nyx

It looks like everyone here agrees that athiests and thiests alike are capable of wreaking moral havoc.

Again, what's your point?

Do you understand that athiesm is not a worldview?

What is it that you don't understand?

Nyx

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I certainly cannot speak for all atheists, nor for 'atheism' in general.

However, this atheist can offer his answers to these questions.

Perhaps that is all that was asked:

1. How does atheism define "Love"?

Atheism does not define love. But, I define love as a recognition of mutually shared values. Now, there are different types of love, of course...

2. Does atheism command or advocate "love" among atheists?

Believing that there is no 'god', does not 'command' one to do anything, or believe anything else, at all. However, I believe that love is a human emotion, and is thus applicable only within a human (finite) context. As such, love is not eternal, infinite, or universal. I also believe that love must be earned. I believe that 'free' or 'unconditional' love is worth every penny of the price paid.

I, personally, do not want the uneanred.

3. Does atheism command or advocate "love" in between atheists and Christians?

Again, not believing in god does not 'command' one to do anything. Judging people (including loving them) based on their membership in a group is wrong. A person does deserves neither love nor hatred simply because they belong to a certain group, or have accepted a certain theological viewpoint. A person deserves love only if he or she--individually, personally, has earned it--and no other reason is rational or valid.

Otherwise, people should be given basic respect, until one has determined that they warrant more, or less, than this basic civil gesture.

4. Does atheism command or advocate "love" in a universal sense?

Here I think atheism in general does provide at least a provisional answer. It seems to me that universal love can only be accepted by a person who believes in a omnipresent God, a God who also embodies 'Love'. Atheism, in rejecting such notions as 'God' of 'God is Love', probably cannot include the concept of 'universal love'. This atheist certainly cannot.

5. Atheism does not forbid nor even discourage hate. Yes or No? Please explain.

Aristotle said it best. To paraphrase: "It is easy to be angry. Yet, to be angry for the right reasons, at the right time, to the right degree, is much more difficult." The same situation exists for all emotions. The question isn't 'is hate good', but instead is 'what should one hate, and to what degree?'

Hating injustice, hating bigotry, hating irrationality, hating ignorance, hating crime, hating intolerance, hating 'hated-for-no-reason'--these are 'good' things to hate/I believe that it is proper and moral to hate these things.

6. Atheism does not forbid nor even discourage prejudice and bigotry. Yes or No? Please explain.

Atheism is the rejection of the concept of God. One can (easily) reject the idea of God, and still be a racist, a bigot, an irrational hater...an idiot. Atheism is not a moral code, and--honestly--neither is theism. Ninety percent--or more--of the world's population believe in God, and we still have war, rape, child abuse, irrationality, anger, road rage, murder, and genocide.

7. Atheism has no command against violence. Yes or no?

Violence, like hatred, isn't a qualitative word. Violence is wrong when it is initiated, but right--perhaps morally imperative--when it is used against those who use it for offense, rather than defense.

My ethical and political views do not stem from my atheism, but from my adherence to reason. I don't view violence, hatred, anger, etc., as bad or good. 'Good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' are judgments--evaluations.

A criminal, breaking into a home where a mother and her children are sleeping, might decide to kill the family, to leave no witnesses to his theivery. The mother, upon finding the thief in her home, may decide that she needs to kill him, to protect her and her children.

Both wish to kill. Both may, at that moment, hate the other. Both may thus engage in violence.

These things are not, in and of themselves, right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral.

The rightness or wrongness is in the fact that the man was intent on violating the woman's right to her property, and her life, and violating the lives of her children.

What makes the woman's actions moral, right, proper, and good, is the fact that, by violating her rights, the thief gave up claim on many--if not all--of his own.

The woman is thus well within her rights to hate, to engage in violence, and to kill the intruder. (In fact, once she knows that the thief intends to kill her children, she is--IMO--morally obligated to kill the intruder in order to protect her children.)

Keith Russell.

Jamie_L

David:

Atheists are human beings. All human beings are capable of hate, bigotry, violence, etc. Therefore, yes, atheists are capable of all these things.

Next question: atheist nations. Oppressive leaders have throughout history felt their control threatened by religion, because religion is an effective means of organizing popular opposition. Historically, most leaders have used a religion of their own to stamp out other religions. The U.S.S.R. and China just chose a more novel approach of stamping out all religion.

Jamie

Tristan Scott

David Matthews,

1. What is Christianity's position on deficit spending?

2. What's Christianity's take on the upcoming Baseball strike? and who do Christians root for in baseball games?

3. Do Christian's believe that Lite beer tastes great, or is it less filling?

4. Paper or plastic? Where do Christians stand?

WJ

Hi john!

RE:I don't follow your reasoning, disbelief in the existence of a god does not entail disbelief in the power of love.

In making a few assumptions I'll forward a point. If the atheist expects 'seeing is believing', and assuming that only part of the phenomenon called 'love' is based upon the physical, then how do you completely justify or associate the feeling 'love' exclusively with an existing thing?

That question implies that without the object itself, love in some way cannot fully exist. And if that is true, it further implies that atheists are not willing to care enough to go beyond the physical in order to verify such feelings or proofs [as in the various EOG arguments], and as a result are more readily willing to *objectify* each other in this association of the thing we call love.

I wecome correction.

the apeman

sandlewood

David Mathews, you seem to go on and on—perhaps year after year for all I know—pretending that atheism is something it’s not no matter what atheists tell you. You ask questions based on that false notion of atheism, which makes your questions rather meaningless. There are only two possibilities I can think of for this. One, you like to pretend atheism is something it’s not because it lets you get a rise out of atheists and you find that entertaining. Or two, you are really, really thick. The definition of atheism really doesn’t sink in. Since I can’t imagine how anyone could be that thick, I have to think you are trolling for fun, especially since you’ve already indicated as such.

But I am curious. Do you believe that love can be commanded? Do you believe that because God tells you to love someone, that you really do love someone? I’m not talking about your “theoretical love” since I don’t really know what that is.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

WJ

Sandle!

Were you talking to me?

bonduca

1. How does atheism define "Love"?

Webster's Dictionary

2. Does atheism command or advocate "love" among atheists?

Atheism is only a disbelief in god or gods. There are no commandments as such. Personally, I find that each person stands or falls on their own merits, unless they are bleeding or trapped in a burning building.

3. Does atheism command or advocate "love" in between atheists and Christians?

See above post.

4. Does atheism command or advocate "love" in a universal sense?

See above post. You apparently think there is some sort of atheistic dogma. It is a common error.

5. Atheism does not forbid nor even discourage hate. Yes or No? Please explain.

You may feel what you like. However, if you act upon it in such way as to disturb the peace of, cause harm to, or damage the property of another, you will be subject to prosecution.

6. Atheism does not forbid nor even discourage prejudice and bigotry. Yes or No? Please explain.

I repeat, there is no atheist dogma. It is not a religion. It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. Please look this word up in the dictionary.

7. Atheism has no command against violence. Yes or no?

Atheists, for the most part, obey and support the legal system, which prohibits violence against another person. We also have personal ethical standards which vary from individual to individual, not unlike individual Christians.

What is your point?

sandlewood

Sorry, no. I was talkig to David Mathews. My mistake for not being clear. I'll edit that post.

WJ

Bonduca!

are you asking me?

Sorry but i just want to be sure this latest round is specifically addressed to me before i respond....

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">