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

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#152749 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly haven't understood my point...
You're arguing for an "absolute morality" which, according to you includes "love God".

First, I would argue that there is no such thing as an "absolute morality" as all morality is defined by humans.

Even ignoring that, any "absolute morality" would by definition have to be applicable to everybody, including Buddhist, or it could not be considered "absolute".

So, your argument for any "absolute morality" fails on at least 2 levels.

Oh but that's right ... you're just making stuff up.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152750 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>The REAL fool says that our species came to be after an imaginary being blew on a handful of dirt and a man magically appeared.
What about the man that states a gust of wind blew on a handful of dirt and man magically appeared.

How would you define him?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#152751 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws of logic.
Are they material or immaterial?
Pronoun problems - define what you mean "they"?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#152752 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what I have claimed, so I cannot respond to this point...
Oh, so now you're not claiming "absolute morals". Okay.

You really need to get clear on what you are arguing and then show some real independently verifiable evidence for your position.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152753 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>This person didn't claim they had NO purpose, only that they didn't rely on an imaginary being for that purpose. And they are right, how sad it is that you can only find your purpose in life through a mythical being.
And what kind of twisted concept is it that you equate our origin to having a purpose.
Here's a hypothetical question that I know you will refuse to answer........but for the sake of everyone reading this, it will show how brainwashed you are..........What if tomorrow, evidence was produced that proved BEYOND ANY DOUBT that your God does not exist. What then would your purpose be?......Now we'll all wait for the........."No one can prove that God doesn't exist".........or..... "It's a stupid question, there will always be God." Anything to avoid the question. But, lets just see how honest you are.....What would your purpose be without God?
As the truth of God is self evident, your question does not really make much sense...

But you still are missing the point.

How do you account for the idea of purpose and destiny in an atheistic universe.

You cannot.

The explanation is simple, you were created by God, with purpose, but due to the desire to suppress that knowledge of God, including His purpose for you, you have to deny His existance.

Then you are caught in the conundrum of accounting for the purpose you intrinsically know you have, without the originator of that purpose to help you define it.

So what happens then?

Nothing, you just keep claiming you have purpose but cannot account for it.

You cannot explain it, because the explanation is not something you are comfortable with...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#152754 Feb 10, 2013
That is the creation of Adam in the bible right? Pretty damn silly indeed.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the man that states a gust of wind blew on a handful of dirt and man magically appeared.
How would you define him?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152755 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Why is it that you know so very little? Moral standards are set by societies. A group of people decide what is acceptable behavior, it usually addresses harm to member of that society. Laws are made, moral standards are accepted. Thats it. No God necessary. That would be especially true if the core of those standards came from the infamous 10 commandments. The first four of which deal solely with your God obsession with vanity. The other commandments are part of the Golden Rule which needs no God thing. Its always disturbing to me that nowhere in the 10 commandments is there anything about RAPE, or about CRUELTY TO CHILDREN. I guess it's a good thing we have the Golden rule to cover those horrors God felt were NOT necessary.
So if man defines morality, then slavery, which society deemed morally acceptable was ok?

I hope you see the absurdity of the position you hold when you try to give society the credit for setting morality...

You cannot argue that anything is intrinsically wrong or right, it is just a matter of crowd politics.

That then means that morality is merely the expression of the majorities desire.

Which creates a problem, when the majorities desire is harmful to the individual...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152756 Feb 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Modern secular humanist morality is by far superior and only getting better.
<quoted text>
If you say so, it must be true?

How can you argue that any morality is superior if you do not accept that absolute morality exists?

Illogical.

:-)

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#152757 Feb 10, 2013
But your god in the old and New Testament advocates for slavery, are you saying he was immoral for that?

I got a hundred bucks that says he dodges and avoids questions :)
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if man defines morality, then slavery, which society deemed morally acceptable was ok?
I hope you see the absurdity of the position you hold when you try to give society the credit for setting morality...
You cannot argue that anything is intrinsically wrong or right, it is just a matter of crowd politics.
That then means that morality is merely the expression of the majorities desire.
Which creates a problem, when the majorities desire is harmful to the individual...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152758 Feb 10, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one avoiding, mtimber. My argument does not appeal to absolute morality in any way.
Your moral system fails by it's OWN standards.
How can you state that any moral system is a failure, if you do not have a basis for defining morality?

