No such things as atheist values, lowlife.(V)

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

[size=150]All quotes from alt.atheism.

John Smith / bobsyoung writes:

“First of all you would have to prove “spiritual values”, and they being the province of ONLY, exclusively, religious people. Then you would have to prove “religious people” are more likely to have ANY values, as a group, more than others. You cannot do either There is no such things as “atheist values”, lowlife.(V)” quote condensed

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

V writes:

Even though I am short on time, I will address a couple of your arguments John Smith / bobsyoung.

Let me start with a quote from Aristotle;

“It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible.”

So, with that idea of the best approximation as we can come up with given the imperfect nature of the questions, I will give you my reply.

First lets go to the source…the ‘spiritual atheists’ themselves…lots of them…so let’s ask them…

groups.google.com/group/spiritua … schg&hl=en

Hmmm…they must be on vacation.

Lets check in with the ‘Positive Atheists’

groups.google.com/group/positive … schg&hl=en

Well, maybe they are out doing charitable works for others…so lets go to 300 other forums to do our due diligence.

groups.google.com/group/alt.athe … 88f5e77b8a

No, proving spiritual values exist and that atheists are devoid of them is no problem at all John Smith / bobsyoung.

Either is proving religious devotees are more interested in at least ‘asking the question’ as to what these values are. As opposed to the mind manacled, defiant based, spiritually sick atheist that does not even entertain the question.

As I showed above, spiritual values and atheists do not generally mix.

And this is echoed in what atheist ‘AK’ writes:

“What is spirit or spirituality? Without knowing what you mean by the word, one can’t know what you mean. Why study something for which you not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?”

For my reply to ‘AK’ what spirituality means see:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … ?topic=4.0

groups.google.com/group/alt.athe … df88ba1701

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=529.0

You are entitled to your opinion of “There is no such things as “atheist values”, lowlife.(V)”

But, I find it a good policy to approach a subject with a little humility and not start out the discussion by telling others what they can and cannot do and calling them names.

Instead of telling me I can’t prove this or that. Why not ask me if I can prove something before convincing your mind that I can’t.

This is what separates the mind manacled, defiant based, self defied atheist that thinks they know everything about everything, from the truth based practitioner that uses testing through practical application to come to a conclusion.

I find it interesting that you claim:

“…you would have to prove “spiritual values”, and they being the province of ONLY, exclusively, religious people. Then you would have to prove “religious people” are more likely to have ANY values, as a group, more than others.”

Then you say:

“There is no such things as “atheist values”, lowlife.(V)”

Well, you got me a little confused, saying atheist have values, possibly spiritual values or not and maybe these values are equal to or better than religious folks values. Then with the next breath you say there are no such things atheistic values?

I will do what I can to clear up your mind…which seems a little more confused than mine.

You are completely wrong about atheist values John Smith / bobsyoung.

Well, maybe you are right in one sense. As atheists do claim they have values all the time. But when it comes down to it, atheists are devoid of any substantive values of humanity and run themselves solely by the sickness of a self deified ego.

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=630.0

So, let me list the ‘lip service’ that atheists pay to their set or prepackaged atheist values that they gift wrap and parade around, but few if any atheists ever actually unwrap them for use.

The ‘informal creed’ of atheism.

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother’s keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

atheists.org/Atheism/

“The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles”

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

Council for Secular Humanism

Want more on atheist values John Smith / bobsyoung?

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=509.0

And for you John Smith / bobsyoung and the subject of the self defied atheist…I offer you:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=630.0

John Smith / bobsyoung, although you are most welcome to reply to my threads, just as one of the wise atheist advised the group, they and you may do better if you do not speak up to answer my posts in the future.

You see, I speak about nothing which is not true.

That is why all the atheists get decimated by arguing with me.

Atheists as well as theists generally speak from ego, passions, wishful thinking and lies – whereas I speak from truth tested by practical application of the wisdom.

Wisdom is a most important quality to develop if one desires to live a life at peace.

But before we can develop wisdom, we must be able to think rationally.

All these qualities are related.

Seeing things clearly is a byproduct of being at peace and developing wisdom.

Applying wisdom to our actions yields peace and being at peace allows rational thought.

But just applying rational thought alone does not equal wisdom or peace.

Remember …“A wise mans knows what he says and a fool only says what he knows.”

