Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.
Comments
143,301 - 143,320 of 224,740 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149189
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
He means that in some religions/cultures rape was allowed and IS allowed. When Muslims invaded Indian, The Muslim king (babur), allowed men to rape the women in Indian, they were not punished, they were given awards. So many women were raped, but even at that time there were some Muslims who said it's wrong to rape women.
You think rape is wrong either coz of the society u live in or coz u believe in 'God'. If your government said it is OK to rape a woman. Lots of men in your country and all over the world, would openly start raping women and not fear the law. If a man still does not rape a woman then he is listening to the God within.
Society can change what is right and what is wrong, but God's law has been the same since Hinduism started to this day. It never changes!! Rape was wrong then and rape is wrong now and it'll always be wrong.
Exactly.

Remove that absolute standard and rape is not wrong, it is just someones personal choice.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149190
Jan 21, 2013
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I am going to ask you again to be more articulate, if you want me to respond to whatever you think you're asking.
<quoted text>
I don't seek to justify my worldview to others. Morality exists, it gives social creatures like us a survival advantage.
If that doesn't answer your question, be more specific.
<quoted text>
No, the ultimate standard, if there is one, would be based on consensus of all moral minded individuals.
<quoted text>
It's both. Society is a collection of individuals. The individual influences the greater society, and the greater society influences the individual.
Some answers.:-)

But illogical answers unfortunately.

1. We all know that morality exists, what I am saying is that you cannot account for it in your worldview.

In mine it is easy, as it is a reflection of Gods character, but you have no basis for it as an atheist.

2. If an ultimate standard of morality is based on the consensus of all moral minded individuals, then who decides that they are moral minded?

Upon what standard do you judge them moral minded?

Again, you fail to see the vicious circular argument you wrap yourself up in...

3. So you are arguing it is consensual and individual? So who gets the final say, the consensus or individual?

They cannot both be equal...

That would be a contradiction, a logical contradiction.

So you see, you have no basis to explain the absolute morality you deny, but keep appealing to...

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149191
Jan 21, 2013
 
Clementia wrote:
He means that in some religions/cultures rape was allowed and IS allowed. When Muslims invaded Indian, The Muslim king (babur), allowed men to rape the women in Indian, they were not punished, they were given awards. So many women were raped, but even at that time there were some Muslims who said it's wrong to rape women.
You think rape is wrong either coz of the society u live in or coz u believe in 'God'.
Not necessarily.
Clementia wrote:
If your government said it is OK to rape a woman. Lots of men in your country and all over the world, would openly start raping women and not fear the law. If a man still does not rape a woman then he is listening to the God within.
Not necessarily.
Clementia wrote:
Society can change what is right and what is wrong, but God's law has been the same since Hinduism started to this day. It never changes!! Rape was wrong then and rape is wrong now and it'll always be wrong.
I agree with you that rape is wrong. We agree because we have empathy and don't want people to experience pain.

From this agreement comes laws and systems of morality and ethics.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149192
Jan 21, 2013
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I am going to ask you again to be more articulate, if you want me to respond to whatever you think you're asking.
<quoted text>
I don't seek to justify my worldview to others. Morality exists, it gives social creatures like us a survival advantage.
If that doesn't answer your question, be more specific.
<quoted text>
No, the ultimate standard, if there is one, would be based on consensus of all moral minded individuals.
<quoted text>
It's both. Society is a collection of individuals. The individual influences the greater society, and the greater society influences the individual.

Well said, and it is exactly why it has changed over time.
For instance it was once morally acceptable to own slaves.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149193
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily.
<quoted text>
I agree with you that rape is wrong. We agree because we have empathy and don't want people to experience pain.
From this agreement comes laws and systems of morality and ethics.
But what happens when in a society more people agree that rape is acceptable?

Which has and does indeed happen.

If that is your standard, then you will of course be duty bound morally, based on your own professed standard, to honour that position of that society.

And as to you having empathy.

You are a rock that turned into a man, why does empathy matter?

Empathy for an atheist is little more than a convenience that can be dropped at any time.

In fact, it seems that much of mankind has evolved very little empathy if the news is anything to go by.

So how do you account for this seeming lack of empathy in your fellow man?

You cannot of course.

And this is why your atheistic worldview is totally bankrupt.

It cannot answer the most basic "why" questions that humanity asks...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149194
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

And this is the fundamental issue.

The majority of atheists likes to often claim they can explain everything through empirical means.

But they cannot account for the great "why" questions of life.

The best they can do is say:

There is no "why", you are just a rock, go out and indulge those signals that tell you you are your own moral standard...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149195
Jan 21, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Some answers.:-)
But illogical answers unfortunately.
1. We all know that morality exists, what I am saying is that you cannot account for it in your worldview.
In mine it is easy, as it is a reflection of Gods character, but you have no basis for it as an atheist.
2. If an ultimate standard of morality is based on the consensus of all moral minded individuals, then who decides that they are moral minded?
Upon what standard do you judge them moral minded?
Again, you fail to see the vicious circular argument you wrap yourself up in...
3. So you are arguing it is consensual and individual? So who gets the final say, the consensus or individual?
They cannot both be equal...
That would be a contradiction, a logical contradiction.
So you see, you have no basis to explain the absolute morality you deny, but keep appealing to...

