Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why there is no such thing as a Good atheist

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 4:19:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

I value my own well-being. This is best realized objectively by being good to others. Done.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 4:19:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You do realise that if you need to frame the debate with such cheap tricks then your argument is pretty much de facto sh*t, right?

I really don't understand why people like you get off on making public fools of yourselves with this drivel. It's like tattooing "I'm retarded and think everyone else is as well" on your face. Which, by the way, you should totally do.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 4:37:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:19:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
You do realise that if you need to frame the debate with such cheap tricks then your argument is pretty much de facto sh*t, right?

I really don't understand why people like you get off on making public fools of yourselves with this drivel. It's like tattooing "I'm retarded and think everyone else is as well" on your face. Which, by the way, you should totally do.

Y u mad tho?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 4:48:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because a bunch of ignorant bigots are ruining the only planet I have to live on in order to protect their delusions of exceptionalism and authority. I'd have thought it were obvious.

I note that you didn't dispute the fact you were dishonestly framing the discussion. I guess that's about as close as you're likely to get to honesty, so have a pat on the head.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 5:12:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

Because it benefits society and I would want others to do the same. Now deciding what those things are is subjective, but I can make pretty good decisions from those.

I wouldn't want to kill someone because that doesn't benefit society, unless that person was also harmful.

I wouldn't want someone who did a non-violent offense to be killed, because I wouldn't want that to happen to myself.

I would give to charity, because if I needed help, or knew someone with a disease, I would want people searching for a cure for me or my group.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 11:26:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

There's no such thing as a good Christian, either. They're all going to die in the same way as atheists, Muslims, Jews, saints, prophets and everyone else in this world.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 12:28:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people?

Values, based on emotions which allow us to empathize with those around us. It's really not complicated.

You claim atheism is immoral. That's funny. I can think of few things as immoral as a person who wouldn't care about others without a higher authority telling him to.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

Please define objective.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 1:00:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:48:30 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because a bunch of ignorant bigots are ruining the only planet I have to live on in order to protect their delusions of exceptionalism and authority. I'd have thought it were obvious.

I note that you didn't dispute the fact you were dishonestly framing the discussion. I guess that's about as close as you're likely to get to honesty, so have a pat on the head.

Well, its a good thing we have this diatribe to 'honestly' frame the discussion.

Atheists, if you wonder why religious people don;t like you, then take a look at this response - asked a tough question, and the slightest gode reveals that you think we are ... agh, raping the planet?

Your ideology was accused of being overly materialistic - selfish. And you seem to have done a fine job proving it as exactly that.

Instead of jumping to victimhood, it would make more sense to say something that addresses the point, about how atheism pushed you to to be a better steward of resources? Something relevant.

Its rather difficult to discuss thing with atheists who want to attack religion in any way imaginable, yet respond to any criticism with effusive excuses that seem to be little more than an excuse to explode in rage.

I will submit that no one comes into a debate wishing to be accused of raping the planet in ignorance. It would furthermore be extremely naive to believe that ones faith choice would be free of criticism in a debate forum.

Atheism these days has earned something of a reputation for itself, I will submit, with the above post as exhibit A, that this reputation is not that of a clam, methodically rational and objective group lead toward a conclusion that is cogent and explainable.

Atheism, as a human invention, and like anything that originates or is adhered to by man, will have a list of pros and cons.

As an adherent to the choice, the duty in debate would be to explain how the pros outweigh the cons. The refusal to concede a potential con while lashing out would not be a terribly effective defense.

I will submit that the reason this thread exists is because a great many religious people have attempted discussion with atheists and been badly burned by the process. Here, in a monitored atmosphere, it is possible for you to make the case for the soundness and goodness of your positions.

I believe that would accomplish far more than lashing out.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 1:11:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 5:12:14 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

Because it benefits society and I would want others to do the same. Now deciding what those things are is subjective, but I can make pretty good decisions from those.

I wouldn't want to kill someone because that doesn't benefit society, unless that person was also harmful.

I wouldn't want someone who did a non-violent offense to be killed, because I wouldn't want that to happen to myself.

I would give to charity, because if I needed help, or knew someone with a disease, I would want people searching for a cure for me or my group.

None of these positions are bad, but neither are they things that arise from the conclusion of atheism. I would be very hard pressed to find someone, of any faith, for example who thought that murder was good or that charity was bad.

I do see one thing here that I thing is a clear difference between atheism and religion.

