First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“New Kind'a Christian”

Since: Mar 13

New Orleans

#1 Mar 27, 2013
Atheists cannot be moral, if atheism is true. If atheism is true, no one can be moral. There is no foundation for any "right" or "wrong" statement if atheism is true. If atheism is true, the kidnapping and murder of a child is as morally neutral as helping an old lady take out her garbage.

http://veridican.org

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2 Mar 27, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
Atheists cannot be moral, if atheism is true. If atheism is true, no one can be moral. There is no foundation for any "right" or "wrong" statement if atheism is true. If atheism is true, the kidnapping and murder of a child is as morally neutral as helping an old lady take out her garbage.
http://veridican.org
Wrong. We don't base our morality on appeasing a fictional deity. We base our morality on valuing humans. Anyway, that is the essential aspect of humanism: that human needs, concerns, and goals are the subject of moral questions.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#3 Mar 27, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
Atheists cannot be moral, if atheism is true. If atheism is true, no one can be moral. There is no foundation for any "right" or "wrong" statement if atheism is true. If atheism is true, the kidnapping and murder of a child is as morally neutral as helping an old lady take out her garbage.
http://veridican.org
You confuse morality with religion

And it isn't atheists who discriminate against women or gays.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.h...

Religion = superstition

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#4 Mar 27, 2013
The homicidal, fratricidal, infanticidal, genocidal, god of the bible would not be worthy of worship if this immoral god turned out to be real. Atheists in general have way higher morals than that.

“New Kind'a Christian”

Since: Mar 13

New Orleans

#5 Mar 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. We don't base our morality on appeasing a fictional deity. We base our morality on valuing humans. Anyway, that is the essential aspect of humanism: that human needs, concerns, and goals are the subject of moral questions.
Fictional deity-schpictional deity. This isn't about a deity. This is about atheism. First, I'm not saying atheists are immoral, per se. But that's because atheism is not true. If it were true, then we would be merely matter in the universe responding to stimuli--nothing could be judged right or wrong. There would be no moral difference between blowing up a city or taking care of an Alzheimer's patient.

How can you dispute that?

http://veridican.org
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#6 Mar 27, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
<quoted text>
Fictional deity-schpictional deity. This isn't about a deity. This is about atheism. First, I'm not saying atheists are immoral, per se. But that's because atheism is not true. If it were true, then we would be merely matter in the universe responding to stimuli--nothing could be judged right or wrong. There would be no moral difference between blowing up a city or taking care of an Alzheimer's patient.
How can you dispute that?
http://veridican.org
Again, you are muddling-up theological questions regarding religion/theism/atheism, with morality. Nature and nurture determine the behaviour and the morality of people,(both superstitious people and those uninterested in gods).

Belief in god(s) can lead to absurd behaviour...
https://www.google.co.uk/search...

https://www.google.co.uk/search...

Lives and society are normally better when free of superstitions.
Amused

Bridgewater, MA

#7 Mar 27, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
Atheists cannot be moral, if atheism is true. If atheism is true, no one can be moral. There is no foundation for any "right" or "wrong" statement if atheism is true. If atheism is true, the kidnapping and murder of a child is as morally neutral as helping an old lady take out her garbage.
http://veridican.org
You do not actually derive your morals from the bible or any religious source. You do not kill people who work on the sabbath, nor stone stubborn children to death. You do not own slaves. You do not slaughter and burn animals to appease your god. All of these things are heartily endorsed in the bible, as is genocide and polygamy, neither of which you (I hope) practice.

The reason these parts of the bible are no longer practiced is because they no longer accord with the collective sense of morals, although they once did, in the bronze age, when the OT was written. The NT is no help to you, as jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not to change it, and also said no jot of the lod law would pass away. The fact is, you apply a moral sense outside of the bible in order to judge for yourself which parts of the bible's morality you will follow.

Atheists do more or less the same thing, we just skip the step of reading the bible and just apply that moral sense to real life.

Societies where atheism is more prevalent have lower crime rates. America, which is the stronghold of religion in the western countries, has far higher rates of murder, rape, robbery and other theft compared to the Scandanavian countries, where atheism is far more prevalent. If the laws are an expression of moral disapproval of behavior like killing, raping, stealing, etc., one who believed that religion is the source of morals would expect the country where religion is the norm to be the most crime free.

Social psychologists have found that humans from very diverse cultures, including many different spiritual traditions well divorced from judeo-christian traditions, come up with very similar responses to questions about hypothetical moral dilemmas, providing even more evidence that the source of morality exists outside of religious doctrine.

