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
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#198492 Jan 3, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez. Talk about stereotyping someone. Or do you think that the ONLY reason someone would be supportive of gays is because they are gay themselves?
The question itself is highly offensive.
Donít ask - donít tell?

I thought that was a good policy but we have moved pass it. Today, itís tell even if you donít want to know.

Example, the recent coming out of Robin Roberts with ABC news.

Anyway the good Doctor didnít answer the question which is his prerogative.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198493 Jan 3, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
I suggest that morality is only correct when it provides positive outcomes.
Have you ever studied moral theory - so-called metaethics? You're describing consequentialism, one of three major ways of thinking about ethics. The other two, deontological ethics and virtue ethics, deal with obedience to rules, and good intentions.

From http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics...

"Consequentialism (or Teleological Ethics) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result. Thus, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or consequence. Consequentialist theories must consider questions like "What sort of consequences count as good consequences?", "Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?", "How are the consequences judged and who judges them?"

This is contrasted with deontological ethics and virtue ethics:

"Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and other's rights (the Greek 'deon' means 'obligation' or 'duty')."

"Virtue Ethics, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the nature or consequences of specific actions performed. The system identifies virtues (those habits and behaviours that will allow a person to achieve "eudaimonia", or well being or a good life), counsels practical wisdom to resolve any conflicts between virtues, and claims that a lifetime of practising these virtues leads to, or in effect constitutes, happiness and the good life."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198494 Jan 3, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
ďDo you consider a higher birthrate or a lower one better?Ē Thatís a real good question. I guess the lower rate would mean more people are using birth control, I hope. I do believe in birth control and it should be free in lower income schools and neighborhoods.

"Is your answer the same if you consider the world and just the US separately?" Yes, I think it is.
Thanks for that.

How do you feel about church doctrine that promotes (biological) fecundity? The Catholic Church has promoted every idea that could lead to more babies being born - get married, don't be gay, don't use contraception, don't get abortions, have large families, etc. Apparently, the rhythm method is OK, although the main rhythm that yields is nursery lullabies:

"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry." - H.L. MenckenĒ

Also, did you note this comment in your link < http://www.babycenter.com/0_surprising-facts-... >:

"Birth rates ranged from 51 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 in Vermont to 88 per 1,000 in Utah."

Guess why.

As I said recently, I know that many people dislike my continually pointing out these problems caused by organized religion, and consider it unjustified bigotry and blind hatred on my part to do so, but these are real problems that affect real lives, and noting them all paints a different picture than simply calling the church goodness and light because it claims to be teaching morals and promoting charity, two claims that can be challenged.

Who else in the world is actually promoting an increased birth rate? Do we really need that? Is that helping the world? Does that help families? Does it help the first two kids to have four more sibs?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198496 Jan 3, 2014
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Dave Nelson wrote:
Your sincere prejudice against Christianity is noted. Along with other examples of your abundant hypocrisy all wrapped up in just a few paragraphs. You did better than I could in displaying your hypocrisy. Thank you very much. Atheist intelligence and ethics is a sight to behold. The power of it is awesome. No other philosophy could win friends and influence enemies by calling almost one third of the world a bunch of idiots in addition to being murderers. pedophiles, rapists, and just general moral deficients. And we aren't even counting another third that are even worse. And a huge chunk of the remaining that thinks such activity is less than good taste or civil discourse. But the modern atheists just know they will win the battle by sheer force of personality and righteousness of cause in spite of the vector sum difference. You keep telling the world how stupid they, and their ancestors were/are, IANS. You're doing a fine job of advancing your cause, the salvation of mankind.
Go have another cigarette.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198497 Jan 3, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
Iím going to ask you a very personal question and you donít have to answer if you donít want too. Are you a homosexual?
No.

Do you have difficulty conceiving of my support of gay people without being gay?

I also support minority rights and women's rights.

It's about common decency, man. Read your bible.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#198498 Jan 3, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
I may need clarification. When you said the end justifies the means and you look at the outcome, I guess I would need to know who is making that decision. I thought you meant the person committing the act was using their judgement to determine if the end justified their actions. Which is why I used the example of killing someone that the person doing the killing would consider it a better scenario with that person no longer alive.
So if you look at outcomes to decide if the ends justifies the means, what standard is being used to decide that? Or who is deciding if the ends justified the means?
I would not justify killing for the reasons you gave. Someone else could.

If this hypothetical killer kills in the jurisdiction of a government, the legal system of that government may also decide if they were justified, and then act on that conclusion. A victim of the fallout may decide and then act, dealing out vigilante justice, or revenge. A sympathetic bystander may decide and act by breaking them out of custody.