The majority decide what is acceptable, but the singular mind changes. Eventually maybe the majority decides the same as the singular minds. But it is consensus that holds morality to set laws of the society.

For instance, the singular mind may not agree with every issue, you must see that in our society even now. Not all accept gay relationships as moral, but the majority do accept that it can be. So it is acceptable as a whole.
If this behavior continues it will have become accepted by all, though not necessarily practiced by all.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149196
Jan 21, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously I do not accept your extremist interpretation of these passages.
But the real question is this.
How do you as an atheist condemn any of the above actions?
What ultimate standard of morality do you point to, in order to condemn the above?
No, the real question is; how do you translate those plainly written verses as anything but evil?

Denying, ignoring, and hiding from them is your only answer.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149197
Jan 21, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
Some answers.:-)
But illogical answers unfortunately.
1. We all know that morality exists, what I am saying is that you cannot account for it in your worldview.
I just accounted for it. Morality is an evolved survival mechanism.
mtimber wrote:
In mine it is easy, as it is a reflection of Gods character, but you have no basis for it as an atheist.
The "godddidit" answer is always easy. Figuring out what morality actually is, and why we have it, was not as easy.

Are you working on the assumption that atheism is a worldview, and that it's my worldview? It's not, and it's not. I'm an atheist, but all that means is that I lack belief in gods. It means nothing else.
mtimber wrote:
2. If an ultimate standard of morality is based on the consensus of all moral minded individuals, then who decides that they are moral minded?
You can't "decide" reality. All individuals capable of making moral distinctions will probably never be identified.
mtimber wrote:
Upon what standard do you judge them moral minded?
I would use the definition of morality as the standard. I'm not speaking of a defined moral code, just the definition of what morality is.
mtimber wrote:
Again, you fail to see the vicious circular argument you wrap yourself up in...
I'm still failing to see it. What do you see? And please, be articulate.
mtimber wrote:
3. So you are arguing it is consensual and individual? So who gets the final say, the consensus or individual?
This was about the greater society and the individual, not consensus. But anyways...

Societies are made up of individuals. Individuals hold moral beliefs. The individual and the greater society influence each other. The individual (mind) holds the beliefs, so the individual is the only "place" where morality can exist. The "final say" will then reside in the individual, but each moral distinction made by a member of society is influenced by that society.
mtimber wrote:
They cannot both be equal...
That would be a contradiction, a logical contradiction.
So you see, you have no basis to explain the absolute morality you deny, but keep appealing to...
I didn't say they were equal.

I haven't appealed to any absolute morality.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149198
Jan 21, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
But what happens when in a society more people agree that rape is acceptable?
Which has and does indeed happen.
If that is your standard, then you will of course be duty bound morally, based on your own professed standard, to honour that position of that society.
And as to you having empathy.
You are a rock that turned into a man, why does empathy matter?
Empathy for an atheist is little more than a convenience that can be dropped at any time.
In fact, it seems that much of mankind has evolved very little empathy if the news is anything to go by.
So how do you account for this seeming lack of empathy in your fellow man?
You cannot of course.
And this is why your atheistic worldview is totally bankrupt.
It cannot answer the most basic "why" questions that humanity asks...
I can think of no society where families raised daughters who thought rape was acceptable, except in maybe some barbaric clans of primitive prehistory where men ruled by tyranny.

But if the culture really thought that then yes rape would be morally acceptable. But the individual mind could still disagree.
When enough in fact disagree the moral code shifts.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149199
Jan 21, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority decide what is acceptable, but the singular mind changes. Eventually maybe the majority decides the same as the singular minds. But it is consensus that holds morality to set laws of the society.
For instance, the singular mind may not agree with every issue, you must see that in our society even now. Not all accept gay relationships as moral, but the majority do accept that it can be. So it is acceptable as a whole.
If this behavior continues it will have become accepted by all, though not necessarily practiced by all.
You have failed to grasp the fundamental flaw in your reasoning...

If society decides that rape is okay, you have to go along with that.

According to your argument.

But as you subject the morality of the individual to society, you are in effect forcing the individual to go against their conscience.

What if the individual is more enlightened than society, should he practice societies morality because he is outnumbered?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149200
Jan 21, 2013
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the real question is; how do you translate those plainly written verses as anything but evil?
Denying, ignoring, and hiding from them is your only answer.
Upon what basis do you appeal to the concept of "evil"?