Your argument serves from the point of view of you.

Giving charity is the right thing to do as a statement contrasts neatly with giving charity is right because I believe it is so.

Each of these statements rests with your point of view rather than from a position of universal standards. By resting solely on our own point of view, we necessitate the removal of admission of our limitations. There are other people out there, some smarter, some vastly more experienced, some more charismatic, some wiser, etc.

The difference in ethical framework here is that ethics rests pun our own self conviction in ethics, and, if we are not convinced, to abandon the ethical concept as untenable.

Religion, postulating an universal truth, acknowledges that ethics is about more than ourselves. When we arrive at a point of contention, a point of disagreement with universal moral principles, the it is incumbent upon us to reason and explain why. The choice not to follow, thusly being an informed matter of conscience.

It would be wrong to simply say adhering to universal moral code is correct, the unthinking adherence to anything would be wrong. Yet it is equally unwise to postulate that we have ourselves mastered the ethical framework with our powers of reason. Human are notoriously fickle and emotional, and the pulling of biases and emotional legion.

To form an ethical framework based merely on our own observations is challenging in the extreme. It is easy on the obvious, and become notoriously difficult in grayer areas where all the facts, circumstances, and outcomes are not known.

It is for this very reason that we have a system of courts, rather than our own conscience to determine ethical matters.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:28:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 1:00:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 3/23/2014 4:48:30 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because a bunch of ignorant bigots are ruining the only planet I have to live on in order to protect their delusions of exceptionalism and authority. I'd have thought it were obvious.

I note that you didn't dispute the fact you were dishonestly framing the discussion. I guess that's about as close as you're likely to get to honesty, so have a pat on the head.

Well, its a good thing we have this diatribe to 'honestly' frame the discussion.

So you don't think that demanding people provide an objective measure is framing the debate in such a way as to introduce a fundamental bias? Really?

Atheists, if you wonder why religious people don;t like you, then take a look at this response - asked a tough question, and the slightest gode reveals that you think we are ... agh, raping the planet?

Asked a dishonest and loaded question, I responded by highlighting the dishonest & loaded nature of it. It says everything about your intellectual integrity that you take no fault with the opening post for doing this, but jump on my justifiably blunt dismissal of it.

Where did I say anything about raping the planet? I said ruining. Quite different. It wasn't a long post, so it seems fairly indicative of your agenda that you couldn't even follow it properly. Tell me; do you think it acceptable or honest of the opening post to load the debate so clumsily and clearly in the way that it did? Do you think it one that encourages or deserves well-considered responses? Because - and I'm going to let you in on a little secret here - I do not.

Your ideology was accused of being overly materialistic - selfish. And you seem to have done a fine job proving it as exactly that.

Could you please explain how "I have seen no persuasive evidence of the existence of god(s)" is an ideology? In the same way as, for example, "I have seen no persuasive evidence of the existence of Martian overlords who control us via telepathy" is an ideology. Take your time, I'm sure the answer is going to be just splendid.

I'm not particularly materialistic at all. Most of my time is spent in thought, either creatively or critically. I do tend to accrue books, but only because books contain ideas and I'm yet to find a way of memorising the entirety of every book I have ever written and ever will read. I think that allows me to keep hard copies without being 'overly materialistic'. I have also spent several thousand pounds of my own money housing, feeding and otherwise supporting a homeless guy. I would have thought that if I were materialistic, I would have been more interested in keeping that money for myself.

So if you would please provide some evidence of why you - who knows next to nothing about me - jumped straight to accusations of my being materialistic, in absence of any valid reason for assuming such? As it is an entirely unfair criticism of someone who is not fairly described as materialistic at all. Certainly less so than someone who is trying to win eternal reward from an invisible master. What about wanting to see less oppression, war, exploitation and suffering for all humanity makes me materialistic, by the way? Do you actually know what the word means? Could you highlight where in my post I said anything to suggest I am interested in personal material gain? Rather than, for example, pretty clearly saying my issue is with the excess and damage caused by other people's material gain.

Instead of jumping to victimhood, it would make more sense to say something that addresses the point, about how atheism pushed you to to be a better steward of resources? Something relevant.

You really do live in a rich and imaginatively decorated inner world. I didn't jump to victimhood, I made a point that you are either too stupid to understand (which for a 4-line post really would require you be very stupid indeed) or too dishonest to want to engage with. You can, I'm sure, imagine my astonishment at a theist displaying either of these traits.

