Morality for naturalists

Jul 3, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.

Comments
1 - 17 of 17 Comments Last updated Jul 23, 2012
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1 Jul 3, 2012
very ambiguous.

Since: Apr 12

San Antonio, TX

#2 Jul 3, 2012
" ... who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? Simple answer: no one! A configuration of matter doing one thing cannot be more right or wrong than a configuration of matter doing something else.

As atheists that take science seriously, we must deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong. If we don't, then we are committing the same error we accuse the theist of, where illusion trumps reality"

Why does the Atheist bother?... How strange to see "we must" before "deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong." If the 'we' the Atheist refers to is expected to be consistent in the hypocrisy, he is not wrong ... AND he is not right.

Now, go figure!... if even you can.

havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#3 Jul 3, 2012
Katriel191 wrote:
" ... who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? Simple answer: no one! A configuration of matter doing one thing cannot be more right or wrong than a configuration of matter doing something else.
As atheists that take science seriously, we must deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong. If we don't, then we are committing the same error we accuse the theist of, where illusion trumps reality"
Why does the Atheist bother?... How strange to see "we must" before "deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong." If the 'we' the Atheist refers to is expected to be consistent in the hypocrisy, he is not wrong ... AND he is not right.
Now, go figure!... if even you can.
there is no requirement that atheists take science seriously. an atheist does not believe in a god, and is required to have no other views as an atheist. as a person, he or she can think about any number of different things, or not think about them, and have any opinion or none. atheism is not an ism - it is not theism.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4 Jul 4, 2012
Boring article and the writer sounds confused.

There is right and wrong. What is not acceptable is probably best determinedin this age by secular democracy. That is why we have laws and not anarchy.

Justice is perceived by the mind and what a society collectively perceives as correct may be mistaken (e.g. child sacrifices or mutilations). So while one society may perceive something to be right when it is wrong (and vice versa) they are still useful concepts.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#6 Jul 10, 2012
kubilgan wrote:
<quoted text>
Another pile straw man idiocy by another retarded theist. Go figure!(Why do these 'tards like that cliche so much? Go figure what -- that you're a dumbarse?)
your use of the terms retarded and "tard and dumbarse show that you are not a very nice person. I am not surprised, given where you are from. you are probably in a minority among very sanctimonious believers and get annoyed and lose your cool. too bad. you are not a good spokesman for atheism - but then, atheists can be any sort of person, there is no requirement that you be nice, just because you are an atheist. as long as everyone understands that no atheist speaks for any other atheist. I try to make clear what atheists I dislike on topix. But it is not atheism I dislike. I think that is a sensible guess and opinion.

I did not think much of the article. too much bother to go through it to object and agree, point by point. atheism is not difficult, to start with. expressing atheist views can be dangerous, however. some people are very intolerant, and could be violent toward someone who is not of their faith.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#7 Jul 10, 2012
EdSed wrote:
Boring article and the writer sounds confused.
There is right and wrong. What is not acceptable is probably best determinedin this age by secular democracy. That is why we have laws and not anarchy.
Justice is perceived by the mind and what a society collectively perceives as correct may be mistaken (e.g. child sacrifices or mutilations). So while one society may perceive something to be right when it is wrong (and vice versa) they are still useful concepts.
No, democracy is not the best way to determine what is acceptable. an uneducated or indoctrinated populace can have horrible views about what is acceptable. in our society, with our Constitution, the courts have a right to uphold the Bill of Rights and the other parts of the Constitution, and those were put there to protect agaisnt a mobocracy, which a particular election might amount to - especially if only highly motivated extremists vote. protecting the rights of individuals cannot depend upon the vote of a majority. people should be educated to value human rights (and rights of animals, land, water, air, and ecosystems and the planet, in my view). dumb people may vote very stupidly, on a referendum, for example, and they may vote under the influence of propaganda purchased by very rich special interests or opinion groups.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#8 Jul 10, 2012
I would put it somewhat differently, HF. Democracy presumes that the electorate are informed, educated and have a stake in it. It also assumes freedom of speech and expression and reasonable equality. Established institutions are necessary too.

If a democracy's electorate is a mob, democracy won't save them.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10 Jul 11, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> your use of the terms retarded and "tard and dumbarse show that you are not a very nice person. I am not surprised, given where you are from. you are probably in a minority among very sanctimonious believers and get annoyed and lose your cool. too bad. you are not a good spokesman for atheism - but then, atheists can be any sort of person, there is no requirement that you be nice, just because you are an atheist. as long as everyone understands that no atheist speaks for any other atheist. I try to make clear what atheists I dislike on topix. But it is not atheism I dislike. I think that is a sensible guess and opinion.
I did not think much of the article. too much bother to go through it to object and agree, point by point. atheism is not difficult, to start with. expressing atheist views can be dangerous, however. some people are very intolerant, and could be violent toward someone who is not of their faith.
Retard, atheism doesn't need a spokesperson. It's a not a religion.