Once your life becomes authentic as well as virtue based, it is a natural extension of you. It stops becoming ‘an act’ and is real. In short ‘you know and live’ what you say.

Become a practical philosopher John Smith / bobsyoung and you can be on the side of truth as well.

And in the process, you can stop giving atheists a black eye by spouting your ignorance.

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=342.0

You told me that only in my dreams I am a ‘Practical Philosopher’…John Smith / bobsyoung?

Again, you are free to your opinions John Smith / bobsyoung.

But from practical experience, I find the proof of the pudding is in the eating…isn’t that true John Smith / bobsyoung?

Take care,

V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2[/size]

2

dude, i’d love to read your posts, but please use normal font. :frowning:

3

Seconded. They actually look like they have some substance, but presentation is more than half the battle.

4

I believe he has trouble reading and seeing this small of font and so has to make it large to see, he translates this into larger font for him to read our replies. I too have some trouble with my eyes and this size of font, comes with age I suppose.

5

Ok, what puzzles me about atheism is the following:

Suppose someone tells an atheist the he/she has seen a higher entity, and the atheist responds with, “You’re crazy”, or any other argument that implies a defect in the brain. Is the atheist really in a position or capable to make such a diagnose?

I think atheism is an insult to science and belief, even if they’re both wrong.

What makes an atheist an allknowing expert to make such claims? I’m sorry, but from a scientific and psychological standpoint, they’re just a bunch of rednecks that rather ‘want’ something to not exist, then reason straight.

6

Excellent question. The reason an atheist would make such a diagnosis is simply because knowledge of the human brain demonstrates what its capable of. Hallucinations would appear real to the individual, regardless of whether they were actually correlating to “reality.”

But this is not to say it would be impossible to convince an atheist that it did have a correlation to reality. Science could discover that perhaps select people have a different brainwave capable of picking up another dimension of reality.

Or, perhaps science discovers a higher entity and is able to verify it repeatedly using factual data (after all, if a person can “see” it, then it has to be a part of the physical world in some testable way).

But until such evidence comes forth, why assume it to be true? We have proof that people can see / smell / taste / touch / hear and sense things that aren’t really there (for anybody else), and there are many cases of it. It is also factually evident that such a person’s genetics play a significant role, giving a biological explanation to the problem.

To add to this dilemma, I’m sure most theists would agree that they’ve never actually “heard” or “seen” God, in the way you “hear” or “see” a dog, for instance. Feel free, theists on this board, to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the connection to God most would defend transcends the five senses, and so one doesn’t actually “see” and hear God, but are just connected in a way that inevitably makes them aware of God’s presence.

Why do you think atheism is an insult to science? As far as I’m aware, atheism is the result of only accepting scientific evidence to explain our existence.

I’m sure most atheists would agree that they are certainly not an all-knowing expert, but would rather only want to make a conclusion certain if there was a lot of factual evidence to do so.

It would seem that your main argument against atheism is an ad hominem attack more than anything else, which in my honest opinion are not very effective.

7

I am a amoral atheist lacking all forms of civic values and loving every minute of it since 2002.

Most healthiest thing I have ever done with my life so far.

=D>

8

This is a flawed question, assuming that we can lump all athiests as either spiritual or spiritually void. The fact is everyone, god fearing or not, has different spiritual needs and preferances.
I think it is also important to note that just because a yahoo groop named spiritual athiest was nearly empty, that does not point to a lack of spiritual athiests in the greater world… that should not be passed off as evidence of anything.
but in the end it boils down to this
I CAN PROVE THAT NOT ALL ATHIESTS LACK SPRITUALITY:

“I am a spiritual athiest”

9

Uh, no.

My friend comes up to me and says he has seen a higher power. From what I know of logic and of the higher power as he described it, the higher power and logic cannot coexist, except if my friend is crazy and hallucinating. Now, there are different ways to reach the conclusion that my friend is crazy from this point.

The pragmatist way, my way:
Seeing as logic is useful to me in making decisions, and believing my friend as he believes himself is somewhat less useful, preserving the integrity of the logic is of a higher priority to me than believing that a supernatural entity (meaning one that by definition defies logic) actually exists.

The other way, I suppose, is to weigh evidence:
There’s a ton of evidence that certain tenets of logic are valid. On the other hand, there’s only my friend’s anecdote that says that a supernatural entity exists. I’d take logic. So, assuming that my friend is telling the truth about what he saw, the easiest way to make his vision not conflict with logic is to say that he’s crazy.