One could even argue that atheists are more moral than theists, as we behave as we do purely out of a sense of right and wrong, and not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward. A'morality' based on the idea that an invisible scorekeeper is always watching and recording your deeds, and that he/she/it will mete out rewards or punishments post mortem is a 'morality' barely a step removed from BF Skinner's box of shocks.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#8 Mar 27, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
Atheists cannot be moral, if atheism is true. If atheism is true, no one can be moral. There is no foundation for any "right" or "wrong" statement if atheism is true. If atheism is true, the kidnapping and murder of a child is as morally neutral as helping an old lady take out her garbage.
http://veridican.org
I guess you have no understanding of life and humanity.

“Work out your own salvation.”

Since: Jan 12

new york

#9 Mar 27, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
Atheists cannot be moral, if atheism is true. If atheism is true, no one can be moral. There is no foundation for any "right" or "wrong" statement if atheism is true. If atheism is true, the kidnapping and murder of a child is as morally neutral as helping an old lady take out her garbage.
http://veridican.org
So , its betr to base your morality on the whims of a god who is bipolar as S**t - first he is all "loving" than he drowns the whole world. Very STABLE system of morality you got there.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10 Mar 27, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
<quoted text>
Fictional deity-schpictional deity. This isn't about a deity. This is about atheism. First, I'm not saying atheists are immoral, per se. But that's because atheism is not true. If it were true, then we would be merely matter in the universe responding to stimuli--nothing could be judged right or wrong. There would be no moral difference between blowing up a city or taking care of an Alzheimer's patient.
How can you dispute that?
http://veridican.org
Because morality is defined by how humans are affected by the actions of other humans. Yes, those actions are simply matter moving around, but that is making a mistake of looking at the lowest level. Morality isn't defined at the level of the motions of atoms. It is defined at the level of interaction between human beings. That seems to be your basic mistake.

“New Kind'a Christian”

Since: Mar 13

New Orleans

#11 Mar 28, 2013
Amused wrote:
You do not actually derive your morals from the bible or any religious source. You do not kill people who work on the sabbath, nor stone stubborn children to death. You do not own slaves. You do not slaughter and burn animals to appease your god. All of these things are heartily endorsed in the bible, as is genocide and polygamy, neither of which you (I hope) practice.
I don't follow the Old Testament at all. It's not my Bible, and you're evading the point at hand: If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong; there is only [i]what happens.[/i]
Societies where atheism is more prevalent have lower crime rates. America, which is the stronghold of religion in the western countries, has far higher rates of murder, rape, robbery and other theft compared to the Scandanavian countries, where atheism is far more prevalent. If the laws are an expression of moral disapproval of behavior like killing, raping, stealing, etc., one who believed that religion is the source of morals would expect the country where religion is the norm to be the most crime free.
Social psychologists have found that humans from very diverse cultures, including many different spiritual traditions well divorced from judeo-christian traditions, come up with very similar responses to questions about hypothetical moral dilemmas, providing even more evidence that the source of morality exists outside of religious doctrine.
I'll go you one better and say that atheists are saints compared to Christians. So what? That isn't what I'm talking about. You should try reading and responding to the post at hand and not just publishing your own dissertation.

“New Kind'a Christian”

Since: Mar 13

New Orleans

#12 Mar 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because morality is defined by how humans are affected by the actions of other humans. Yes, those actions are simply matter moving around, but that is making a mistake of looking at the lowest level. Morality isn't defined at the level of the motions of atoms. It is defined at the level of interaction between human beings. That seems to be your basic mistake.
Then you make my point: "Those actions are just matter moving around." No matter what you say after that, it doesn't change the basic fact that given the doctrine of atheism, there is no moral foundation. There is only matter moving around.

So, like I said, the kidnap and murder of a child is the same thing as Mother Teresa caring for the sick--from a moral point of view--if atheism is true.

http://veridican.org

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#13 Mar 28, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't follow the Old Testament at all. It's not my Bible, and you're evading the point at hand: If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong; there is only [i]what happens.[/i]
<quoted text>
I'll go you one better and say that atheists are saints compared to Christians. So what? That isn't what I'm talking about. You should try reading and responding to the post at hand and not just publishing your own dissertation.
Wrong! Atheism simply is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. So it is "true". It's not a doctrine on morality. You are creating a strawman fallacy by adding to the basic definition.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#14 Mar 28, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
Atheists cannot be moral, if atheism is true. If atheism is true, no one can be moral. There is no foundation for any "right" or "wrong" statement if atheism is true. If atheism is true, the kidnapping and murder of a child is as morally neutral as helping an old lady take out her garbage.
http://veridican.org
Wrong! Atheists consider doing harm to others like murder and kidnapping is simply wrong. To say that Atheists cannot be moral is an out right lie. Now look at your buybull and we find lots of murder and mayhem which makes your book and foundation very immoral.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#15 Mar 28, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
<quoted text>First, I'm not saying atheists are immoral, per se.
That is not what you clearly stated earlier.
Brother Edward wrote:
Atheists cannot be moral,
Has the cult that you belong to got you confused already?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#16 Mar 28, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
Atheists cannot be moral, if atheism is true. If atheism is true, no one can be moral. There is no foundation for any "right" or "wrong" statement if atheism is true. If atheism is true, the kidnapping and murder of a child is as morally neutral as helping an old lady take out her garbage.
http://veridican.org
Of course atheists can be moral.

