Devilnaut

Hey Roboposter, LISTEN FOR ONCE.

there are no principles to atheism. Okay???

If you have spent this whole thread trying to establish that Atheism is amoral, you could've saved a TON OF TIME by simply putting that in your topic, asking it as a direct question, and watching every atheist agree with you. Atheism is amoral! Congratulations on your stunning conclusion.


You have yet to even attempt to demonstrate how disbelief in God precludes one from having morals. Maybe you should post a new topic in the morality forum, or better yet do some searches for arguments from morality and review them before you continue.

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

WJ

devilnut

I have no idea what you are talking about! Love does not exist. Now, if that were true, and if we do make the comparison to a belief in a God or let's not argue EOG but say the feeling of God's presence (which people claim to experience for the sake of argument), you are still stuck with proving objectively, and logically that the feeling exists does or does not exist.

Think of it this way. You just claimed the feeling love is rational. Many claim it is not. Who's right?

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

bonduca

Really? What an interesting assertion.

Prove it.

Graeme

How funny... It is MY opinion that all religions have 'borrowed' their moral/ethical standards from society.

I think that my opinion is rather well backed up by the viewable change of moral/ethical standards over the course of human history.

What is your opinion on this possibility?

Devilnaut

One thing I missed from an earlier reply, WJ.

In response to me saying that an atheist was one who had determined that the existence of a God was unlikely, you said:

I should point out that anyone who determines that the existence of something is unlikely, does not believe in that thing. There is no difference between claiming "God does not exist, period." and claiming "I have determined that the existence of God is unlikely", except that the latter is somewhat more formal. The inclusion of the word "period" in the first sentence is merely a matter of the degree of the perceived unlikelihood.

Walrus:
Fortunately for me, I don't really care whether or not you believe in love. If you think that you can show that my belief in the existence of love is irrational, go ahead and try. Like I said, others claiming to have felt love and acting in a manner in which would suggest they feel love, is enough to convince me that it exists.

Eudaimonist

I'd say that atheism is extra-moral. It is outside the context of ethics.

That's not an argument; that's a bald statement of belief. Present an argument.

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

tronvillain

Atheism itself is ammoral, but atheists (like everyone else) have moral and ethical standards as a result of being human and living in a society. We are born with certain inclinations and the capacity to feel various emotions, and as a result morality of some sort emerges.

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

Autonemesis

And I believe you are mistaken. Empathy and reason can be the basis of an ethical theory that does not invoke any divine imprimatur whatsoever. I see no a priori need to invoke the divine to justify any ethical theory. They can stand or fall on their own merits.

Says who?

No, that's your set of unsupported statements.

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

phaedrus

Redux

David Mathews

I am beginning to have doubts about atheism's devotion to the concept of love and especially the universal love which is commanded by Christianity and the other great religions of the world.

Why have you "begun" to have doubts now? What are the reasons behind the start of this doubting process?

Why should atheism have "devotion" to the concept of love or universal love?

1. How does atheism define "Love"?

Just like human beings do. How do you define love?

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

Are you under the impression that atheism has book of BS or commandments? It doesnt command or advocate anything, it just represents a non-belief in the concept of god. Human beings do not require religion to do things

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

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

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

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

See above....

PS : Why dont you go to all the threads you started and respond to what people say? Does your god forbid you to respond?

Edited to add....

I believe that all atheists with moral/ethical standards have borrowed those standards either directly from their religious upbringing or from society and therefore indirectly from religion

Firstly, you stated that you "believe", what are the reasons for this belief, state them...

Next, Morality for an individual springs from their parents, peers, culture and society. Atheists who have have their groundings in all these, have the advantage of savoring various types of morality (including the religious one) and chosing a non-religious one. In the first place, you will have to prove that morality or ethics have religious origins and then we can start from there. Heard of the "Euthyphro Dilemma" ? Ever observed non-human animals which roam around in groups and how they dont require a god and or some idiot privy to divine perceptions to conduct themselves as a group?

Since we are dealing with a prehistoric period and morality leaves no fossils, any account of the origins of morality will necessarily remain to some extent speculative. It seems likely that morality is the gradual outgrowth of forms of altruism that exist in some social animals and that are the result of the usual evolutionary processes of natural selection. No myths are required to explain its existence.

If one goes by your logic, the morality of the whole society is a derivation of primordial society, one where your version of god was non-existent and that means you have no right to subscribe to christain morality because it is but a derivative of ancient ethical systems. If morality of the soceity were to be religious, why has there been so much effort to keep the state and the religion separate? (especially when the religious are in majority )

An atheists who applies the principles of atheism consistently must reject morality just as they have already rejected God

Bad logic mate, they have rejected "religious morality". That morality which is based on "blind faith" in some book or a pink unicorn. You will have to prove that morality requires the existence of "God" to exist, only then your argument will have a semblance of thought.

All human beings have a "web-of-beliefs" which is a metling pot where he/she assimilates society's inputs and own interpretations. Every individual looks at all the available stories in the world around them, and either they subcribe to one of them or make a collage out of it (a personalized version of reality). As an afterthought, what are the principles of atheism according to you?

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

NialScorva

Geez! I turn my back for 40 hours or so...
This isn't the appropriate forum to have a theism vs atheism throw down. Catch up in Misc Religion.