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

chapstickisgod · July 20, 2007, 7:48am

Human minds incanted a non-existant dead god. Minds that good at fooling themselves…

Mastriani · July 20, 2007, 2:04pm

This is an amusing and entertaining thread.

Firstly, vfr’s post is not about atheism in the general defined meaning, it is directly pointed at secular humanism, which is a branch of the broader tree of atheism.

Secondly, the main problem of atheism and its current doctrine is directly showcased, and it would appear that no one has grasped the error, yet again. If atheism as a dogma and doctrine has no more meaning than to rail endlessly against religion and God, I will say this even as an atheist, it is has little to no value.

Objectifying another belief system, just as a matter of seeking to dismantle the other by means of negativity, is a bit like watching a pack of monkeys trying to hump a greased football.

Atheism does not require morality, although ethics “should” be a necessary character inclusion for all hominids. Of course, the two words appear to interchanged consistently, without anyone apparently questioning that action as possibly erroneous.

Morality is maleable, and as with anything of that property, it can be beaten until it is so effete and misshapen, it no longer appears as anything recognisable from the original form. This is modern morality in my perspective.

Ethics “should” be the product of objectivity, growing from the factual understanding of cosmological properties, and inclusive of societal need towards defined structure and cohesion. If taken this direction, morality becomes obsolete, obviated by its own inherent improprieties.

I think the main point of vfr’s post, which other than in presentation is quite good, would be that atheism needs to mature.

Atheists have more on their plate than pissing matches over whose beliefs are superior.

Joker · July 20, 2007, 6:28pm

BlueChicken:

Joker:

BlueChicken:

Joker:

BlueChicken:

thezeus18:

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.

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?

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

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.

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)

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)

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.

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

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

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

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.

And the excuses come in…

The reason the system isn’t perfect is because it was made up to begin with out of thin air…

Don’t treat me like some ametur as I have been in this particular discussion hundreds of times before. You will have to do better than that.

You think your subjective morality is based on some outside source beyond religion yet in reality it is nothing but a extension of that same metaphysical objective sense of morals from a god that isn’t there.

Joker · July 20, 2007, 6:35pm

thezeus18:

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.

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?

Even Sumer had it’s gods…

Your still making no sense.

Joker · July 20, 2007, 6:37pm

All of morality is a sham.

If I am born a natural predator of the human species I should naturally be able to flow with it where morality in contrast tells people to not act upon those impulses for some fake constructed better good.

It is all a lie and that is a fact Jack.

Joker · July 20, 2007, 6:38pm

Precisely.

thezeus18 · July 21, 2007, 9:25pm

Why would they do that?

chapstickisgod · July 22, 2007, 6:38pm

because of a fear uncertainty. because they might not want to remain undecided…

Joker · July 22, 2007, 10:59pm

You are correct again.

I would also say that people do these things for distraction in opposition to boredom.

BlueChicken · July 23, 2007, 4:02am

Much in the same way as the people that needlessly harang them for their beliefs?

Joker · July 23, 2007, 4:38pm

Perhaps.

chapstickisgod · July 24, 2007, 7:48am

my expirience with ‘strong atheism’ was more like a phase. ive been an agnostic or atheist all my life, but for a while i thought and focus on religion alot, very convinced that there was no god. but then i realized that a yes or no to the god question is nearly irrelevant to my own personal belief system. religion is very important historically and culturally. but christianity asks the wrong questions for me…

Bane · July 24, 2007, 7:29pm

You shall be called, Ad-hominem-Dive

Joker · July 24, 2007, 9:47pm

I am a strong atheist but upon the unusual event that god is real around my death I would like to kill him.

north · July 24, 2007, 10:15pm

Joker:

chapstickisgod:

Joker:

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.

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.

All of morality is a sham.

If I am born a natural predator of the human species I should naturally be able to flow with it where morality in contrast tells people to not act upon those impulses for some fake constructed better good.

It is all a lie and that is a fact Jack.

the thing is Joker there isn't a species that Naturely preys on there own except a particular kind of snake ( I can't remember the type) , which eats other snakes .

so a predator by a Human Being of Humans is quite unNatural.

I think it is more about challenge isn’t it?