Our system of laws is not much more than a large scale moral compass. It represents our best interests. We give our consent to allow the government to impose our collective will on those that violate what most of us consider imperative behavioral norms. Right now this is the best we can do. Our government, as you know, is far from flawless. Just as an individual can make mistakes, so can collections of individuals.

I don't believe in moral absolutism. I don't necessarily believe that consensus creates truth.

The most important decisions we humans can make are ethical ones. I brought up heuristics because of how much we use them to make ethical decisions. We have to make this kinds of decisions most often in the absence of some relevant information. If we treat morality like we treat the laws of physics, we will make horrible mistakes that are avoidable.

RR says that cheating is always immoral. I'm saying there's no way to know that it's always wrong. If the definition of cheating dictates that harm is always done, I can see classifying it as immoral on that basis. Even if we go that far, a costs/benefits analysis may show that cheating will likely provide the best outcome compared to other available options.

Popping someone's dislocated shoulder back into place causes pain, but you still do it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#198499 Jan 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Self-satisfaction in the material sense? Satisfaction doesn't come from material objects.
I think that you're assuming (incorrectly) that I was talking about acquiring wealth. What makes me happy are my relationships, especially my marriage, having set high standards and accomplishing my goals, having treated people well, having made a difference in many lives, having virtually no regrets - things like that. I can hold onto all of that until I can no longer think.
I am very proud of the life I made for my wife and myself, and that gives me great satisfaction. And I am very proud of how good our relationship is. We see the problems our friends have - lack of respect for one another, picking at one another, spending selfishly, failing to encourage or show gratitude to one another, etc. That gives me satisfaction.
Also, I get great satisfaction just thinking. I believe that I have developed a robust and healthy philosophy, and have learned many interesting things that give me great pleasure contemplating.
I also get satisfaction from personal achievement and service. Sorry if this seems immodest, but I want to share with you some of what makes me feel good.
Last night, I prepared my lecture for tomorrow at the bridge club. I have become the director of the beginners game, which is played every Friday morning. I begin with a 30 minute didactic session based on a hand of interest from last week's game. My goal is to grow this game and help beginners develop a fervor for bridge and to advance to the open games most afternoons. Tomorrow, we will be discussing Jacoby transfers and Texas transfers in response to 1 no-trump and 2 no-trump opening bids. Is anybody reading these words into bridge?
What is so satisfying there is the feedback I get, as well as the pleasure in helping people grow as bridge players, and helping my bridge club. I should mention that I only took up the game in earnest myself last year, and my wife and I were players in that game until about Spring of this year. Many of the people I will be lecturing were in the beginning classes with Mrs. Aint and me last Spring. They accept me as their teacher.
In fact, the whole bridge club is proud of me, the rate at which my game has improved, and the way I've stepped up to take responsibility. I passed the test to become an American Contract Bridge League sanctioned tournament director last month, which is why I can run the Friday morning game, and was also elected to the club's board of directors.
Where's the material aspect of that? Sure, none of it would have been possible without being able to afford to retire to a life of leisure. But money only buys freedom from privation, and the opportunity to find satisfaction if you know where to look for it - not the directions to get there. In fact, the single-minded devotion to accumulating wealth, fame or power is a pretty sure path to an empty feeling.
Yes, I interpreted your remark as in the material sense. My mistake.

I have no quarrel with your perspective.

One question that comes to mind, I-man. With no belief in an afterlife, how do you avoid deep pessimism?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198500 Jan 3, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
"secular bible study" http://www.meetup.com/AtheistCommunityCS/ I love that. IANS and his brethren should move to Colorado. Looks like they may find a home at that place. Plus the dope is legal.
Why would I want to move to Colorado? For an atheist club and $200-$400/oz pot?

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#198501 Jan 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>No.

Do you have difficulty conceiving of my support of gay people without being gay?

I also support minority rights and women's rights.

It's about common decency, man. Read your bible.
I get that a lot as well. One need not be a homosexual to care about human rights.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#198502 Jan 3, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Overall, I would say "yes" to that, since you would be asking about something that is none of your d*mn*d business.
Add to that the context in which the question was being asked and that certainly makes it offensive.
But you are just an offensive sort of guy so I wouldn't expect you to understand such things.
As for your insults to me...Meet the new Buck. Same as the old Buck.
You bounce back and forth between it being none of my business and it being accepted as a necessary societal norm.

It can't be both.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#198503 Jan 3, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Oh, Buck, you are so effing funny.
That you buy into Barton's faux history doesn't surprise me one bit. It fits right in with all the other idiotic things you think are true.
BTW...even Christian historians say that Barton is full of it. If he actually had a history degree, he would be a major embarrassment to the university that gave it. Barton's style of "history" is to decide what he wants to be true, then scrape the bottom of the barrel to find what little he can to make it sound like his claim is true.
But then, he operates in much the same manner that you do.
You are a liar and a bigot and a smear artist. You live by the canard.

