your problem.

The rest of us aren't so gullible.

You fail at russian history.

So explain to us how there were no religious people during Stalin's reign then.

I'd like to hear that one.

It's called the Golden Rule. Genetically, humans are predisposed to reciprocate good behavior and punish anti-social behavior.

This is an interesting an idea, but how can we be sure of this? I mean, is there any culture where there has been no effect whatsoever of religion?

You fail at russian history.

How? You made a claim that Stalinist Russia was completely "athiest". You are wrong. Again.

You fail at russian history.

And you fail at human history.

You set up the strawman of a completely atheistic society just to call atheists names. There never will be a completely atheistic society of human beings because some people need the fulfillment that believing in a higher being gives them. Some people do not. That doesn't make them immoral or lawless, as you imply. That doesn't mean they ignore their neighbors' distress.

But does not apply to athiesm.

Incorrect. People make their own instead of it comming from a religion. You are really operating off of alot of incorrect assumptions about atheism man. If you going to come in here asking questions at least know what your talking about instead of setting up one grotesque strawman after another.

So explain to us how there were no religious people during Stalin's reign then.

I'd like to hear that one.

There were but they would be quickly silenced by Stalin if they ever spoke out. The Russian orthadox church was crushed during Stalins reign, the buildings remained, but were not used for mass etc.. There is even an example of one being used as a museum of atheism.

Most religions don't actually believe in a hell. But for the religions that do believe in a "hell", they at least act as a deterrent.

Hell is no detterrent. All those who commit evil believe they are doing good. They treat people as a means to an end, not an end itself. Many who believe in hell still commit acts of evil.

Incorrect. People make their own instead of it comming from a religion. You are really operating off of alot of incorrect assumptions about atheism man. If you going to come in here asking questions at least know what your talking about instead of setting up one grotesque strawman after another.

Nonsence. How can artificial meaning have any real merit. It means nothing in reality.

There were but they would be quickly silenced by Stalin if they ever spoke out. The Russian orthadox church was crushed during Stalins reign, the buildings remained, but were not used for mass etc.. There is even an example of one being used as a museum of atheism.

Then that's the work of one mad fascist dictator, not the nation as a whole. Religious people can be crazy too.

I doubt somehow that a non-fascist completely atheistic society would ever turn out representative of Stalin era Russia.

This is an interesting an idea, but how can we be sure of this? I mean, is there any culture where there has been no effect whatsoever of religion?

Early societies had intense communalistic bonds, and many of them predate any sort of religious system of morality. Religion, rather, served as a means of understanding the world around them.

Then that's the work of one mad fascist dictator, not the nation as a whole. Religious people can be crazy too.

I am perfectly aware of that. The vast majority of corrupt societies tend to be religious. However, one person made the claim that most athiest societies are completely fine or something like that, but I was saying that Stalins was the only real athiestic society i could think of.

Early societies had intense communalistic bonds, and many of them predate any sort of religious system of morality. Religion, rather, served as a means of understanding the world around them.

Point taken. But did they really exsist in a moral society, back then? It seems they stuck together to survive, (if we are talking cave men era).

Nonsence. How can artificial meaning have any real merit. It means nothing in reality.

Just because I make something up doesn't mean it has no meaning. Paper money has no real value aside from what we ascribe to it. Its just paper and yet its the money standard in the U.S. Just because we make our own meaning does not make it any less valid then the people who decide to ascribe to what they believe from a book or a religion.

Point taken. But did they really exsist in a moral society, back then? It seems they stuck together to survive, (if we are talking cave men era).

But isn't behaving in a "moral" way towards others a survival strategy?

I am perfectly aware of that. The vast majority of corrupt societies tend to be religious. However, one person made the claim that most athiest societies are completely fine or something like that, but I was saying that Stalins was the only real athiestic society i could think of.

Which isn't what was said at all. Try reading the thread instead of making up more strawmen.

Just because I make something up doesn't mean it has no meaning. Paper money has no real value aside from what we ascribe to it. Its just paper and yet its the money standard in the U.S. Just because we make our own meaning does not make it any less valid then the people who decide to ascribe to what they believe from a book or a religion.

Yes it does, notes are shares in the countries wealth. They also technically are suppost to have a value of the gold reserves ascribed to them, and mean an I O U effectively.

I am perfectly aware of that. The vast majority of corrupt societies tend to be religious. However, one person made the claim that most athiest societies are completely fine or something like that, but I was saying that Stalins was the only real athiestic society i could think of.

Stalin was a dictator, it had nothing to do with atheism.

Stalin was a dictator, it had nothing to do with atheism.

But the culture after a few generations was completely athiest.

Well if you take a cynical look at it most of our conventional morality is based off ideas that strengthen the chances of the group surviving.

No murder-weakens gene pool removes possible gatherers, defenders etc

No incest-inbreeding screws the gene pool again.

Theft-would produce tensions within the group that affect it's ability to work together and thus reduces survivability.

Help elderly-increases the knowledge pool of the group.

I could go on but I think you can see where I'm coming from.

I am perfectly aware of that. The vast majority of corrupt societies tend to be religious. However, one person made the claim that most athiest societies are completely fine or something like that, but I was saying that Stalins was the only real athiestic society i could think of.

Again, just because Stalin made it so, you can't really claim his era to be real atheistic society if there were people who still believed, or who were raised with religious ideals.

For a truely atheistic society it'd have to start from scratch with no mention of god/religious study.

May I ask your religious beliefs and how you came by them?

But the culture after a few generations was completely athiest.

Apart from the continuing existence of the Orthodox Church and all. (No matter how small)

Yes it does, notes are shares in the countries wealth. They also technically are suppost to have a value of the gold reserves ascribed to them, and mean an I O U effectively.

Not in the US, we went of the gold standard some 35 years ago.

But the culture after a few generations was completely athiest.

