Why Atheism Is Morally Bankrupt - A thought since we are celebrating Christs birth...

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Ya know, the more y'all post in this thread, the more happier your making subman.

Does it really matter? I disagree with him, but I'm happy for the discussion. If I wasn't interested, I'd just not post.

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by Letum

pfft! I'ts true. He seams to see every post as confirmation of his beliefs, regardless of the content. :rotfl:

:rotfl:you seem to be right.:rotfl:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Does it really matter? I disagree with him, but I'm happy for the discussion. If I wasn't interested, I'd just not post.

no, you can post in this thread all you want. Im just saying.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Does it really matter? I disagree with him, but I'm happy for the discussion. If I wasn't interested, I'd just not post.

Quite right; to come to a forum with any other motive is a little odd.

[Skybird]

The claim "I believe in a deity, thus I am a moral person" makes no logical sense in itself. It makes you an ideologically obedient person - not more. Ideologies, political as well as religious ones, can be moral, or immoral.

Thus the quotes from something that Subman seems to have linked or written, are obvious nonstarters, not logical arguments, but just this: claims, since they all seem to base on this basic mistake of mistaking ideological obedience with moral behaviour.

Religious zealots often accuse atheism to be a.) intolerant and b.) immoral, but both accusations are pointless. The real debate always is a more or less hidden attack on atheists for not believing in what you tell them to believe in: your own set of theistic ideas for which you cannot give logical reason to believe in, and that take uncheckable imagination as checked fact. Conformity is what is wanted here, and some zealots are willing to bring it upon us by even totalitarian means. Attacks of this kind of course make a hoax of any accusation about atheism being intolerant and immoral: the other is accused of what one is practicing oneself.

A random find only, but I found this essay by somebody unknown making much more sense. At least making enough sense so that I kept the link since I found it earlier this year.

http://decoy.iki.fi/atheist/no-ghost-c-02

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The claim "I believe in a deity, thus I am a moral person" makes no logical sense in itself. It makes you an ideologically obedient person - not more. Ideologies, political as well as religious ones, can be moral, or immoral.

Thus the quotes from something that Subman seems to have linked or written, are obvious nonstarters, not logical arguments, but just this: claims, since they all seem to base on this basic mistake of mistaking ideological obedience with moral behaviour.

Religious zealots often accuse atheism to be a.) intolerant and b.) immoral, but both accusations are pointless. The real debate always is a more or less hidden attack on atheists for not believing in what you tell them to believe in: your own set of theistic ideas for which you cannot give logical reason to believe in, and that take uncheckable imagination as checked fact. Conformity is what is wanted here, and some zealots are willing to bring it upon us by even totalitarian means. Attacks of this kind of course make a hoax of any accusation about atheism being intolerant and immoral: the other is accused of what one is practicing oneself.

A random find only, but I found this essay by somebody unknown making much more sense. At least making enough sense so that I kept the link since I found it earlier this year.

http://decoy.iki.fi/atheist/no-ghost-c-02

I thought you were on vacation?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I thought you were on vacation?

Says who?

[porphy]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Agreed. Still, it would have been interesting to see what he thought.

I don't bother with the original post, but the history of biology is in my interest though.

Darwin didn't even use the term "survival of the fittest" until the second or third edition of Origin of Species. It's not mentioned at all in the original edition. As other already noted, philosopher and journalist Herbert Spencer was the one that came up with the expression from the start. It was then part of his mastodon project for a Synthetic Philosophy based on the general principles of integration and differentiation, where for example his Principles of Biology is but one of many very big books. Darwin was not fully satisfied with the term survival of the fittest, but by the time of the later editions of Origin, the expression was already in general use, and Darwin thought it could be used in his book as well.

Darwin addressed most of the questions about evolution and human morality, culture and reason in his book Descent of Man from 1871. Read this book if you are interested in Darwins view, or recommend it to people who says this or that about Charles Darwin and human evolution.

Altruism and evolution was well documented in zoology and discussed at the end of the nineteenth century, both when it came to animals and in connection to humans. Most famous was perhaps Russian zoologist and later anarchist Peter Kropotkin with his series of articles republished in 1902 and called Mutual Aid. based on the years as a field zoologist in Sibira and elsewhere, he criticized an overly competitive view of Darwinian evolution and the struggle for existence by showing how altruism and mutual aid was common in nature.

cheers Porphy

[Aramike]

Skybird, good post, but I do have a disagreement...