Then you preach about what is right or wrong.

Bigot, liar, hypocrite, asshole - that's you. Altogether, you are a despicable human being.

Barton offers more primary source documentation of his point of view than you have brain cells to comprehend.

He achieved. You lie. That's the sum of it. Moron.

You practice your same bigotry with anything that ruffles your dreams - including Intelligent Design. And you are not bright enough to do it well.

Add bumbling bigot to your CV.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198504 Jan 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4ae6ma6qdukXX
Yikes, Buck.

I liked him in Skyfall

“Merry Yuletide”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#198505 Jan 3, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
And Krishna was born of a virgin. As were Perseus and Horus and a whole host of other godlings from a host of different religions. Quite a club. And if you include miraculous births (after all, you brought up Joseph) the club grows tremendously. You get Heracles, Apollo, Theseus, Dionysus and Pan, just to name a few, from the Greek stories alone.
Not too original, are they?

“Merry Yuletide”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#198506 Jan 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Do you have difficulty conceiving of my support of gay people without being gay?
I also support minority rights and women's rights.
It's about common decency, man. Read your bible.
I get it. The reason that you support human rights is because you're a Homo Sapiens.

That's the best reason.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#198508 Jan 3, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
Well that is kind of my point. How do we address that? If we say someone that needs food for their family should steal it, they have to steal it from someone. And whoever they take it from doesn't deserve to be stolen from. Which is why I think even if an act is understandable, we can't eliminate that it was still immoral to steal.
How do you determine that "whoever" they take it from doesn't deserve it? What if they don't even know who they're stealing from? What if it's a terrorist? What if they're stealing food that was stolen in the first place?

I think we have to explore the validity of ownership. Can you own gases in addition to liquids? Can I own the air above my land? What makes something mine?

I do consider stealing to be immoral, but that shortcut is just a rule of thumb. It's deep deep in the grey area for me.

I personally respect the validity of ownership because I want to be able to own things myself. In American society, for a start, ownership is a legal concept. Ethical decisions regarding stealing would need to take that into account.

My moral beliefs about stealing aren't really helpful in making ethical determinations, so I tend to skip the morality and do the calculation the long way, which means I need as many details about a situation as possible. I use my value system, or alternative value systems, to calculate the best solution I can. I also acknowledge if I come up undecided.
Skombolis wrote:
That's a hard one. I guess maybe if someone is weighing their own values against a societal standard that can occur. I have always seen the two as fairly synonymous. If anything, I normally see ethics as less of a breach than morality. For example, let's say I am about to close a sale on Tuesday for 1000 I-phones. I get an email saying as of Wednesday the price will be cut in half. I meet with the buyer on Tuesday and he asks me if this is the best price I can get for him because they really need to stay under budget. Since the new pricing doesn't go into effect until the next day, technically the higher price is the best I can offer him at the time so I tell him that's the best price I can give it to him for. Technically it is true. I didn't do anything immoral. Yet not very ethical IMO not to let him know he can wait one day and save half.
More grey area.

If everyone followed my particular value system, nobody could possibly get rich.
Skombolis wrote:
So I'm trying to think of a situation that technically would be considered immoral but still the right thing to do. Maybe something like I know for a fact someone molested his step-kid. But I know because I saw video that was illegally set up and if I saw that the case will be thrown out. So instead on the stand I lie and say I saw the crime in person. It was immoral to lie but I know if he goes free he will continue to abuse this kid. Maybe something like that I guess
Lying on the witness stand would not usually serve justice, but if it did, why wouldn't it be the right thing to do, if you can get away with it?

You'd have to be sure. You'd have to trust yourself, and take a risk.

People that aren't interested in justice could lie also, and not get caught.

The law influences only a segment of the population. Most of that influence ends up being beneficial, but sometimes it's not.
Skombolis wrote:
Perhaps. It would be hard for anything to cover all situations. But what scares me about that is the subjectivity. People tend to act in their own self-interest. It can be easy to convince one's self that the rulebook shouldn't apply.
The problem of subjectivity in morality has always existed. As societies progress, that problem lessens.

We have better moral systems now. They'll continue to improve where they can. Like biological evolution, these systems are up for natural selection. Those that can't adapt, or can't adapt fast enough, are likely to die.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#198509 Jan 3, 2014
I can see why some need to think there is a God. Some need that thought since most humans are not Evolved enough just yet to know truths or even truths about who a dollar bill has certain things on it.