Its rather difficult to discuss thing with atheists who want to attack religion in any way imaginable, yet respond to any criticism with effusive excuses that seem to be little more than an excuse to explode in rage.

Projection, strawmen & ad hominems... gosh, you really are making the accusations of delusion look unreasonable, aren't you?

I will submit that no one comes into a debate wishing to be accused of raping the planet in ignorance. It would furthermore be extremely naive to believe that ones faith choice would be free of criticism in a debate forum.

Yet here you are, fanatically defending the faith choice of someone who was setting out to skew the debate from the outset. You're defending someone who was denigrating your intelligence from the outset and criticising the person who called them out for doing that.

Atheism these days has earned something of a reputation for itself, I will submit, with the above post as exhibit A, that this reputation is not that of a clam, methodically rational and objective group lead toward a conclusion that is cogent and explainable.

You know that saying things like "I will submit" makes you sound like an idiot with nothing to say and an over-abundance of self-congratulations for saying it, right? All you are doing is trying to paint my response as utterly unreasonable, without addressing the fact that the opening post was utterly dishonest in nature. Are you happy siding yourself with the dishonest, so long as it allows you to rather transparently exhibit your own dishonesty in like-minded company?

Atheism, as a human invention, and like anything that originates or is adhered to by man, will have a list of pros and cons.

You think that a negation of a thing is an invention rather than a logical inference from that thing? Could you give an example of something verifiably non-human in origin that doesn't have a list of pros and cons?

As an adherent to the choice, the duty in debate would be to explain how the pros outweigh the cons. The refusal to concede a potential con while lashing out would not be a terribly effective defense.

Right. So... why are you defending the opening post by frantically hurling pejoratives at me, without engaging at all with the fairly clear point I made?

I will submit that the reason this thread exists is because a great many religious people have attempted discussion with atheists and been badly burned by the process. Here, in a monitored atmosphere, it is possible for you to make the case for the soundness and goodness of your positions.

I will submit that you don't sound half as intelligent or reasonable as you think you do and that you are trying to sound many times more intelligent and reasonable than you in fact are. Hence the mysterious desire to sound like a lawyer, I assume. Either that or you'e got inherently grandiose delusions. Oh! I forgot! It's both those things.

I believe that would accomplish far more than lashing out.

Then why don't you give it a try?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:40:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 2:28:13 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/24/2014 1:00:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 3/23/2014 4:48:30 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because a bunch of ignorant bigots are ruining the only planet I have to live on in order to protect their delusions of exceptionalism and authority. I'd have thought it were obvious.

I note that you didn't dispute the fact you were dishonestly framing the discussion. I guess that's about as close as you're likely to get to honesty, so have a pat on the head.

Well, its a good thing we have this diatribe to 'honestly' frame the discussion.

So you don't think that demanding people provide an objective measure is framing the debate in such a way as to introduce a fundamental bias? Really?

Atheists, if you wonder why religious people don;t like you, then take a look at this response - asked a tough question, and the slightest gode reveals that you think we are ... agh, raping the planet?

Asked a dishonest and loaded question, I responded by highlighting the dishonest & loaded nature of it. It says everything about your intellectual integrity that you take no fault with the opening post for doing this, but jump on my justifiably blunt dismissal of it.

Where did I say anything about raping the planet? I said ruining. Quite different. It wasn't a long post, so it seems fairly indicative of your agenda that you couldn't even follow it properly. Tell me; do you think it acceptable or honest of the opening post to load the debate so clumsily and clearly in the way that it did? Do you think it one that encourages or deserves well-considered responses? Because - and I'm going to let you in on a little secret here - I do not.

Your ideology was accused of being overly materialistic - selfish. And you seem to have done a fine job proving it as exactly that.

Could you please explain how "I have seen no persuasive evidence of the existence of god(s)" is an ideology? In the same way as, for example, "I have seen no persuasive evidence of the existence of Martian overlords who control us via telepathy" is an ideology. Take your time, I'm sure the answer is going to be just splendid.

I'm not particularly materialistic at all. Most of my time is spent in thought, either creatively or critically. I do tend to accrue books, but only because books contain ideas and I'm yet to find a way of memorising the entirety of every book I have ever written and ever will read. I think that allows me to keep hard copies without being 'overly materialistic'. I have also spent several thousand pounds of my own money housing, feeding and otherwise supporting a homeless guy. I would have thought that if I were materialistic, I would have been more interested in keeping that money for myself.