You fail at Russian History.

Again, just because Stalin made it so, you can't really claim his era to be real atheistic society if there were people who still believed, or who were raised with religious ideals.

For a truely atheistic society it'd have to start from scratch with no mention of god/religious study.

May I ask your religious beliefs and how you came by them?

I am a converted catholic.

Apart from the continuing existence of the Orthodox Church and all. (No matter how small)

The reamins of a crushed church in hiding affected about 0.01% of the Russian population.

But isn't behaving in a "moral" way towards others a survival strategy?

Hmm *chuckles* this could be said, in the way that stealings someones bag ends you up in prison (so to survive be moral, I see) But what if you steal someone's bag and get away with it. You survive, but its not moral..;)

Are you honestly such a psychopath that the only thing keeping you from murdering and raping is the fear of hell? Is the concept of people actually being good so foreign? Can you honestly not comprehend the possibility that people can actually be moral without coercion? Do you have any shred of humanity left inside of you?

The reamins of a crushed church in hiding affected about 0.01% of the Russian population.

http://atheism.about.com/library/world/KZ/bl_RussiaOrthodoxHistory.htm

The League of the Militant Godless, established in 1925, directed a nationwide campaign against the Orthodox Church and all other organized religions. The extreme position of that organization eventually led even the Soviet government to disavow direct connection with its practices. In 1940 an estimated 30,000 religious communities of all denominations survived in all the Soviet Union, but only about 500 Russian Orthodox parishes were open at that time, compared with the estimated 54,000 that had existed before World War I

Are you honestly such a psychopath that the only thing keeping you from murdering and raping is the fear of hell? Is the concept of people actually being good so foreign? Can you honestly not comprehend the possibility that people can actually be moral without coercion? Do you have any shred of humanity left inside of you?

Again nice false generalised baseless asumptions there.

Hmm *chuckles* this could be said, in the way that stealings someones bag ends you up in prison (so to survive be moral, I see) But what if you steal someone's bag and get away with it. You survive, but its not moral..;)

But someone else might steal your bag. That the action may be reciprocated in the future is what drives morality.

Hmm *chuckles* this could be said, in the way that stealings someones bag ends you up in prison (so to survive be moral, I see) But what if you steal someone's bag and get away with it. You survive, but its not moral..;)

You're being disingenuous. I was talking about a survival strategy for a group of people, not for an individual. If a person could manage outside of society - completely outside - then stealing might actually be a survival strategy for that person. That's not possible, though, unless one removes oneself from the company of others, in which case steaking is moot because there's no one to steal from. ;)

Again nice false generalised baseless asumptions there.

From the child who cannot understand that one does not need fear to be a good person.

http://atheism.about.com/library/world/KZ/bl_RussiaOrthodoxHistory.htm

The League of the Militant Godless, established in 1925, directed a nationwide campaign against the Orthodox Church and all other organized religions. The extreme position of that organization eventually led even the Soviet government to disavow direct connection with its practices. In 1940 an estimated 30,000 religious communities of all denominations survived in all the Soviet Union, but only about 500 Russian Orthodox parishes were open at that time, compared with the estimated 54,000 that had existed before World War I

Thats one view.

Anyway whats the point in hijacking the thread in this direction, if stalinsim wasn't athiestic, then I can't think of any purely athiestic culture.

Yes it does, notes are shares in the countries wealth. They also technically are suppost to have a value of the gold reserves ascribed to them, and mean an I O U effectively.

Still its paper that is ascribed a value created by us. Just because someone creates a meaning for themselves does not mean it doesn't affect reality or does nothing. Plenty of people live their lives according to standards not created by some sort of diety and its just as vaild as those who take meaning from one diety or another.

Communist societies are supposed to be atheist societies by default. However, because people want to believe what ends up happening is that certain religions become registered by the state as acceptable. The idea that only one ideal or religion is the best way to create a state leads to dictatorial policies. Putting a single blanket idea as the ultimate guide to moral thinking is a great way to create tyranny like we have in theocracies, some communist governments, dictatorships, and similar ways of thought. Believing we should live under a single religion, a single exclusive political system, a single belief system determined by a single dictatorial individual leads to lots of problems.

Again nice false generalised baseless asumptions there.

Those seemed to be very specific questions directed at you. Care to answer one or two?

From the child who cannot understand that one does not need fear to be a good person.

You still baselessly assume that that is the reason I do good.

Point taken. But did they really exsist in a moral society, back then? It seems they stuck together to survive, (if we are talking cave men era).

Human natures tends towards society, not stark individualism. The basis of human morality are those forces that keep humans banded together to work for common goals.

You still baselessly assume that that is the reason I do good.

You stated that atheists cannot do good because they don't have the threat of hell hanging above their heads.

You stated that atheists cannot do good because they don't have the threat of hell hanging above their heads.

Where?

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?
Well, atheists in the west usually replace Christian morality with Christian-inspired secular ideologies, such as humanism.

Where?

Implied would be a better word. Not once did you mention being a good person because it is the right thing to do. There's really only one other option here.

Once again, I ask, is it honestly so difficult to understand that people will do good things because they are good things? Do you honestly have no moral compass of your own?

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

well i treat others how i would like them to treat me.

i don't need the fear of hell to be a good person.

The refers logic is that religious people are only good because if not they will go to hell (or whatever)

Feeling lazy but since your whole argument seems to be that without God, Heaven and Hell there would be no real morality we can easily take that view. After all you've been saying that without belief in spiritual consequences, which are hell/denying of heaven ie. punishment, there is no reason not to do bad things such as slit someones throat because they stepped on your shadow.

... where would any sense of morality come from?
As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved,the true, proper source of objective moral fact is not the word of some non-existent invisible man in the sky, but man's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest to survive.

