AJ113

Unless, of course you are wrong. Then you would have to take away God in order to have a godless world.

missus_gumby

Really? I think that it is believers who have the easy option. I believe that the main attraction of theism is that it negates the need for taking responsibility for ones actions.

...meanwhile back to the subject in question...

HelenM

Do you need 'morals' in the Catholic church or do you just need to be 'willing to move'

love
Helen

Vorkosigan

I'm positive that some sort of supernatural belief would arise in any population, especially one isolated in some way. I believe supernaturalism arises from the belief that things in the world have intentions that evolution planted within us so we can have social intercourse.

Vorkosigan

Jobar

Helen: "Do you need 'morals' in the Catholic church or do you just need to be 'willing to move'"

LOL! Helen, it's amazing how often I have to remind myself that you are *not* an atheist. Your wicked sense of humor's gonna send you to hell if'n you don't watch out! (But that's OK, because we'll all be there to welcome you!)

Back to the topic- we all, theists and atheists alike, can agree that there are tales about God(s). As I understand free12thinker's point, though- if we could somehow subtract those tales from a society, would new ones come about because God(s) would 'touch' some of its members? Granted that human beings are prone to tales, and granted that we don't like to admit we don't know things (particularly if we think of ourselves as old and wise, being asked questions by those we consider young and ignorant.) So it is entirely possible that the tales would again come about. BUT- I think that they would only vaguely resemble any of the religions we see around us today. (Of course, diehard members of religion x would claim that the theology created by a godless society would be identical to their own, right down to fine points of doctrine- because they so obviously have the One True Religion (TM)...)

MadMordigan

I believe that the main attraction of atheism is that it negates the need for any morals.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
I'm geting fucking sick of having to deal with this bullshit over and over and over again.

Ron Singh

AJ113, sorry to say, but you're wrong. If I were you, I'de just say sorry and concede. I'm sure that these atheists would be good christians and forgive you. Everyone makes mistakes.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh.

AJ113

I will always admit to mistakes that I've made, but on this occasion I'm calling it as I see it.

Two of my closest friends are atheists. What I observe is that their personal morals are sometimes re-defined after action has been taken, in order to justify the action.


I do not say that all atheists live their lives in this fashion, I say that, in my experience, the facilty is avilable, and some atheists avail themselves of it.

Ron Singh

AJ113, some of my friends are atheists as well, and their moral values are egregiously lacking. But I still say, they are not 'atheists' because they want to be free of morality. Peace.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh.

Datheron

AJ113,

By the same token, history has found many theists whose supposed "objective morals" were redefined by reinterpretation of the objective source (i.e. a holy book) to their advantage.

Your original statement:

I believe that the main attraction of atheism is that it negates the need for any morals.

claims that the main attraction - that is, the biggest reason - to be atheist is this negation of morals. Is this not a bracket statement made against all atheists which is obviously false?