Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#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.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#149202 Jan 21, 2013
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

#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

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149204 Jan 21, 2013
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.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#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

#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

#149207 Jan 21, 2013
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

#149208 Jan 21, 2013
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?

:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149209 Jan 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
So slavery was not morally wrong when everyone practiced it?

But it is now wrong because society has evolved morally?

So if you were living in the time when slavery was acceptable, would slavery have been immoral?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149210 Jan 21, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
It's about how Christians think morality is a gift from god, when it is a standard we hold ourselves to in reality.
It has nothing to do with god other than for those who believe they receive guidance from religion. But it isn't so , because if anything religion can swing morality to immoral acts against personal thought. I don't personally think that people from anywhere are that much different , despite religion in what we have ultimately decided as moral standard.
The universal declaration of human rights is testament of that.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.sht...

Most all the world agreed on this standard.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#149211 Jan 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said, and it is exactly why it has changed over time.
For instance it was once morally acceptable to own slaves.
Morality does not change!!!

That's the problem, most of us humans follow society and not our heart.

It was acceptable to keep slaves then, but i bet u, that the moral individuals didn't keep any slaves.

America threw bombs on Iraq and killed so many innocent children. Stupid people support America's actions, but moral people call America a big bully!

U think throwing bombs on little children is better than keeping slaves? How has society gotten better? It hasn't, evil has just taken on a different form!
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149212 Jan 21, 2013
Bollocks.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians like rational answers.
Atheists are happy to have faith.
Is that the point you are trying to make?
:-)

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149213 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So slavery was not morally wrong when everyone practiced it?
But it is now wrong because society has evolved morally?
So if you were living in the time when slavery was acceptable, would slavery have been immoral?
I cannot say because I wasn't there, but can only say I don't think I would have thought it to be. But In defense of the ignorance of slaveholders, they really thought the slaves were more like animals than humans then. that frame of mind changed, I think when everyone actually discovered that the slaves were just as human and feeling as anyone else. This probably didn't take as long as it did to end the practice, because their was profit involved.
As long as profit is involved there will be greedy men who don't care what feelings get in their way.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149214 Jan 21, 2013
Yes it does. Moreover, morality predates any modern religion.
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Morality does not change!!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#149215 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So slavery was not morally wrong when everyone practiced it?
But it is now wrong because society has evolved morally?
So if you were living in the time when slavery was acceptable, would slavery have been immoral?
It was always morally wrong, but an evil society allowed it to happen! Moral people have been fighting against evil since the beginning.

No, because Aura moves with society, he's influenced by society, so if he was in the olden days, he would have kept slaves, too.

LOL, i'm gonna get a telling off from Aura! I love u really, buddy!! I'm just sayin'. Forgive me!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
God' existence 34 min thetruth 86
Atheism: On the Rise? (Jan '13) 39 min thetruth 40
$13.5m for jehovah’s witness sex victim 45 min thetruth 3
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 hr serfs up 2,617
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 4 hr thetruth 10
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 4 hr thetruth 21
Evidence for God! 4 hr thetruth 371
More from around the web