Where would any obligation to help people,
Well, there is no obligation to help people. In fact, altruism is pure evil.

to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you?
Because it is not a "gut feeling" that tells one what is right or wrong but one's rational mind.

Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?
Who said atheists believe the world is meaningless? That's quite a strawman you've got there, commie.

Implied would be a better word. Not once did you mention being a good person because it is the right thing to do. There's really only one other option here.

Most religions do not even believe in a hell. Most religious people do good through love of God etc..


Once again, I ask, is it honestly so difficult to understand that people will do good things because they are good things? Do you honestly have no moral compass of your own?

To be truly athiest means to not believe in an objective morality, that means there are no such thing as good or bad actions.

I stand beaten, I was merely argueing for the sake of trying to see the other point of view. But clearly no, Criik you're on your own.

It's odd to me that religious types seem to feel that people need to feel obligated to not do harm to others.
Who doesn't? Hence, ideologies and laws.

What about not doing harm to others just cause it's the right thing to do, instead of through "obligation" to some dogmatic principle?
See humanism. It's not greatly different from Christianity, except for the important lack of a God.

Most religions do not even believe in a hell. Most religious people do good through love of God etc..

Most religions /= most religious people. The largest denominations (christian, muslim, hindu )all have afterlife punishments/rewards.



To be truly athiest means to not believe in an objective morality, that means there are no such thing as good or bad actions.

Really? Is this in the "Athiest handbook"?

To be truly athiest means to not believe in an objective morality, that means there are no such thing as good or bad actions.

Prove it. Why should I need a god to tell me that rape, murder, torture, genocide, theft, and the like are wrong?

Once again, can you honestly not understand why those would be wrong without a supreme being stating so? Can you honestly not understand what is wrong with hurting people?

And you fail Criik by assuming that without God or religion we can't create a socially based objective morality that would work instead. After all from an atheists point of view thats what you have once you remove all the references to God from religious texts there are social reasons for most of the morality pesent.

I'm curious though Linus and Lucy how is altruism pure evil? Can you provide a link?

To be truly athiest means to not believe in an objective morality,

Wrong.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

An atheist simply does not believe in a deity.

Most atheists don't believe in objective morality, true--but they're idiots. They're evil. They're wrong.

Morality is indeed objective--but its source is not a non-existent invisible man in the sky, but man's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest for its survival.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

I certainly don't help others unless it is something in which I also benifit from. You religious fools waste your time doing good deeds, there is no heaven and hell and only idiots believe there is. I do whatever I can to make my life easier often at the expense of others. I've committed benifit fraud and petty theft but right now I'm raking in a lot of cash by selling hard drugs. I also go on the occasional killing spree just for shits and giggles.

:rolleyes:

Most religions do not even believe in a hell. Most religious people do good through love of God etc..



To be truly athiest means to not believe in an objective morality, that means there are no such thing as good or bad actions.

Fear of God, I think. And again, all "atheist" means is to not believe in God or a supernatural higher power. The definition says nothing about "objective morality." Besides which, the "objective morality" of believers is pretty subjective, in that a Christian's morality stems from one tradition, a Jew's from andother, a Hindu's from a third, and so n.

Most religions /= most religious people. The largest denominations (christian, muslim, hindu )all have afterlife punishments/rewards.


Thats why I also mentioned most religious people.


Really? Is this in the "Athiest handbook"?

No but to be an athiest and believe in Goodness/evil as an entity would be almost a self paradox.

To be truly athiest means to not believe in an objective morality, that means there are no such thing as good or bad actions.

I don't remember ever seeing something that said being an atheist meant denying the belief in objective morality. I know being an atheist deals with belief in a deity and you can still believe in objective morality without believing in a god. Stop setting up these rediculous strawmen.

Most atheists don't believe in objective morality, true--but they're idiots. They're evil. They're wrong.


:rolleyes:

No but to be an athiest and believe in Goodness/evil as an entity would be almost a self paradox.

But good and evil can be believed in as a concept.

Thats religious types who believe in goodness/god, evil/devil as an entity I view them as social labels for that which is helpful and harmful to a peaceful society.

And you fail Criik by assuming that without God or religion we can't create a socially based objective morality that would work instead. After all from an atheists point of view thats what you have once you remove all the references to God from religious texts there are social reasons for most of the morality pesent.

I'm curious though Linus and Lucy how is altruism pure evil? Can you provide a link?

There would be no reason for people to care about this artificial and subjective morality.

Thats why I also mentioned most religious people.

While combining it w/ the statement that "most religions don't have punishment" as a justification that religion gives purpose not based on punishment.



No but to be an athiest and believe in Goodness/evil as an entity would be almost a self paradox.

Now we've gone from right/wrong to good/evil.

No but to be an athiest and believe in Goodness/evil as an entity would be almost a self paradox.

How does this logically follow? An atheist simply does not believe in a god or gods.

Once again, I have to ask, do you honestly not see any inherent problem in harming other people?

jeez...

atheism is evil repent sinners! and kill harry potter! (cuz' atheism is co-oping with satanism in an evil plot to kill all christians :rolleyes:

jeez...

atheism is evil repent sinners! and kill harry potter! (cuz' atheism is co-oping with satanism in an evil plot to kill all christians :rolleyes:

Nice way to steryotype.

How does this logically follow? An atheist simply does not believe in a god or gods.

Once again, I have to ask, do you honestly not see any inherent problem in harming other people?

People may personally have a problem with it, other people may not. Morality is subjective without a God.

Nice way to steryotype.

You mean like your "Athiest = no morality" meme?

And you fail Criik by assuming that without God or religion we can't create a socially based objective morality
No, a "socially based" morality is incorrect.

The only objectively proper moral code is the one that follows logically from man's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest to survive.

I'm curious though Linus and Lucy how is altruism pure evil? Can you provide a link?

