Anger Acceptable for Atheists

[JackC 0]

Quote

Since you have no proof of the absence of God, the evidence to support this fact is derived from your hope that you have correctly extrapolated the few facts that you possess. The evidence that God doesn't exist for you, is based on your faith in these conclusions.

Not really, God doesn't make any sense to me. It isn't a matter of faith to believe that square-circles don't exist, or that married-bachelors don't exist. Similarly it takes no faith to think that an omnimax god doesn't exist. Other types of god are firmly in the dunno category.

But if you call that faith, then absolutely everybody has faith in the infinite number of discovered or undiscoverd, possible or impossible things that either do or don't exist. Unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, chupacubras, klingons, robotic killing sheep, zombie snails with laser eyes, ambrosia, hydra, medusa, flying teapot pixies, all these things and absolutely everything in the universe ever (real or imaginary), are things you have faith in one way or the other. Your definition is so wide, it is utterly and mind bogglingly pointless.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

If that were true, then the strong would be justified in redirecting all available resources for their consumption and use in propagation.

Why?

Quote

The weak and genetically inferior would be useless and therefore terminated without prejudice.

Why?

Quote

If there is no moral authority , why choose moral behavior when amoral behavior would better serve our species survival and evolution.

First off, we are social animal with an evolutionary imperative to co-operate, secondly we are intelligent enough to develop our own moral philosophy. Can you honestly tell me you'd be out there doing whatever the hell you wanted no matter who you hurt if it wasn't for a belief in God? If that's actually true then you might well be a sociopathic bastard. You might want to get that checked out.

I'd also like to see you explain why atheists make up such a low percentage of the prison population. If what you say has even a shred of truth to it then atheists should be stacked up to the ceilings. Luckily, of course, you are actually talking complete crap.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

If there is no moral authority , why choose moral behavior when amoral
> behavior would better serve our species survival and evolution.

Quote

Are you really saying that you would be more likely to be a murderer and a thief, and engage in all sorts of immoral behavior, if you didn't fear divine punishment?

Since the amoral crowd likes situational ethics so much, thus removing the concept of guilt, why should there be any punishment for murder or theft?
The arguement that they cause someone harm won't fly. Many of the things that we now pooh-pooh as normal human behavior, and therefore, shouldn't bother correcting it, causes someone harm.
We just saw the results of this last week, when a bunch of ten yr. olds conspired to harm their teacher, because she did something they didn't like.
This is the end result of not teaching a solid set of moral laws at an early age.
I quess that's one of the failings of evolution. We do resort to survival of the fittest.

[Lindsey 0]

Believing in God doesn't mean God exists. Perhaps we HAVE evolved morally even without the existence of God. Hmm.

Morals, ethics, guilt, punishment....the only way those depend on God is in the way they're perceived. The God-fearing folks have the fear of God as a foundation for these. The agnostic/atheist crowd have their own sense of right and wrong, independent of God, as a foundation.

I think resorting to survival of the fittest is also independent of God. I think it's situational. Throw a bunch of God-fearing kids on an island, and ya' get Lord of the Flies.

:)
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Everything!!!! If that were true, then the strong would be justified in redirecting all available resources for their consumption and use in propagation. The weak and genetically inferior would be useless and therefore terminated without prejudice. To mention only a few reasons. If there is no moral authority , why choose moral behavior when amoral behavior would better serve our species survival and evolution. As it stands now we are destroying our planet to keep all of these inferior people alive.

Clarification:
Would you clarify this a bit – do you mean to imply the Christians & other monotheistic faiths are not practicing eugenics or outright mass murder of those they deem “inferior” because of the moral authority derived from monotheism?



---- ----- ----

Responding to issue of origin of moral & ethical systems:

While many people do derive ethical and moral codes of behavior from religious principles, one can also derive ethical & moral codes of behavior from the rule of law, from Enlightenment principles of personal liberty and personal responsibility and/or from any number of a-religious philosophical approaches, e.g., from Aristotle to Descartes to Ayn Rand to Existentialism (authenticity & Da Sein) to Star Trek.

There is no requirement for belief in a monotheistic deity or pantheistic deity system in order to behave morally.

As has been witnessed throughout history belief in a mono-theistic deity or pan-theistic deity system does not preclude humans from acting a-morally or immorally.

As Kurt Vonnegut succinctly described: “being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” Im-ever-ho, that’s the ultimate in personal responsibility: behavior because it’s normatively right, without motivation or expectation of material or immaterial compensation.

There’s a high-ethics question, more of an intellectual/philosophical nature than pragmatic impact:
if one’s behavior is based on the ultimate reward system (eternal life), how truly ethical is that behavior? Theologians & philosophers throughout history have grappled with this question with less resolution than a typical Speakers Corner's thread.



Responding to issue of moral behavior & evolution:

The disparate fields of sociobiology, philosophy, evolutionary psychology, & economic game theory deal directly with this.

Just a few examples off the top of my head:

Moral (or usually expressed as the positivist “cooperative behavior”) has been shown to be an evolutionary trait that benefits human survival, e.g., “the Grandmother (& Grandfather) Hypothesis.”