Most young guys like 20 or younger are Atheists now so religion is gone in the States in 20 years like Western Europe but for the next 20 years, some are going to still need the fake stuff and the government knows it.

Some of us have certain ways we knew early in life the truth but not saying how that was since not getting in trouble here with that info so will stick with science on the topic there is no God.

Be ready for first contact soon. We broke light speed three times now! Yes, humans have visitors for a long time now watching not harming and about to make contact in next ten to 20 years publicly and with it, religion is gone so people grow up for sure and learn this Galaxy has lot of life in it even some on the Solar system and most is positive but some is not but that is tended to by visitors protecting you for thousands of years already.

As for other Galaxies, they are teaming with life too well more advanced than this large Galaxy that becomes tiny when going into the Universe and then other Universes in Quantum Physics.

BTW, I can say it since no one here would believe it but I have a design of a ship almost ready to travel warp speed for humans yet some materials needed are not found on earth but magnetism and aluminum are. It takes three sections of wings once anti-gravity kicks in on earth plane level then larger wings close, mid size boost speed once in Space then close and tiny wings reach under light speed since speed of light is limit of light only and then they close and boom, it is light 8 cubed! That is moving. Ship is cigar shaped but all is great since no worry that anyone here would believe much of that truth.

Main thing is to get past the religion BS in humanity so humans can get moving in real progress and be ready for a big future where there are no wars. This is why, I selected the Star Trek image since it is so funny how that one TV series had it all right so one brilliant human who had a little help from will just say friends imo that were out of your world but can look just like you and are not out to harm you or do testing on you in space ships lol That is not what it is. You are being watched in a good way and you had help many times in the past and your technology is not fully human. You are using some things a little fast like the Net but sex addiction seems to be a problem which is why I have nickname sexual type when is not important other than to relate.

Any real Atheists who know you are not alone in the Galaxy feel free to PM me.

I'm not giving out State secrets and fear nothing of any nation since no reason to but I go by your laws.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#198510 Jan 3, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Have you ever studied moral theory - so-called metaethics? You're describing consequentialism, one of three major ways of thinking about ethics. The other two, deontological ethics and virtue ethics, deal with obedience to rules, and good intentions.
From http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics...
"Consequentialism (or Teleological Ethics) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result. Thus, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or consequence. Consequentialist theories must consider questions like "What sort of consequences count as good consequences?", "Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?", "How are the consequences judged and who judges them?"
This is contrasted with deontological ethics and virtue ethics:
"Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and other's rights (the Greek 'deon' means 'obligation' or 'duty')."
"Virtue Ethics, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the nature or consequences of specific actions performed. The system identifies virtues (those habits and behaviours that will allow a person to achieve "eudaimonia", or well being or a good life), counsels practical wisdom to resolve any conflicts between virtues, and claims that a lifetime of practising these virtues leads to, or in effect constitutes, happiness and the good life."
I haven't exactly studied it.

I'm interested.

Most of my education in this area came from watching TV shows, mostly science fiction.

I can see value in each of these constructs. What I follow is my own.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#198511 Jan 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar and a bigot and a smear artist. You live by the canard.
Then you preach about what is right or wrong.
Bigot, liar, hypocrite, asshole - that's you. Altogether, you are a despicable human being.
Barton offers more primary source documentation of his point of view than you have brain cells to comprehend.
He achieved. You lie. That's the sum of it. Moron.
You practice your same bigotry with anything that ruffles your dreams - including Intelligent Design. And you are not bright enough to do it well.
Add bumbling bigot to your CV.
There is the spastic dance I prophesied.

Since: Sep 10

United States

#198512 Jan 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's offensive to ask someone if they are gay?
That suggests there is something wrong with being gay.
You want gayness to be accepted as normal, but take offense at the suggestion of something normal?
What a moron you are, Darwin's Dogpile.
I disagree with your take, Buck.

The suggestion is implicit in the question.

Or why would a straight person ask it of an anonymous poster?

Since: Sep 10

United States

#198513 Jan 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I interpreted your remark as in the material sense. My mistake.
I have no quarrel with your perspective.
One question that comes to mind, I-man. With no belief in an afterlife, how do you avoid deep pessimism?
I was about to reply to your question, but I'll leave it to IANS, who I am sure shares my perspective and can articulate it much better.

It's all about appreciation of life itself.

It's a wonder, and more than enough for 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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 hr Eagle 12 2,407
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 10 hr _Bad Company 23,198
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 14 hr Pahu 33
God' existence 14 hr Carchar king 63
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 14 hr Carchar king 138
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 21 hr Crazy Mess 1
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu thetruth 1,442
More from around the web