Would you agree that life requires action? That, if everyone sat around with his thumb up his ass all day, we'd all be up shit creek?

Nice way to steryotype.

Thank you.

jeez...

atheism is evil repent sinners! and kill harry potter! (cuz' atheism is co-oping with satanism in an evil plot to kill all christians :rolleyes:

Atheists are Satanists, they just don't know it. By choosing to go against God they are indirectly working for the devil. Atheists are EVIL!!!! :eek:

There would be no reason for people to care about this artificial and subjective morality.

Self-interest. If there is nothing preventing you from killing someone, then there is nothing preventing you from being killed.

While combining it w/ the statement that "most religions don't have punishment" as a justification that religion gives purpose not based on punishment.


What?


Now we've gone from right/wrong to good/evil.

Which are the same thing.

People may personally have a problem with it, other people may not. Morality is subjective without a God.

So it's wrong to kill someone for any reason?

You mean like your "Athiest = no morality" meme?

No my apparent "athiesm = evil/ Harry Potter is evil" theme.

There would be no reason for people to care about this artificial and subjective morality.

Yet again you're wrong it is in peoples best interests to live by it as it provides protection for them through law and justice. It would be taught to them as children and reinforced through media.

Besides I actually believe all morality is subjective and artificial and that the only truth is the law of the jungle.

People may personally have a problem with it, other people may not. Morality is subjective without a God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

Just one of the many beliefs on morality that an athiest can hold.

Which are the same thing.
Nope. It is quite possible to commit an evil act that is still morally correct.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

Fuck off and go play with your Jesus doll.

Yet again you're wrong it is in peoples best interests to live by it as it provides protection for them through law and justice. It would be taught to them as children and reinforced through media.

Besides I actually believe all morality is subjective and artificial and that the only truth is the law of the jungle.

Laws and morality are seperate. You wouldn't get laws saying be nice, be helpful, be freindly woud you.

jeez...

atheism is evil repent sinners! and kill harry potter! (cuz' atheism is co-oping with satanism in an evil plot to kill all christians :rolleyes:

Atheists are Satanists, they just don't know it. By choosing to go against God they are indirectly working for the devil. Atheists are EVIL!!!! :eek:
Sheesh, school must be out.

People may personally have a problem with it, other people may not. Morality is subjective without a God.

Says you. We say it isn't. I know the difference between right and wrong and I don't believe in God. Now what? Oh wait, I'm a lesbian, so that's probably skewed my outlook on things. Dang, how could I forget?

Which are the same thing.

How exactly are right n wrong, good and evil the same thing?

You must have a made a wrong decision in your life, does that make you evil?

Nope. It is quite possible to commit an evil act that is still morally correct.

Thats called a paradox.

Thats like saying, it's quite possible to go up whilst going down.

What?

Are you illiterate? You associated "most religions" w/ "most religious people" to make a false strawman again. Since "most people" believe in afterlife punishment, your argument is false.



Which are the same thing.

No, they are not.

How exactly are right n wrong, good and evil the same thing?

You must have a made a wrong decision in your life, does that make you evil?

An action that is good is the same as an action that is right. Being evil is the same as being bad.

Well that depends on the dictator, I plan on making smiling at people mandatory. But now you're considering minutae, laws handle the major matters while indoctrination covers the smaller details like that.

Thats called a paradox.

Thats like saying, it's quite possible to go up whilst going down.

Nope.

To look at fiction. Robin Hood committed "evil acts" (theft) to perfom a moral action ( generosity to the poor)

Nope.

To look at fiction. Robin Hood committed "evil acts" (theft) to perfom a moral action ( generosity to the poor)

It's called the lesser of two evils. You are just using two different words to make it seem as though they are different.

Lets go with the biblical, the Israleites commited genocide under the command of God. Genocide is wrong but because God commanded it it was good.

An action that is good is the same as an action that is right. Being evil is the same as being bad.

wrong. plain wrong.

It's called the lesser of two evils. You are just using two different words to make it seem as though they are different.

Nice dodge. They are not necessarily the same.

Lets go with the biblical, the Israleites commited genocide under the command of God. Genocide is wrong but because God commanded it it was good.

If you are going to literally believe those parts of the bible, then you will also have to believe that all of those people were evil and deserved to be killed.

If you are going to literally believe those parts of the bible, then you will also have to believe that all of those people were evil and deserved to be killed.

Even though it stated that many were innocents?

I believe this entire argument is based on a definition no one has defined yet. What is good? What is evil? And what standard are we measuring it by?

Nice dodge. They are not necessarily the same.

Are you crazy?

Explain the difference between doing something good and doing something right.

It's called the lesser of two evils. You are just using two different words to make it seem as though they are different.

Are you familiar with Kant and his beliefs on ethics? Lets use an example from him shall we.

For instance, under Kantian ethics, if a person were to give money to charity because it was their religious duty (and failure to do so would result in some sort of punishment from a God or Supreme Being) then the charitable donation would not be a morally good act.

One can do good acts and at the same time have those acts not be morally good. If I give money to a charity because I know I can get a tax break on it I'm doing a good act but not for a moral reason. Much like one can do an act which can be considered the opposite of good for a moral reason much like the robin hood example.

there is no universal set of morals
they are subjective and are not like the laws and axioms which govern our universe
therefore if you cannot show tangible proof backed up by objectively defined logic for a universal set of morals then there is no universal set of morals

the end

If you are going to literally believe those parts of the bible, then you will also have to believe that all of those people were evil and deserved to be killed.

Thou shall not kill.

Of course I'm sure all the infants and children were "evil".

Thou shall not kill.

Of course I'm sure all the infants and children were "evil".

Damn infants and their urge to gnaw off my body parts...

Every man woman and child? Every last babe in arm? And The Infinite Force is right in that good and evil, right and wrong are completely subjective. It is societies and religions try to make them objective but this is amusing.