There’s two ways.

You are so stubborn in your rejection of theism that you oppose anything associated with it. That’s sad. Morality came before Christianity, and will exist long after it.

10

I agree with the previous responce to this quote but i’d just like to add that LiveDrive is assuming that every atheist answers “You’re Crazy” to religious people. You are insulting athiests for acting like “allknowing experts” when you are acting the same (unless you have approached every athiest on earth about your faith and they all said “you’re crazy”)…

11

But what if your friend was diagnosed by both a clinical psychologist and a psychotherapist and revealed to be of a sound mind on a biological and psychological manner? Merely state that it was a temporary halluination caused by stress or malnutrition or lack of sleep or some interaction of food/drugs? It is easy to pass religious experience off as people being crazy, but are that many people crazy enough to hallucinate?

Well said.

Most atheists reject God on moral grounds, the idea of an arbitrary rulemaker offends them… something I can give some credance towards. Not an issue in all cases, but the fact that most attempt to make secular morality a cornerstone of belief is one of the reasons atheism is so healthy these days. When Nietzche killed Christian morality he did away with the Christian morality, not morality in general; when he removed God from equation those morals went with him… not all morals in general. The call was for a renewed set of morals in a world in which God is dead. (I DO NOT think this, but this is what I would take to be a well accepted, watered-down version of Nietzsche)

12

Maybe what he means is that without a overarching rule maker “morality”, as intrinsic to existence, does not exist.

I would have to agree with that in principle.

There does seem to be a morality that emerges from biology, given our nature as social animals, but as we become aware of that we are also capable of rejecting it. Selfishness works really well when everybody else is altruistic. Until everyone becomes selfish then it all falls down :slight_smile: This is why we need to try and maintain a balance within our societies.

I think that it is not too contrversial to suggest that morality is relative.

Thou shalt not kill (unless it’s in self defence)
Thou shalt not steal (unless you are starving, then its probabaly ok, providing it won’t cause someone else to starve)

For most (if not all) cases there can be put forward a “extenuating circumstance” that makes it permissable.

13

I agree. And the most suitable belief system for each personal its relative too, and thats what this whole thing is about.

and also, the quote that this discussion was a reply to was condenced, and i think we should see it in whole.

14

Morality is dead incantations of a god that doesn’t exist.

Morality is a sham of those with authority to manipulate everyone else.

Prove me wrong.

15

:unamused:

It isn’t all about religion although I will say that is one big dominant part of it.

I also acknowledge the civic societal contradictions of morality too along the side of religion.

16

So morality is flawed because different views of it contradict eachother? Would this not be an argument against moral pluralism, not morality?

17

Moral pluralism and just plain morality are the same dam thing.

What exactly is the difference? I am not seeing any.

18

Because the argument of contradiction would only apply to disprove a morally pluralist system, an ideal ethical system would be contradiction free.

I see your rejection of morality on this ground to be based on the fact that because we do not have a contradiction free system the ideal is flawed… from this argument it seems you merely lack a solid moral theory, thus you should not be so quick to throw away the concept.

And there really is a difference, even if you argue moral systems have no worth you would be hard-pressed to argue that there are no differences between them.

19

How could a god that doesn’t exist, a dead one moreover, incant?

Morality existed before Christianity, Muslims, or Judaism. Sumer was founded before Christ came to earth. How could people live in cities if every time they got hungry they killed each other for meat? It’s morality that says you shouldn’t kill another.

Also, think of Sodom and Gomorrah. They may have been giant clusterfucks by Christian standards, but they were cities. Cities that came to be through cooperation before God came.

A proof of morality existing before the appearance of the bible could be seen in the appearance of the bible itself! After all, god doesn’t really exist, so why would you want to write a bible? Well, if you look at most of the text, a heck of a lot of it is, like you say, moral stuff, and why would these people even have the idea to write about morality if morality had not existed before they wrote about it?

20

That is not incorrect in all situlations. but it is obviously wrong to say that is the case all the time:
morality is sometimes a sham, as seen in christianity, by authority to manipulate followers.
but how about this scenario:
theres a country with corrupt authoritarian government.
the government kills citizens for speaking out.
fellow citizens morally object to this
.
these fellow citizens are not using morallity as a sham to manipulate from a position of authority. they are the opposite. they are honestly using morality to challenge authority.