Religious zealots often accuse atheism to be a.) intolerant and b.) immoral, but both accusations are pointless.

This could be semantic because, had you said "atheists", I would have agreed.

However, atheism is of itself a specific belief. One can no more disprove the existance of a deity than prove one - thus is the very nature of the debate, as it were. Atheism, by its very nature is not tolerant of any other belief system. It quite simply postulates that it is the correct system, thereby clearly implying that all others are wrong. This argument holds similarly true for most religions.

Quite franky, I find atheism to have more in common with religion than agnostisicm does.

However, the ATHEIST, in very much the same way as a deist, can have varying levels of tolerence for another system of belief. That being said, I personally find the actions of the more zealous atheists to be consistant with the actions of the more zealous deists. In other words, atheism seems to be becoming a religion unto itself.

The bottom line is this: if you're an atheist who holds the belief that there is nothing to believe regarding a deity, then you truly have nothing to proclaim. There is no god, that's the way it is, so why talk about nothing?

But, when you begin peddling your atheism, you become exactly what you are supposedly opposing - a belief system. At least in the popular terms.

Either way, modern "atheism" has seemed to lock itself in a struggle between God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Brahma, etc. I find it ironic that so-called atheism would choose to "lock horns" with things atheism itself believes doesn't exist.

As for me? I'll remain agnostic until I find proof one way or the other.

[Mikhayl]

Isn't an agnostic just an atheist waiting for some evidence ? Like if an atheist wouldn't aknowledge that there's a god if the man showed up ?
I fail to see how atheism could be a religion although I do agree of course that some atheists sound much like religious freaks and I find the adds campaign here and there really ridiculous and paradoxal. For me "atheist" is just a vague notion, but if it has to be some precise thing much like a religion then count me as "non believer" and that will do
And god=allah

[Aramike]

Isn't an agnostic just an atheist waiting for some evidence ? Like if an atheist wouldn't aknowledge that there's a god if the man showed up ?

No. An agnostic is someone who, by definition, simply doesn't believe there is evidence one way or the other.

As for atheism being a religion, think of the meaning you interpretted the last time someone said that another was following something "religiously". That context often has nothing to do with a deity, but rather a description of how something was followed.

And god=allah

God = Allah = Shiva = [insert deity here]. I know that Muslims and Christians seemingly consider Allah and God to be the same deity; I was just using different cultural terms for "God".

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Skybird, good post, but I do have a disagreement...

This could be semantic because, had you said "atheists", I would have agreed.

However, atheism is of itself a specific belief. One can no more disprove the existance of a deity than prove one - thus is the very nature of the debate, as it were. Atheism, by its very nature is not tolerant of any other belief system. It quite simply postulates that it is the correct system, thereby clearly implying that all others are wrong. This argument holds similarly true for most religions.

I disagree.

Usually people – me included – throw two terms together when talking of “atheism”: these two terms are “atheism” and “antitheism”. Some do it because being careless and not thinking about it, others – me included – do it for reasons of verbal comfort, like they – and me - also do not always verbally differ between church and Christianity, and mean the first when using the latter.

But “atheism” and “antitheism” are not exactly the same. The first simply does not care for the question whether or not deities exist. The latter explicitly claims a position of rejecting the possibility of deities existing.

However, the burden of evidence is not on atheism, since atheism does not make any claims about the existence of something for which there is no evidence, no hint, no forcing logical conclusion, nothing that speaks for it and goes beyond the realm of hear-say and man-founded traditions of scripture, thinking and arguing. In the end, “God” is of the same quality as the statement that there are singing pink frogs living under the surface of Neptune. You can believe they live there, you can choose not to believe that, and you can simply not care. But if you choose not to believe, this hardly can be given as a argument to claim that not assuming their existence is a belief itself, by that every wild speculation would be turned into a logical argument with a justified existence by form and content, every fantasy would be upgraded in substantial, real quality, and every position not being in conformity with these wild speculations and fantasies would be stated to be the same kind of fantasy or speculation by nature and essence like these fantasies themselves. Academically, this maybe is fun, but it leads you nowhere than to fruitless hairsplitting. In the end, theistic religions still are expected to produce a self-justification that goes beyond circular self-referring. And not taking circular self-referring as valid you are a free to label as a belief in itself, yes - but the point is that you score no point by doing so.