I believe this entire argument is based on a definition no one has defined yet. What is good? What is evil? And what standard are we measuring it by?

If you are an athiest, Good and bad, Right and Wrong are what you decide they are. They are completely subjective concepts. Or subjective to the culture, where an agreed definition is made.

If you are going to literally believe those parts of the bible, then you will also have to believe that all of those people were evil and deserved to be killed.

so to do a moral reprehensible or "evil" thing like to murder someone, is sometimes the "right" thing to do? to kill is the wrong thing to do. but because they deserved to be killed it is ok?

right and wrong and good and evil are subjective. as are most things.

Damn infants and their urge to gnaw off my body parts...

How often has this happened to you? And, also, I imagine it is reassuring to know that it can only happen a set number of times.

there is no universal set of morals
they are subjective and are not like the laws and axioms which govern our universe
Wrong.


therefore if you cannot show tangible proof backed up by objectively defined logic for a universal set of morals then there is no universal set of morals


Wrong.

In the first place, the truth of a proposition does not depend upon one's ability to prove it to be true. It means that one can't know for sure, but "can't know for sure" != "false".

In the second place, Ayn Rand did just what you asked. Read her works "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and "The Virtue of Selfishness".

Are you familiar with Kant and his beliefs on ethics? Lets use an example from him shall we.

For instance, under Kantian ethics, if a person were to give money to charity because it was their religious duty (and failure to do so would result in some sort of punishment from a God or Supreme Being) then the charitable donation would not be a morally good act.

One can do good acts and at the same time have those acts not be morally good. If I give money to a charity because I know I can get a tax break on it I'm doing a good act but not for a moral reason. Much like one can do an act which can be considered the opposite of good for a moral reason much like the robin hood example.

Everyone here fails at ethics.

You are describing the difference between deontological (the act in itself is what makes it morally good/ bad) and teleological (the consequeces of the act makes it good or bad).

Are you crazy?

Explain the difference between doing something good and doing something right.

So you're saying the "right" thing is always "good"? You just defended genocide and the murder of infants as good. Was that "right"?

If you are an athiest, Good and bad, Right and Wrong are what you decide they are. They are completely subjective concepts. Or subjective to the culture, where an agreed definition is made.

When you are person, this is true. Which we all are. Or are you suggesting that the bible isn't open to subjective interpretation?

How often has this happened to you? And, also, I imagine it is reassuring to know that it can only happen a set number of times.

Pre-Baptised infants are evil, no? Then, they obviously have urges to gnaw off various body parts, and they definitely crave blood.

If you are an athiest, Good and bad, Right and Wrong are what you decide they are. They are completely subjective concepts. Or subjective to the culture, where an agreed definition is made.

Did you not even look at the link I gave you on Moral universalism?

Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics applies universally, that is to all people regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature. The source or justification of this system may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the commands of God. It is the opposing position to various forms of moral relativism.

Just one of the many beliefs on morality that it is possible to have while being an atheist. Enough with the strawmen already.

If you are an athiest, Good and bad, Right and Wrong are what you decide they are. They are completely subjective concepts. Or subjective to the culture, where an agreed definition is made.

Of course what you're failing to see is that Christian morality based off of the bible is an agreed definition a simple look at christian history proves that. And once there is an agreed definition it becomes objective. Although as we've said at the end of the day it is completely subjective.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?
As long as people with the power to enforce societal rules do so, that's what keeps society from descending into cahso. That's true now.

And then, why would we need any obligation to help people? Harm would likely be discouraged by those aforementioned societal rules, but altruism isn't strictly necessary for society to function.

And this all assumes that your unstated presupposition (that morality needs some sort of supernatural basis) is correct.

Did you not even look at the link I gave you on Moral universalism?

Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics applies universally, that is to all people regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature. The source or justification of this system may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the commands of God. It is the opposing position to various forms of moral relativism.

Just one of the many beliefs on morality that it is possible to have while being an atheist. Enough with the strawmen already.

Thats just an ethical theory. It would be very difficult to believe that and be an athiest at the same time if you really thought about it.

If you are an athiest, Good and bad, Right and Wrong are what you decide they are. They are completely subjective concepts. Or subjective to the culture, where an agreed definition is made.

No, they're not.

I am an atheist.

I know that morality is objective--that there is one correct moral code, and that those who reject it are not simply in disagreement, but actually, objectively, wrong.

Where do I fit in?

Pre-Baptised infants are evil, no? Then, they obviously have urges to gnaw off various body parts, and they definitely crave blood.

It's the black fedoras infants come out of the womb with that give them away.

So you're saying the "right" thing is always "good"? You just defended genocide and the murder of infants as good. Was that "right"?

How?

Right and Good in ethical terms mean exactly the same thing.

It's the black fedoras infants come out of the womb with that give them away.

...And horrible grammar when they come of age...

No, they're not.

I am an atheist.

I know that morality is objective--that there is one correct moral code, and that those who reject it are not simply in disagreement, but actually, objectively, wrong.

Where do I fit in?

You don't.

How?

Right and Good in ethical terms mean exactly the same thing.

No, they do not. Good is objective. Killing someone is not good. Right is not objective. There are times in which killing someone is the best answer.

You don't.

Objectivism, surely?

...And horrible grammar when they come of age...

Oh, man. Did I use horrible grammar?

Thats just an ethical theory. It would be very difficult to believe that and be an athiest at the same time if you really thought about it.

Nope its one of the many beliefs atheists hold along with moral nihilism and a whole spectrum of beliefs. Your setting up a strawman on what atheists believe when that's not entirely correct. Atheists can believe in a number of different ideas when it comes to morality. They can believe there is a set group of morals that plays out through all of society but they don't believe those morals come from god.

Oh, man. Did I use horrible grammar?

Terrible. God-awful, one could say.

