Keith

Keith: "And I don't believe that anyone can really be an atheist."

QueenofSwords: "Why not? I don't believe in a god. That makes me an atheist. Refute my statement if you can."

Keith: "Everyone has an innate sense of justice. We all expect others to treat us respectfully. We know how we ought to be treated and we demand to be treated the right way. As soon as someone wrongs us, don't we demand to know why?

After reading this thread, isn't it amazing how the "atheists" who have clearly affirmed moral relativism, all seem to want to distance themselves from some of the more shocking instances of moral relativism in action? (for example, by saying it was morally right for the Nazi's but that they don't agree with it themselves). This dichotomy has no explanation. Its like noting that the German people have reached the consensus that happy hour (or firing up the ovens) should begin at 6:00 PM. Now, I don't like it nor do I agree with it, but its what's good and right for them. Well then, why disagree? Either its right for them or it isn't.

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for our shock and moral outrage at injustice--God created us in his own image and He has given each of us a fairly clear sense of His moral law and justice. Human beings have human rights because that's the way God created us. Even Osama knows that what he does, and wants to continue doing, is wrong.

Pain Paien

This is, I believe, because you didn't possess the logical faculties with which to support moral atheism. You were merely an angry Christian, never an atheist.

More proof that what your belief had nothing to do with the atheism we profess.

Again, this doesn't necessarily indicate you were an atheist, just that you a lazy Christian.

I think the real problem this discussion has been having is that you continue to think that your former beliefs constituted atheism, and apply that definition universally. This error has been adressed multiple times by multiple other users, but I'll say it again just to be clear: you were never an atheist; what you believed had nothing to do with atheism.

Now that you (hopefully) understand that the fallacious definition of atheism you used was never really atheism at all, perhaps this discussion can continue more fruitfully.

Keith

But as you know, there have been societies where a "moral system" is put in place in which the killing of some subgroup (ie Jews) was, by consensus, deemed RIGHT.

The fact that you feel empathy, compassion, and so on would have meant nothing to people such as the Nazi's. The fact that you would be willing to reason "on two levels" is absolutely irrelevant to certain other people/societies. If there is no God, why should someone like Osama care about your profound and superior social theories?

Keith

Again, what a person calls himself isn't always accurate. I once called myself an atheist. I was not an atheist, and neither is anyone else. It is not possible for an adult who is not in a coma to be unaware of God. (See Romans 1:18-32)

Pain Paien

Your own "objective morality" has this very same problem. You have no basis under your system for knowing that god did not command this slaughter, so you cannot decry it on any real basis. We, on the other hand, possess both empathy and a practical basis for disapproving this act. All that was said that under their own morals their action was moral. This is such an obvious and simple truism that it must take astounding close-mindedness to ignore it. This "dichotomy" is really no dichotomy at all, you just refuse to do other than attack straw men.

I wonder where this argument might have gone if you hadn't spent all your time debating straw men. This misconception has been clarified so many times I don't really know why I'll bother correcting it again.
Under our system it is wrong because we can empathize with other human beings and recognize that we would not want these things to happen to us. All that we have done is recognize that under the the Nazi system, Nazism is morally correct. Could that be more obvious?

Yes, it's that we've been trained by our culture (and perhaps to some extent our evolution as well) to feel this way.

That has no factual backing whatsoever. All it has is your blind belief. It is so contrary to reality that it's astounding that people can still believe it. There are such huge disparities between moral beliefs amongst human societies that this position is laughable.

This is obviously just another one of your irrational justifications for your beliefs. There is no logical reason to think this is true (and countless reasons to think that it isn't, for instance, that he himself says otherwise and that his actions support it), and you asserting it without any evidence to support you only further damages your postion.

Pain Paien

Even though the slaughter of the Jewish people is not known to have come from a full consensus of the German people, this is irrelevent. That system was based on irrational beliefs and a lack of empathy, much as yours is, whereas ours is based on pragmatism and compassion.

No, it's perfectly relavent to them, if they want good things for themselves. If they could be swayed by reason, they could see that a system under which they would benefit is a positive thing. Our system has the one vital element: a practical backing.

Someone like Osama (or possibly you) would probably not care because of their blind religious zealotry. Our system does rely on some fundamental human reason, which people such as him lack. More reasonable people should care because it would benefit them and those they care about to have a more effective moral and social system.

Biff the unclean

Perhaps you have been living in a bank vault somewhere and haven't heard. Osama claims that his morals come straight from the same god you are talking about. His main bitch is that Americans don't follow the morals god has so clearly given mankind. And if you check his behavior with the rest of the people in history who have made this same claim you couldn't prove him wrong.

But as you know, there have been societies where a "moral system" is put in place in which the killing of some subgroup (ie Jews) was, by consensus, deemed RIGHT
Eeeyoh, Paien is so right. You don't have a clue as to what either morals or Atheists are.

Shall we talk of a society whose "moral system" was based on the word of this mythical god of yours? They beat their own children to death for being rude. They bashed in peoples brains because they did an honest days work but on the wrong day of the week. It was worth you life with them to enjoy a nice lobster or put on a jacket made of a nice blend. Making love to your sweetheart was a capital offence. But owning slaves and raping them was okay by god; enjoy yourself, so long as they aren't Jews. Whore out your wife at Pharaoh's court it's just peachy. Stealing the "spoils of Egypt" is no problem.

Morals are a code of how humans should behave to humans. They, obviously, have nothing to do with this fairytale deity of yours who wouldn't know morals if they bite him on the "neither regions" he flashed at Moses.

Biff the unclean

It is not possible not to realise that this god is a work of fiction. Surely you have noticed his complete absence. He's supposed to be everywhere in the novel he appears in but you have never seen him.

Pain Paien

You understand this, why can't you continue this statement logically? You weren't an atheist, and you also don't know what atheists are.



Again, though I'm sure you view yourself the supreme authority on reality, you are not. You are simply wrong, and it would be very helpful if you could come to terms with it.

Your asinine book of mythology is not evidence for anything except how absurd religion can be.

Biff the unclean

Well I saw it. Most of it is about why homosexuals should be put to death.

So you have no morals, do you?