Morals claiming to be real only when basing on religious commands and obedience to the dogma, are no morals, but obedience to that given dogma. That way, those riding on the moral high horse, have often turned out to be the most immoral and barbaric history knows of. In the end, your obedience to a set of ideological commands not necessarily makes you a morally good man, even less so when the ideology in question is basing on immoral examples itself, like possible political ideologies, or the psychopathic god of the old testament - an evil, bloodthirsty and cruel villain that for the sake of our safety and the well-being of our families we would lock behind iron bars if he would freely walk around on the streets. What you do and what you don’t do, what you decide and why – this is what makes you a good man, or not. That is moral behaviour forming up as a result of experience in life, and it is context-sensitive. It is not engraved in stone like behaviour rules in an old book, but it changes over the time of your life, and grows with your growing insight, and life experience. It thus could be called an “organic” moral behaviour.

Even more, since man has not the skill or ability to intentionally decide to forget knowledge he has gained, but can only see the need to correct his opinion if he finds out his former knowledge was wrong, you cannot escape to act morally on the basis of your knowledge and experience so far. Heaven and hell are states of mind, and nobody sentences you than you yourself. Neither reward nor penalty there is (except social sanctions of the community you live in). Being free to act as you want, the decision is yours, and your deeds can make you a moral man who is a benefit for others as well (an altruist), or not (which makes you an egoist, or even a criminal). This ultimate conflict in our existence we can already see in the fact that we cannot manage to live without taking life of others, whether it be animals, or plants. What forms our moral attitude in this conflict is the attitude in which we take this life, and whether the life we take is aware of the action and is worried, or not. That’s why from a moral position it makes a difference whether you slaughter an animal in great fear, with pain and inside the horror of a slaughtering factory, or do it yourself in a more peaceful environment, without giving the creature much time and opportunity to be worried and to suffer. Although the outcome may be the same, the different approaches are not.

In the end, morals do not get defined neither by religions, nor atheism, but the simply fact that all creatures have two things in common: they/we all try to evade fear, pain and suffering, and try to find well-being, comfort and happiness. The decisions we make in trying to get there, and the relation between our life quality and the amount to which we adjust the life quality of others, man and creatures alike, for the worse or better, decide on whether we are morally good people, or not. It’s not just the outcome that counts. Even more important is the way in which we achieved it.

That is what morals are about. Religions, or atheism, are not needed for them.

Merry Christmas to you all. For me and my people over here, it means a traditional time of being together with family and friends, Gemütlichkeit, and to be thankful for the memories of a happy childhood my parents allowed (and made possible) to unfold for me.

[subchaser12]

If there is a god they sure pick really crappy representatives on earth. The current pope is an ex Hitler youth. Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell etc. I mean why not hot girls to bring god's message? Why is it always some old creepy dudes? What advertising uses old creepy white men to spread their word? Except the quaker oats guy talking about the damn diabetes it's always some hot young girl.

How can marketing be so far ahead of the all knowing all powerful god? If god knew everything I think they would know I'm not paying attention to old white men. Instead I am checking out the girl over there.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Isn't an agnostic just an atheist waiting for some evidence ? Like if an atheist wouldn't aknowledge that there's a god if the man showed up ?
I fail to see how atheism could be a religion although I do agree of course that some atheists sound much like religious freaks and I find the adds campaign here and there really ridiculous and paradoxal. For me "atheist" is just a vague notion, but if it has to be some precise thing much like a religion then count me as "non believer" and that will do
And god=allah

Yeah, I'd say an agnostic fits it.

What gives? Christians tried this stuff for the last 2000 years. Luckily they can't burn ppl they don't agree with anymore, the enlightment at last finally got rid of that madness.
I have always considered christians the biggest hypocrits in the world. They love to throw around the morale argument, but I yet have to find a christian that actually lives by jesus teachings, a man, if he really existed as described by the book, I respect for what he attempted. He probably was the worlds first humanist. Can't see subman present his cheek after he was hit on the other, though. Modesty certainly fell out of fashion in christiandom since jesus' death.

Unluckily that can't be said by many (luckily by far not all) of his followers. Ignorant, hating ppl who snipe for everything not fitting their world view. These Christians talking about morality is like fantatic communists or fashists praising freedom and democracy. It's such a contradiction it's laughable.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Either way, modern "atheism" has seemed to lock itself in a struggle between God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Brahma, etc. I find it ironic that so-called atheism would choose to "lock horns" with things atheism itself believes doesn't exist.

These statements do not add up. Atheists are not in a struggle with a divine entity whose existence they doubt. Atheists (some) are in a struggle with religions and religious believers whose existence is not in doubt.