The prophecy was true... You are the Antichrist!

Lets take a look at what atheist means against theism, the belief in a god or gods. You are stating that if you are against god you are against morality. There were a variety of different moral systems that existed before monotheism. Stoicism for example very briefly mentions god or gods, it is a way to conduct ones life. You can build a moral structure on how to conduct ones life without assuming the existence of god or gods. Good and evil, heaven and hell were not obsessed on by prechristian peoples. How about Epicurus, he was the first atomist, he based his moral system on the beauty of creation. You can build a moral system around any concept, it can be beauty, art, sports, medicine. There are whole fields of morality on esthetics-- the appreciation of art, bioethics, the death penalty, and any number of subjects, not once do they mention god or religion as part of the moral system. When discussing the death penalty do you discuss god, probably not. When discussing global warming do you discuss god?

No, they do not. Good is objective. Killing someone is not good. Right is not objective. There are times in which killing someone is the best answer.

Are you saying that Good is a deontological aproach and right is a teleological aproach.

Where the hell did you get this idea from?

What the hell is an "atheist culture?"

A culture includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief.

Atheism is just saying "Naw" to the question, "do you believe in God."

If that's a "culture," you may as well talk about a "culture of those who score 98% on driving tests" or a "culture of people who prefer cats to dogs." And then you may as well take all anthropology and sociology and wipe your ass with it, because you're using the word "culture" to mean, essentially, whatever comes out of your ass.

Terrible. God-awful, one could say.

The prophecy was true... You are the Antichrist!

Hmmm.


It seems my fortune has changed.



I am the Antichrist! Give me a dollar!

What the hell is an "atheist culture?"

A culture includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief.

Atheism is just saying "Naw" to the question, "do you believe in God."

If that's a "culture," you may as well talk about a "culture of those who score 98% on driving tests" or a "culture of people who prefer cats to dogs." And then you may as well take all anthropology and sociology and wipe your ass with it, because you're using the word "culture" to mean, essentially, whatever comes out of your ass.

A culture where there is absolutely no religion, where no one believes in God and where it's morals (if it has any) are not inspired by any religion.

I am the Antichrist! Give me a dollar!

*sigh*

You'll just end up burning it...

I think it is kind of silly for someone who is religious to criticize athiests about being right or wrong. As long as religion has existed people have used religion to justify many immoral things. Wars have been waged that resulted millions and millions of deaths, all in the name of religion. Clergyman had kept themselves high atop society, opressing all others, because of religion. Slavery was justified with relgion and even today religous violence is still killing.

As an athiest, it is ironic that you, being religious, can generalize us as evil and immoral. It is frustrating that you cannot understand that morality does not have a foundation in the existance of god but instead in values taught by your parents, community, or even world religions. :headbang:

What the hell is an "atheist culture?"

A culture includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief.

Atheism is just saying "Naw" to the question, "do you believe in God."

If that's a "culture," you may as well talk about a "culture of those who score 98% on driving tests" or a "culture of people who prefer cats to dogs." And then you may as well take all anthropology and sociology and wipe your ass with it, because you're using the word "culture" to mean, essentially, whatever comes out of your ass.

The strawman has no clothes. :p

*sigh*

You'll just end up burning it...

True.


But everybody is still down a buck. Deliciously evil of me.

True.


But everybody is still down a buck. Deliciously evil of me.

*tosses DM a wooden nickel*

As an athiest, it is ironic that you, being religious, can generalize us as evil and immoral.

I have not once done that.

What the hell is an "atheist culture?"

A culture includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief.

Atheism is just saying "Naw" to the question, "do you believe in God."

If that's a "culture," you may as well talk about a "culture of those who score 98% on driving tests" or a "culture of people who prefer cats to dogs." And then you may as well take all anthropology and sociology and wipe your ass with it, because you're using the word "culture" to mean, essentially, whatever comes out of your ass.

rofl. good point. sociology-toiletpaper, ingenious.

I never realised how dumb a lot of the people in this thread are, as they can't even grasp the simple concept of deontological and teleological ethics, insisting that they are the different definitions of right and good.

*tosses DM a wooden nickel*

*burns it*

Where is your God now?

I have not once done that.

Read your own thread, kiddo. You do that in the freaking first post.

Atheists don't think the world is meaningless, atheists try to explain it.
Also, we are humans, that means we need happiness, love and friends just like any religious folk. As such, a social model, rules and laws are needed. We have gut feelings telling us what is right and wrong to do in a society, and we care about other people without any kind of superior being telling us to. Aye?

Gut feelings huh? What if my gut feeling is telling me to do something that your gut feeling disagrees with?

A culture where there is absolutely no religion

Oh, so you've made-up a definition of "atheism" to mean "absolutely no religion."

Cute! But unfortunately, that's not a "culture." That may well be a part of a culture - for example, the ideal Soviet Union State-Sponsored culture - but it's not a culture.

, where no one believes in God and where it's morals (if it has any) are not inspired by any religion.

Ha! 'If it has any.' You know, you must really be a psychopathic homicidal killer if the only thing keeping YOU from doing anything immoral is religion. I fear for those around you.

I never realised how dumb a lot of the people in this thread are, as they can't even grasp the simple concept of deontological and teleological ethics, insisting that they are the different definitions of right and good.


I keep realizing how dumb people are when they keep making strawmen arguments, know little of history, and stereotype others while berating people for making stereotypes.

I have not once done that.

Liar.

If you are an athiest, Good and bad, Right and Wrong are what you decide they are. They are completely subjective concepts. Or subjective to the culture, where an agreed definition is made.And this would be different from religious people how exactly? If good and bad and right and wrong are not subjective for them, how do explain that there's such widespread disagreement between people of the same faith on what is right and what is wrong? You seem to be deluding yourself into thinking that you don't decide for yourself what your ethical code is.