At the end of the day, the cards have been played by cults. Atheism is merely the result.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#13 Jul 20, 2012

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#14 Jul 20, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>That is the one "Jesus and Mo", that I sent to every email address io my list
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/10/15/easy/

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#15 Jul 21, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
Ha ha, I like that one too. I hadn't seen it before, but it's in my "keeper" folder now. Thank you
Heth

Walsall, UK

#16 Jul 22, 2012
I know some atheists who are absolute bastards and other atheists who are some of the friendliest, kindest people I know. I also know of some Christians, or so they call themselves, who are nasty and two-faced and others who are warmhearted people. Why bother questioning atheists morality when there are "Christians" who can't even bring themselves to love thy neighbour. Why do some atheists bother questioning Christian logic when they claim they don't need morality to be good people, then do f**k all to help humanity? Why do some Christians brag on about how misguided atheists are, picking and poking at the flaws in atheism which they probably just Googled? If you've ever been homeless and hungry, you don't really care who offers you a helping hand or their views on god and the afterlife. So, atheists, why spend your time on forums pretending you're library doesn't go any further than Dawkins or Hitchens, claiming you don't feed theism to do good things then spending more time ripping into Christians rather than bothering your a**e to do something about the world and its devestations. And Christians, really, did Jesus instruct you to go on forums behind the safety of your keyboard and preach the Gospel to atheists? Is that you doing your bit to reap the harvest is it? Well done! Just get over yourselves. If Topix is your main base for intellectual discussion then both sides aren't as clever as either think they are, and if you are, maybe you should invest your time in writing up your profound knowledge in a journal article for a top university. As for me, I came here to ask a few questions about Darwin which I couldn't source online, but given that all the threads are packed-up with bulls**t that atheists are better because or christians are better because, there's probably not much point. I've posted threads up here before asking intellectual questions, but people seem far more interested in debates about how stupid religios/irreligious are than anything to do with their own beliefs.
Heth

Walsall, UK

#17 Jul 22, 2012
I know some atheists who are absolute bastards and other atheists who are some of the friendliest, kindest people I know. I also know of some Christians, or so they call themselves, who are nasty and two-faced and others who are warm-hearted people. Why bother questioning atheists morality when there are "Christians" who can't even bring themselves to love thy neighbour? Why do some atheists bother questioning Christian logic when they claim they don't need morality to be good people, then do f**k all to help humanity? Why do some Christians brag on about how misguided atheists are, picking and poking at the flaws in atheism which they probably just Googled? If you've ever been homeless and hungry, you don't really care who offers you a helping hand or their views on god and the afterlife. So, atheists, why spend your time on forums pretending you're library goes beyond further than Dawkins or Hitchens, claiming you don't feed theism to do good things then spending more time ripping into Christians rather than bothering your a**e to do something about the world and its devastations? And Christians, really, did Jesus instruct you to go on forums behind the safety of your keyboard and preach the Gospel to atheists? Is that you doing your bit to reap the harvest is it? Well done! Just get over yourselves. If Topix is your main base for intellectual discussion then both sides aren't as clever as either think they are, and if you are, maybe you should invest your time in writing up your profound knowledge in a journal article for a top university, as some people here really believe they’re almost professors on every discussion and not just sat in their bedroom while their mum makes them their lunch. As for me, I came here to ask a few questions about Darwin which I couldn't source online, but given that all the threads are packed-up with bulls**t that atheists are better because or Christians are better because, there's probably not much point. I've posted threads up here before asking intellectual questions, but people seem far more interested in debates about how stupid religious/irreligious are than anything to do with their own beliefs.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

#19 Jul 22, 2012
Katriel191 wrote:
" ... who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? Simple answer: no one! A configuration of matter doing one thing cannot be more right or wrong than a configuration of matter doing something else.
As atheists that take science seriously, we must deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong. If we don't, then we are committing the same error we accuse the theist of, where illusion trumps reality"
Why does the Atheist bother?... How strange to see "we must" before "deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong." If the 'we' the Atheist refers to is expected to be consistent in the hypocrisy, he is not wrong ... AND he is not right.
Now, go figure!... if even you can.
Morality has its roots in evolution.

http://www.the-brights.net/action/activities/...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#20 Jul 22, 2012
Katriel191 wrote:
" ... who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? Simple answer: no one! A configuration of matter doing one thing cannot be more right or wrong than a configuration of matter doing something else.
As atheists that take science seriously, we must deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong. If we don't, then we are committing the same error we accuse the theist of, where illusion trumps reality"
Why does the Atheist bother?... How strange to see "we must" before "deny that there is such a thing as right or wrong." If the 'we' the Atheist refers to is expected to be consistent in the hypocrisy, he is not wrong ... AND he is not right.
Now, go figure!... if even you can.
Lots of words, but no proof of god from the people that invented it. Its always the same old lies we hear day in and day out from desperate butthurt theists with no morals or intellectual sincerity.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#21 Jul 22, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of words, but no proof of god from the people that invented it. Its always the same old lies we hear day in and day out from desperate butthurt theists with no morals or intellectual sincerity.
Actually, my reaction to Katriel191's post was astonishment that so many words could be used to say so little.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#22 Jul 23, 2012
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the NHS stance
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pag...
AFAIAC if we can't make it illegal except on medical grounds we should let the NHS carry out the operation rather than a bearded bloke in a frock.
Never at public expense as it implies that society finds it is sometimes acceptable to mutilate a child. That's immoral and should definitely be illegal.

There is no moral objection to waiting until someone is old enough to decide for themselves, or paying for the procedure oneself. If people are daft enough to let a 'bearded bloke in a frock' near their infant, they'll find some other way to harm them. Better to challenge them and bring them to the attention of social services.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 50 min Patrick 13
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Patrick 226,341
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Patrick 21,502
Our world came from nothing? 4 hr CunningLinguist 422
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 6 hr Jaimie 46
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 9 hr Patrick 27
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 9 hr Patrick 172
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••