Reciprocal Altruism, which traces its citation lineage to Darwin.

Ethical decisions to go to war and other conflict resolution explained through game theory.

Additionally, if one accepts that moral or altruistic behavior is dependent upon conception of a theistic belief system, then how does one explain the myriad examples of behavior observed in creatures from primates to birds to ants, i.e., biological or animal altruism?

These works are intrinsically tied to cellular & molecular biology and cutting-edge physiology.

---- ---- ----

One might speculate -- pure speculation -- that the origin of theism as a uniquely human trait may be derived from our cognitive structure. A (male) colleague of mine, much older than I am, once posited that if we were intelligent reptiles (rather than primates dependent on parents for care in our early life) that we would have no concept of a higher power.

One of those late-night thoughts to ponder. Even with all the conflict and atrocities motivated by religious disagreemment throughout human history, in consideration of the amzing art, music, literature, and community that our human theistic constructs have yielded, that's not a trade-off worth making, imho.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Since the amoral crowd likes situational ethics so much, thus removing the concept of guilt, why should there be any punishment for murder or theft?
....
I quess that's one of the failings of evolution. We do resort to survival of the fittest.

Be careful about the idea of situational ethics. Human history -- to the modern day -- is filled with atrocities in which those leading, inspiring, and executing them claim to be acting on divine inspiration or religiously-derived mandate.

Amoral is not equivalent to atheism or non-theistic.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Since the amoral crowd likes situational ethics so much, thus removing the concept of guilt, why should there be any punishment for murder or theft?

Amoral people don't care about any ethics. That's why they are called amoral.

Quote

Many of the things that we now pooh-pooh as normal human behavior, and therefore, shouldn't bother correcting it, causes someone harm.

Like?

Quote

I quess that's one of the failings of evolution. We do resort to survival of the fittest.

Ridiculous. Recognising the fact that we are the result of evolutionary processes has fuck all to do with being moral or not. Again, if you need to believe lies about how the human race came into existence for you to be moral, that does not say anything good about you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[maadmax 0]

>If there is no moral authority , why choose moral behavior when amoral
> behavior would better serve our species survival and evolution.

Are you really saying that you would be more likely to be a murderer and a thief, and engage in all sorts of immoral behavior, if you didn't fear divine punishment?

Quote

I do not fear divine punishment, it is of no more concern to me than it is to you. The answer to your question can be found in a brief survey of the history of past civilizations that lived under their own moral authority.

_________________________
_________________________

>As it stands now we are destroying our planet to keep all of these
>inferior people alive.

How do you account for atheists showing the same sorts of altruism as religious types, then?

Easy, we live in a culture heavily influenced by Jewish and Christian values. Just read the constitution and examine the lives of some of its authors

_________________________________________

[maadmax 0]

What evidence is there that a god exists? Why should one make the assumption that there is a god without any basis? It is much more logical for scientists to assume there is no god until there is evidence to suggest such a supernatural being exists .

Quote

For me, the evidence is everywhere, in everything I see and touch. I am immersed in God,s creation and I am a part of it.

______________________________________

• Quote

[maadmax 0]

But if you call that faith, then absolutely everybody has faith in the infinite number of discovered or undiscoverd, possible or impossible things that either do or don't exist. Unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, chupacubras, klingons, robotic killing sheep, zombie snails with laser eyes, ambrosia, hydra, medusa, flying teapot pixies, all these things and absolutely everything in the universe ever (real or imaginary), are things you have faith in one way or the other. Your definition is so wide, it is utterly and mind bogglingly pointless.

[maadmax 0]

First off, we are social animal with an evolutionary imperative to co-operate, secondly we are intelligent enough to develop our own moral philosophy. Can you honestly tell me you'd be out there doing whatever the hell you wanted no matter who you hurt if it wasn't for a belief in God? If that's actually true then you might well be a sociopathic bastard. You might want to get that checked out.


To review what social animals are capable just look back in history 60 years and thank somebody that you are not writing your statement in German.

_____________________________________
_____________________________________

I'd also like to see you explain why atheists make up such a low percentage of the prison population. If what you say has even a shred of truth to it then atheists should be stacked up to the ceilings. Luckily, of course, you are actually talking complete crap ***


Probably for the same reason it is difficult to find an atheist in a fox hole.

______________________________________

[Lindsey 0]

I think that as societies have evolved, it has benefitted people to strike a balance between cooperation, intolerance of some things, and self-serving motives. It is certainly not beneficial to survival for everyone only to be out for number one. I think our moral code comes more from what has benefitted us in terms of survival than from God's dictum.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 3,116]

>Since the amoral crowd likes situational ethics so much, thus removing
>the concept of guilt, why should there be any punishment for murder or
>theft?

To a completely amoral person, he would see punishment for murder as purely practical. He does not want to be killed, and a harsh punishment for murder would therefore be a deterrent to a potential killer.

Of course, most people (from atheist to fundamentalist) are fairly moral, and thus object on a morality basis as well.

> I quess that's one of the failings of evolution. We do resort to
> survival of the fittest.

Not as a society. Drive by any hospital.