That is an absolute moral standard you are appealing to, where do you get that from?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149201
Jan 21, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously I do not accept your extremist interpretation of these passages.
But the real question is this.
How do you as an atheist condemn any of the above actions?
What ultimate standard of morality do you point to, in order to condemn the above?
There is no ultimate standard. You thinking that there is, further exposes your ignorance to your own religion and world history.

Which of the ten commandments states that marrying a 10-year-old girl is wrong? None. Why do we not allow 10-year-olds to marry?

Yet your bible god tells his followers to murder every living thing, except for the virgin girls. Those you force into marriage.

Make that verse sound nice! LOL!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149202
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily.
<quoted text>
I agree with you that rape is wrong. We agree because we have empathy and don't want people to experience pain.
From this agreement comes laws and systems of morality and ethics.
Honestly, i don't even know what the question was or what the point of the rape discussion is all about but anyway.

We agree coz our heart say's so, coz of my 'God'/ your empathy, not coz of our governments. Governments are not ethical and all that sh*t, they do everything for their own benefit. People who only fear the law and don't have empathy, change when the law changes.

Do u really think that the majority of the people in America have more empathy compared to the people in India/China?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149203
Jan 21, 2013
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I just accounted for it. Morality is an evolved survival mechanism.
<quoted text>
The "godddidit" answer is always easy. Figuring out what morality actually is, and why we have it, was not as easy.
Are you working on the assumption that atheism is a worldview, and that it's my worldview? It's not, and it's not. I'm an atheist, but all that means is that I lack belief in gods. It means nothing else.
<quoted text>
You can't "decide" reality. All individuals capable of making moral distinctions will probably never be identified.
<quoted text>
I would use the definition of morality as the standard. I'm not speaking of a defined moral code, just the definition of what morality is.
<quoted text>
I'm still failing to see it. What do you see? And please, be articulate.
<quoted text>
This was about the greater society and the individual, not consensus. But anyways...
Societies are made up of individuals. Individuals hold moral beliefs. The individual and the greater society influence each other. The individual (mind) holds the beliefs, so the individual is the only "place" where morality can exist. The "final say" will then reside in the individual, but each moral distinction made by a member of society is influenced by that society.
<quoted text>
I didn't say they were equal.
I haven't appealed to any absolute morality.
I know you believe that morality is evolved, but you have not thought that through.

Morality then, is merely that which is expedient to the greater number of individuals.

Expediency then does not supply good or evil, right or wrong, it just supplies itself.

You are confusing the godidit argument (akin to the atheistic arockdidit) with the transcendental argument for Gods existence, two separate arguments.

You also now have placed morality squarely back in the individuals hands.

So now which individual is right morally?

The one with the most votes?

Because if that is your standard, you have a problem.

Hitler gained the most votes, therefore, according to your logic, he was morally right...
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149204
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not every question is answered instantly.
godbots need instant gratification.
As do religious child abusers.
mtimber wrote:
But they cannot account for the great "why" questions of life.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149205
Jan 21, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
Well said, and it is exactly why it has changed over time.
For instance it was once morally acceptable to own slaves.
We call that progress.

It's not like Christianity hasn't progressed, but a lot of Christians don't seem to understand that. They have to keep redefining "God" to make him better, and reinterpreting the Bible so they don't get sick while reading that filth.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149206
Jan 21, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed to grasp the fundamental flaw in your reasoning...
If society decides that rape is okay, you have to go along with that.
According to your argument.
But as you subject the morality of the individual to society, you are in effect forcing the individual to go against their conscience.
What if the individual is more enlightened than society, should he practice societies morality because he is outnumbered?
Slavery is a perfect example of this very thing you speak.

It was once perfectly acceptable, but the minds shifted that it wasn't. So it became immoral, mind you this shift took hundreds of years to complete. There is no flaw here we can see examples in history, as society's changed so did morality.

Is it moral to burn witches at the stake?
It once was, and they did by moral minded Christians, who believed themselves right. But this unthinkable now, and more than a few steps away from what thought to be moral.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149207
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no ultimate standard. You thinking that there is, further exposes your ignorance to your own religion and world history.
Which of the ten commandments states that marrying a 10-year-old girl is wrong? None. Why do we not allow 10-year-olds to marry?
Yet your bible god tells his followers to murder every living thing, except for the virgin girls. Those you force into marriage.
Make that verse sound nice! LOL!
You keep contradicting yourself...

In the first sentence you state there is no ultimate standard of morality.

Then in the last sentence you appeal to an ultimate standard of morality when you make your appeals of outrage.

You need to make up your mind, because all you are telling me about atheism at the moment, is that it cannot even supply a consistent rational basis for morality.

You still fail to grasp your own fundamental breakdown in logic.

If there is no ultimate absolute standard of morality, then nothing is absolutely immoral...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149208
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Thinking wrote:
Not every question is answered instantly.
godbots need instant gratification.
As do religious child abusers.
<quoted text>
Christians like rational answers.

Atheists are happy to have faith.

Is that the point you are trying to make?

:-)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••