Liar.

Me too. Prince of 'em.

Who doesn't? Hence, ideologies and laws.

See humanism. It's not greatly different from Christianity, except for the important lack of a God.

Oh, I know.

I was trying to lead the horse to water, so to speak. He's not thirsty, apparently. :p

I think it is kind of silly for someone who is religious to criticize athiests about being right or wrong. As long as religion has existed people have used religion to justify many immoral things. Wars have been waged that resulted millions and millions of deaths, all in the name of religion. Clergyman had kept themselves high atop society, opressing all others, because of religion. Slavery was justified with relgion and even today religous violence is still killing.

As an athiest, it is ironic that you, being religious, can generalize us as evil and immoral. It is frustrating that you cannot understand that morality does not have a foundation in the existance of god but instead in values taught by your parents, community, or even world religions. :headbang:

I have not once done that.

Read your own thread, kiddo. You do that in the freaking first post.

No, be fair, Criik says a society and a life without God is meaningless, not evil and immoral. He says that without God there can be no true morals, no bedrock on which to creation the foundation of meaning. People need a feeling in their guts about what is right and what is wrong, and that feeling comes from the knowledge of the universal concepts laid down by God.

How hard is that to understand?

Criik, I have a question for you.

Do you believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone?

No, be fair, Criik says a society and a life without God is meaningless, not evil and immoral. He says that without God there can be no true morals,

Stopped right there.

... where would any sense of morality come from?

It comes from games theory.

It comes from games theory.

Or videogames, like RPGs.

To be truly athiest means to not believe in an objective morality, that means there are no such thing as good or bad actions.

actually would that not be reversed. Religion offers subjective morality as it tend to evolve from the region that the religion comes from.

in theory athiests would set universal rules that apply to all

Me too. Prince of 'em.

But I expect that from you.

Of course if you're lying now that means you were telling the truth.

Or videogames, like RPGs.

Dunno about you, but I'm serious. Look into the work of Von Neumann. Good stuff!

But I expect that from you.

Of course if you're lying now that means you were telling the truth.

You just blew Satan's mind.

And this would be different from religious people how exactly? If good and bad and right and wrong are not subjective for them, how do explain that there's such widespread disagreement between people of the same faith on what is right and what is wrong? You seem to be deluding yourself into thinking that you don't decide for yourself what your ethical code is.

These accepted moral codes of a culture are mostly inspired by religion. Where there is no religion to inspire any morals, where would they come from? Who would have the authority to decide what is right or wrong? If there is no sense of purpouse among its people then why would anyone care?

That is the point i was trying to make.

Dunno about you, but I'm serious. Look into the work of Von Neumann. Good stuff!

Play Final Fantasy VI.

No, be fair, Criik says a society and a life without God is meaningless, not evil and immoral. He says that without God there can be no true morals, no bedrock on which to creation the foundation of meaning. People need a feeling in their guts about what is right and what is wrong, and that feeling comes from the knowledge of the universal concepts laid down by God.

How hard is that to understand?

Thank you.

Answer my question.

Do you believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone?

Criik, I have a question for you.

Do you believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone?

If there is no greater good to come out of it, then yes.

Answer my question.

Do you believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone?

Was it wrong for, oh, twelve people to gang up on one guy who was intent on destroying the universe itself and kill him outright?

These accepted moral codes of a culture are mostly inspired by religion. Where there is no religion to inspire any morals, where would they come from? Who would have the authority to decide what is right or wrong? If there is no sense of purpouse among its people then why would anyone care?

So, you're talking about a hypothetical world in which 5,000+ years of human history suddenly didn't happen. Not just one in which there is no longer any religion - but one in which religion never happened.

Just how big is this strawman you're making?

Thank you.

Just paraphrasing, not supporting. :rolleyes:

If there is no greater good to come out of it, then yes.

So your morality is subjective. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Just paraphrasing, not supporting. :rolleyes: My athiestic support would be meaningless, anyway.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?
You know, guys, he may be a troll of sorts, but he does have a point, in that there are many people wondering this exact thing, who are confused.

Allow me to elucidate: morals do not originate from religion or lack thereof; they originate from within ourselves. I, as an athiest, see murder as absolutely horrible, since life itself is so precious and sentient life even more so for its rarity. As such, I would never murder, nor condone murder, nor kill in self-defense if I could avoid it. Why do I see it this way? Because I recognize--from my viewpoint--that there is no afterlife and that thus once it is gone, it is GONE.

This is merely an example, of course. You can see how and why people would choose their morals regardless now, yah? It's why there are a lot of people killing in the name of their diety of choice, despite what their religious tenets state.

Gut feelings huh? What if my gut feeling is telling me to do something that your gut feeling disagrees with?

Actually, I put that one in an incorrect way. Someone in this threat replied that it wasn't gut feelings, but rational thinking. I agree with that and incorrectly used gut feeling based on the OP.
However, we can still disagree without gut feelings. But if we're both rationally thinking AND can disagree, now that's another subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perficiotopia View Post
As an athiest, it is ironic that you, being religious, can generalize us as evil and immoral.
I have not once done that.
... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

Does this not imply that athiests have a lack of morality, that they would not help others, or harm property? Does this not imply that without god, people do not understand a difference between right and wrong?
I think you did imply all of this things, and a reasonable person could conclude that you believe religion and a god is what instills these concepts into people. This is not true. Relgion is not required to teach these things. Really, the questions originally posed aren't affected by religious affiliation.

These accepted moral codes of a culture are mostly inspired by religion. Where there is no religion to inspire any morals, where would they come from? Who would have the authority to decide what is right or wrong? If there is no sense of purpouse among its people then why would anyone care?

That is the point i was trying to make.