[Lindsey 0]

To review what social animals are capable just look back in history 60 years and thank somebody that you are not writing your statement in German.

And??? What's your point here? Are you saying that Germany is an atheistic society? Or did the Third Reich occur under God's watchful eye?

Either way, it doesn't matter. There's no point to be made there as far as I can see.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

To review what social animals are capable just look back in history 60 years and thank somebody that you are not writing your statement in German.

That's also a review of what Christian nations are capable of.

Quote

Probably for the same reason it is difficult to find an atheist in a fox hole.

Back that statement up.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[maadmax 0]

Quote

Quote

Everything!!!! If that were true, then the strong would be justified in redirecting all available resources for their consumption and use in propagation. The weak and genetically inferior would be useless and therefore terminated without prejudice. To mention only a few reasons. If there is no moral authority , why choose moral behavior when amoral behavior would better serve our species survival and evolution. As it stands now we are destroying our planet to keep all of these inferior people alive.

Clarification:
Would you clarify this a bit – do you mean to imply the Christians & other monotheistic faiths are not practicing eugenics or outright mass murder of those they deem “inferior” because of the moral authority derived from monotheism?



/Marg

I am sorry Marg if all ,so called, Christian folk look the same to you. They really aren't. People can take something good and corrupt it, using it to justify their own brand of evil. The Bible says those who have committed such an egregious sin are worse than those who have done it out of ignorance.

_______________________________________

[billvon 3,116]

>I do not fear divine punishment, it is of no more concern to me than it
>is to you.

Then why do you act morally?

>The answer to your question can be found in a brief survey of the history
>of past civilizations that lived under their own moral authority.

Let's see:

Ancient Rome - From before Christ to around 300 AD - no christianity, because there hadn't been a Christ yet. (And afterwards it was a tiny insignificant religion, growing slowly.) Called the "Pax Romama" or Roman Peace, a time characterized by economic prosperity, limited conflicts and political stability.

The Holy Roman Empire - 800 to 1800 - an empire in Europe characterized by conflict, warring popes, land disuptes and religious turmoil. In 1517, Luther began the reformation, and this led to a split within the empire. In 1618, this split led to the Thirty Year's War, a religious war between Christians that killed and fatally wounded the empire. Between 30% and 70% of the population in the warring areas died; 20% of the population of what is now Germany was killed. (That's at least several million people.)

Today, Sweden is entirely secular, and 85% of Swedes don't believe in God. The US is a fairly Christian nation, with state-observed religious holidays, religious oaths required for public office and testimony before a court, and proclamations of religion on our money. Which one has started more wars?

[Lindsey 0]

Let's see:

Ancient Rome - From before Christ to around 300 AD - no christianity, because there hadn't been a Christ yet. (And afterwards it was a tiny insignificant religion, growing slowly.) Called the "Pax Romama" or Roman Peace, a time characterized by economic prosperity, limited conflicts and political stability.

The Holy Roman Empire - 800 to 1800 - an empire in Europe characterized by conflict, warring popes, land disuptes and religious turmoil. In 1517, Luther began the reformation, and this led to a split within the empire. In 1618, this split led to the Thirty Year's War, a religious war between Christians that killed and fatally wounded the empire. Between 30% and 70% of the population in the warring areas died; 20% of the population of what is now Germany was killed. (That's at least several million people.)

Today, Sweden is entirely secular, and 85% of Swedes don't believe in God. The US is a fairly Christian nation, with state-observed religious holidays, religious oaths required for public office and testimony before a court, and proclamations of religion on our money. Which one has started more wars?


Well, once God was an ANGRY God....then he became loving. Now maybe he's angry again. Maybe wars started by God-fearing people depend on where he is in his cycle.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I am sorry Marg if all ,so called, Christian folk look the same to you. They really aren't. People can take something good and corrupt it, using it to justify their own brand of evil. The Bible says those who have committed such an egregious sin are worse than those who have done it out of ignorance.

Let's review:

Some Christians (and more generally, religious people) are moral.
Some Christians (and more generally, religious people) are not moral.
Some atheists are moral.
Some atheists are not moral.

I'm not seeing a correlation between being religious and being moral. The two characteristics appear to be independent of one another.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,116]

>Maybe wars started by God-fearing people depend on where he is in his cycle.

"Uh oh, it's that time of the millennia again."

[Butters 0]

Quote

>Maybe wars started by God-fearing people depend on where he is in his cycle.

"Uh oh, it's that time of the millennia again."

So that is what was happening when God turned all the water in Egypt to blood.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Hausse 0]

*Cough* PMS *Cough*

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

*Cough* PMS *Cough*

This kind of confirms what I've suspected all along. God really IS a woman. There's a REASON her mood is so f*cking labile.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

"Uh oh, it's that time of the millennia again."

I'm flushing all my illegal substances down the toilet today!

. . =(_8^(1)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

"Uh oh, it's that time of the millennia again."

And that leads to EVERYONE being able to be angry EXCEPT christians...

well ecept for the buhdists...they dont seem to get angry often....but it seems all the OTHER religions or groups without religion are certainly angry...