Their ethics are built on the foundation of good solid non-belief. This results in morals based on verifiable common interests, known causes and known consequences.

On the other hand, being Christian means defending genocide and infanticide. It means you approve of the murder of homosexuals, as well as anyone else who wishes to exercise religious freedom.

Furthermore, you base your whole shaky moral system on an unproveable supernatural being.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#17 Mar 28, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't follow the Old Testament at all. It's not my Bible, and you're evading the point at hand: If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong; there is only [i]what happens.[/i]
And this is your big mistake. Atheism, the disbelief in any deity, does not make things amoral. Morality is about interaction between humans. It is about how those humans are affected by the actions of others and how best to moderate interactions for the happiness of humans.
I'll go you one better and say that atheists are saints compared to Christians. So what? That isn't what I'm talking about. You should try reading and responding to the post at hand and not just publishing your own dissertation.
Your mistake is thinking that having a deity is the only way, or even the best way, to have morality (or, for that matter, meaning). In fact, you are completely misplacing the relevance and scope of morality. You seem to think it must be a cosmic truth, while in fact, it is a local aspect of how humans interact. Right and wrong are determined by the impact on humans and their happiness.
Amused

Bridgewater, MA

#18 Mar 28, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't follow the Old Testament at all. It's not my Bible, and you're evading the point at hand: If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong; there is only [i]what happens.[/i]
<quoted text>
I'll go you one better and say that atheists are saints compared to Christians. So what? That isn't what I'm talking about. You should try reading and responding to the post at hand and not just publishing your own dissertation.
If you don't follow the OT, you are no kinda christian. Your christ said he was here to fulfill OT prophesies and to fulfill the OT law. Without the OT, the NT is a non-sequiter. Unless there was a fall, there's no need for a redemptive sacrifice. So, unless you buy into the OT, the NT is a story of senselessly inflicted pain on a scapegoat created for just that reason.

You also overlook the fact that behavior has consequences both for the actor and for all the others in the environment. Behaving in moral ways increases the survival chances of both the individual and the social group. If you kill others, you create a society where it is more likely that you or one dear to you will be killed. If you steal, you increase the chance of your possessions being stolen. If you commit adultery, and that is acceptable, you'll never trust that your children are your own. Conversely, if you help others, you create an environment where you are more likely to be helped when in need. A society where helping the elderly is valued is also a society that recognizes that its members will in their time become elderly and in need of help.

By banding together in social groups where certain moral behavior is encouraged and immoral behavior is discouraged, we develop a consensus about what is moral and what is not moral. That consensus is not static. It was not that long ago that slavery was acceptable within the consensus. It was even more recently that drunken driving was seen as actual bad behavior that endangers others needlessly.

As such, morals are a useful, perhaps even necessary, thing which exists quite apart from your quaint notions of an invisible guy in the sky.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#19 Mar 28, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you make my point: "Those actions are just matter moving around." No matter what you say after that, it doesn't change the basic fact that given the doctrine of atheism, there is no moral foundation. There is only matter moving around.
No, you completely miss my point. Morality isn't an aspect of 'matter moving around'. It happens at the level of human beings (which are composed of that matter). An analogy is that of pressure. No single atom has pressure. Instead, pressure is a matter of how those atoms interact. Morality is a higher level phenomenon than pressure. In morality, the issue is one of how humans interact.
So, like I said, the kidnap and murder of a child is the same thing as Mother Teresa caring for the sick--from a moral point of view--if atheism is true.
http://veridican.org
Wrong again. Morality isn't determined by some cosmic law. It is determined by the happiness of human beings. If there were only one person in the world, there would be no moral questions. Once there are two, morality is an issue. For societies of millions and billions, morality is even more important for the stability of society because of the wide variety of people.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#20 Mar 28, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you make my point: "Those actions are just matter moving around." No matter what you say after that, it doesn't change the basic fact that given the doctrine of atheism, there is no moral foundation.
I think the problem you have is that the foundation of morality from an atheist perspective is different than what you think it *should* be. Instead of being something tied into the fabric of the universe, morality is simply about how humans interact and their goals and happiness.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 42 min rev big daddy pom... 227,362
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr Patrick 21,998
Stump a theist with 2 questions 3 hr CunningLinguist 13
The Ultimate Evidence of God 5 hr sriKim 120
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 6 hr Jaimie 68
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 7 hr Patrick 178
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 12 hr Patrick 4,085
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••