Actually it would be reverse. Most religions are inspired by the existing morals of the region. What better way to get your religion to be followed! That's why you see when new religions come about they are generally in direct contrast to the existing one.

So your morality is subjective. Congratulations.

It is half deontological half teleological if thats what you mean. Despite being a catholic, I don't believe in natural law. I do believe in doing the most good you can.

... where would any sense of morality come from?

Is it really a comforting thought to believe that the people around you need to believe in magical fairies in order to be moral?


Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from?

Is it nice to believe that the people around you only help you because they believe God will reward them for it, or punish them for failing to help you? Is it comforting to know that the only reason they choose not to harm you or steal from you is because of their God-belief?

.
Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you?

Does it feel good to believe that people have no inherent conscience at all, but rather rely upon God to put kind feelings in their "guts"?

.
Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless?

If the world is meaningless without God, then the world doesn't actually have any meaning of its own (in your view). God is the only meaning, and your world is already meaningless. Does that feel good?

.
With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy?

Are you happy believing that you are surrounded by people who are only restrained from hurting you by superstition? Are you happy to know that your world has no purpose or meaning of its own? Are you happy believing that human beings have no purpose or goodness in themselves, but require that it be provided by some magical other source?

.
How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?
Are you happy believing that the only source of structure in human culture is superstition? Does it make you feel good to believe that humans are incapable of goodness, reason, and kindness on their own?

You are a cute troll, but your efforts are pretty much just depressing. There are all too many people who believe as you pretend to, and they are pitiable creatures indeed.

So, you're talking about a hypothetical world in which 5,000+ years of human history suddenly didn't happen. Not just one in which there is no longer any religion - but one in which religion never happened.

Just how big is this strawman you're making?

Many athiests would like to see a society where there is absolutely no religion at all. Some even would like to see it banned.

Both ethical culture and Ayn Rand's Objectivism do not require theistic belief. I am not a big fan of either.

Prove it. Why should I need a god to tell me that rape, murder, torture, genocide, theft, and the like are wrong?

Because your (probably Christian-based) culture has successfully indoctrinated you. The fact that many people support and practice rape, murder, torture, genocide, theft in the world shows that there is still much of God's work to do.

Actually as far as I can tell you screwed up there and would be half consequentialist as far as I can tell from the idea of a greater good coming from murder would be.

It is half deontological half teleological if thats what you mean. Despite being a catholic, I don't believe in natural law. I do believe in doing the most good you can.

Why do you believe in doing the most good you can?

These accepted moral codes of a culture are mostly inspired by religion. Where there is no religion to inspire any morals, where would they come from? Who would have the authority to decide what is right or wrong? If there is no sense of purpouse among its people then why would anyone care?

That is the point i was trying to make.This is social contract theory. Societies that don't manage to find some form of internal consensus on what is right and what is wrong do not survive.

Why exactly would a nonreligious society have no sense of purpose?

Why do you believe in doing the most good you can?

Because I am a catholic, I feel that is what Jesus teaches and what God wants. I do this through love of God.

Many athiests would like to see a society where there is absolutely no religion at all. Some even would like to see it banned.

Those are the ones who blame it for most of mans inhumanity to man failing to see that we're a twisted bunch of gits anyway, with or without religion keen to jump on any weakness or difference. It doesn't make them immoral or amoral quite the opposite usually they dream of a better world.

Many athiests would like to see a society where there is absolutely no religion at all. Some even would like to see it banned.

As if that were likely to happen. I think that if humanity evers grows out of its need for supernatural approval or condemnation for doing things, we might see the greatest age of our race. I don't think that will ever happen, but it is to be hoped for.

Many athiests would like to see a society where there is absolutely no religion at all. Some even would like to see it banned.Would you like to see a society in which Christianity is the only religion?

Many athiests would like to see a society where there is absolutely no religion at all. Some even would like to see it banned.

Strawman. I know plenty of atheists who are fine with a secular government and don't care what people worship so long as they don't force it on them.

This is social contract theory. Societies that don't manage to find some form of internal consensus on what is right and what is wrong do not survive.

Why exactly would a nonreligious society have no sense of purpose?

Thats mainly my point, a culture with no morality would just collapse.

Because your (probably Christian-based) culture has successfully indoctrinated you. The fact that many people support and practice rape, murder, torture, genocide, theft in the world shows that there is still much of God's work to do.

historically speaking religion has been a great sponsor of most of what your talking about here. So people have been doing 'god work' for quite a long time

Because I am a catholic, I feel that is what Jesus teaches and what God wants. I do this through love of God.

And you wouldn't without the approval and affirmation of Jesus and God?

Because your (probably Christian-based) culture has successfully indoctrinated you. The fact that many people support and practice rape, murder, torture, genocide, theft in the world shows that there is still much of God's work to do.
The Christian-based culture I live in condones many forms of rape. The Bible specifically and explicitly condones genocide, torture, theft, and murder, under the correct circumstances (read: when practiced against non-Christians such as myself).

I have internalized the wrongness of rape, theft, murder, and genocide despite the prevailing culture in which I grew up. Indeed, most of the Christians where I live regard my views on rape (i.e. that rape is never acceptable) as radical!

Strawman. I know plenty of atheists who are fine with a secular government and don't care what people worship so long as they don't force it on them.

How is that a strawman, I said many, not ALL.

Because I am a catholic, I feel that is what Jesus teaches and what God wants. I do this through love of God.So if God wanted you to be mean to people, you'd do it, because that would mean it was right?

The Christian-based culture I live in condones many forms of rape. The Bible specifically and explicitly condones genocide, torture, theft, and murder, under the correct circumstances (read: when practiced against non-Christians such as myself).

I have internalized the wrongness of rape, theft, murder, and genocide despite the prevailing culture in which I grew up. Indeed, most of the Christians where I live regard my views on rape (i.e. that rape is never acceptable) as radical!

Wtf!? Where do you live?