Which you clearly do not...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#152759 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if man defines morality, then slavery, which society deemed morally acceptable was ok?
I hope you see the absurdity of the position you hold when you try to give society the credit for setting morality...
You cannot argue that anything is intrinsically wrong or right, it is just a matter of crowd politics.
That then means that morality is merely the expression of the majorities desire.
Which creates a problem, when the majorities desire is harmful to the individual...
There is only one absurdity here. It comes from the person claiming that god exists without a single shred of proof.

Until you've proven the god you are lying aboutm non of your "arguments' hold any weight here.

If you apply your brain a little bit you'll realise that none of your opinions matter at all, because you'll never be able to prove the god that you lie about.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#152760 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If you say so, it must be true?
How can you argue that any morality is superior if you do not accept that absolute morality exists?
Illogical.
:-)
Morality is relative, it requires no absoluteles. Especially absolutes conjured up by people who suffer from the mental illness of faith.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#152761 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you state that any moral system is a failure, if you do not have a basis for defining morality?
Which you clearly do not...
YOur moral system fails because you choose to invent a god and make that your moral absolute.

The problem is that god isn't real and you're lying about it.

You've had since the beginning of time to put your morality where your mouth is, but time and time again, you guys continue to talk about a deity that simply does not exist.

That's why you're in a cult I suppose, you have problems with facing reality, probably afraid of the impermanence of life I think.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#152762 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
And to take your argument to its illogical conclusion, morality did not exist before humanism arose...
Humanists see humans and human ethics and ideals as an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.

Humanists don't have values which are edicted on society, we see the best of society and give voice to what is. Humanists see that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

Humanist see ethical values as being derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. We see that working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness and therefore life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#152763 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
As the truth of God is self evident, your question does not really make much sense...
But you still are missing the point.
How do you account for the idea of purpose and destiny in an atheistic universe.
You cannot.
The explanation is simple, you were created by God, with purpose, but due to the desire to suppress that knowledge of God, including His purpose for you, you have to deny His existance.
Then you are caught in the conundrum of accounting for the purpose you intrinsically know you have, without the originator of that purpose to help you define it.
So what happens then?
Nothing, you just keep claiming you have purpose but cannot account for it.
You cannot explain it, because the explanation is not something you are comfortable with...
You assume "purpose and destiny" without ever showing evidence for these concepts as anything more than your wishful thinking.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152764 Feb 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Obsess much? Ok gramps I noticed you have made several errors in your schizophrenic ramblings. First you say you were an atheist for 50 years until a mean topix atheist bashed Jesus and Paul. This upset you for some reason and lead you to understand god was real and had been hiding in your old work as an electrician. And you honestly expect us to believe this?
If this were true that a topix poster and fellow atheist made you convert to being a theist because he bashed Jesus and Paul then you sir are a very weak minded sheep. Even I don't believe you are that stupid Dave, you're just not. You are a liar though and a Christian hiding his faith.
Had you been a baker no doubt god would be yeast. Baal was an ancient middle eastern god and was often the god of the city. Several cities had Baal gods almost like a guard dog-gods so to speak. Your machine nonsense and ancients doing similar strings and magnets experiments for god is sadly a product of your imagination.
And your correct interpretation of the bible to smooth things out is typical of Christians, which you are as shown by you getting furious at Jesus and Paul being mocked.
<quoted text>
You have no credibility as a moral commentator, observer of nature, rational adult, or intellectual. But that doesn't stop you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152765 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
And to take your argument to its illogical conclusion, morality did not exist before humanism arose...
More correctly, morality didn't exist before *humans* arose. Humanism is simply the expression of the idea that morality is based in *human* wants and concerns. Even those in societies with different moral structures will rebel against certain types of abuse by tyrants, for example.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152766 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So humanism is the basis of morality.
So when slavery was morally acceptable, by society, it was ok?
According to your argument, it would be.
Isn't it interesting that even those who upheld slavery did not want to be slaves themselves? Even those who saw it as part of the 'natural order' of things dictated by God, didn't see it as something they wanted their children to experience directly?

No, this only shows the society to be hypocritical. Fairness is crucial to humanism: the same rules apply to everyone. Funny, even that principle goes back a long way.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152767 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you state that any moral system is a failure, if you do not have a basis for defining morality?
Which you clearly do not...
Of course we do: fairness and human happiness. Both come from the fact that we are a social species. No deity required.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152768 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws of logic.
Are they material or immaterial?
They are ideas in our minds. As such, they are processes in the brain.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 5 min Thinking 2,279
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 min Thinking 23,185
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 12 min Thinking 123
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 13 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 13 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 hr thetruth 1,442
Atheism does not exist at all 14 hr thetruth 4
More from around the web