So if you would please provide some evidence of why you - who knows next to nothing about me - jumped straight to accusations of my being materialistic, in absence of any valid reason for assuming such? As it is an entirely unfair criticism of someone who is not fairly described as materialistic at all. Certainly less so than someone who is trying to win eternal reward from an invisible master. What about wanting to see less oppression, war, exploitation and suffering for all humanity makes me materialistic, by the way? Do you actually know what the word means? Could you highlight where in my post I said anything to suggest I am interested in personal material gain? Rather than, for example, pretty clearly saying my issue is with the excess and damage caused by other people's material gain.

Instead of jumping to victimhood, it would make more sense to say something that addresses the point, about how atheism pushed you to to be a better steward of resources? Something relevant.

You really do live in a rich and imaginatively decorated inner world. I didn't jump to victimhood, I made a point that you are either too stupid to understand (which for a 4-line post really would require you be very stupid indeed) or too dishonest to want to engage with. You can, I'm sure, imagine my astonishment at a theist displaying either of these traits.

Its rather difficult to discuss thing with atheists who want to attack religion in any way imaginable, yet respond to any criticism with effusive excuses that seem to be little more than an excuse to explode in rage.

Projection, strawmen & ad hominems... gosh, you really are making the accusations of delusion look unreasonable, aren't you?

I will submit that no one comes into a debate wishing to be accused of raping the planet in ignorance. It would furthermore be extremely naive to believe that ones faith choice would be free of criticism in a debate forum.

Yet here you are, fanatically defending the faith choice of someone who was setting out to skew the debate from the outset. You're defending someone who was denigrating your intelligence from the outset and criticising the person who called them out for doing that.

Atheism these days has earned something of a reputation for itself, I will submit, with the above post as exhibit A, that this reputation is not that of a clam, methodically rational and objective group lead toward a conclusion that is cogent and explainable.

You know that saying things like "I will submit" makes you sound like an idiot with nothing to say and an over-abundance of self-congratulations for saying it, right? All you are doing is trying to paint my response as utterly unreasonable, without addressing the fact that the opening post was utterly dishonest in nature. Are you happy siding yourself with the dishonest, so long as it allows you to rather transparently exhibit your own dishonesty in like-minded company?

Atheism, as a human invention, and like anything that originates or is adhered to by man, will have a list of pros and cons.



I believe that would accomplish far more than lashing out.

Then why don't you give it a try?

Is there any reason for anyone to treat this like an attempt at respectful dialogue?

YOU are not atheism. The OP postulates that ATHEISM, not YOU, is an ideology that leads to materialism and selfishness.

So when you respond with a bunch of claims that YOU were insulted and they YOU are not particularly whatever ... you seem to have definitively both missed the point and proved the point.

The question is about ideology, not you.

If you wish to tone it down, I would be happy to discuss the ISSUE with you, but if you dragging yourself into the debate in a highly emotional manner, there isn't much of a point is there?

Again, atheism is AN IDEOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW REGARDING GOD ... it is not you. The contention is that the processes that lead to the conclusion that there is no God are self serving. By inserting yourself into that contention - you prove it.

Basic ethics postulates selflessness as a admirable trait, not the opposite.

Science postulates that subjectivity, the removal of self, from analysis is an admirable trait, not dragging oneself into it.

Atheism is, or at least should be, a discussable topic.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:51:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is there any reason for anyone to treat this like an attempt at respectful dialogue?

I see no attempt at respectful dialogue coming from your direction, so rather assumed it would be a wasted effort.

YOU are not atheism. The OP postulates that ATHEISM, not YOU, is an ideology that leads to materialism and selfishness.

From your last post:

"Your ideology was accused of being overly materialistic"

Emphasis mine. Wait... you're a troll, aren't you? I forgot how rife with them this place is. Not very good ones, either.

By the way, there were 13 direct, non-rhetorical questions in my last post. You addressed precisely none of them. Anyway, back to your bridge, Badger. Or maybe just get a life.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 3:47:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 2:51:55 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Is there any reason for anyone to treat this like an attempt at respectful dialogue?

I see no attempt at respectful dialogue coming from your direction, so rather assumed it would be a wasted effort.

YOU are not atheism. The OP postulates that ATHEISM, not YOU, is an ideology that leads to materialism and selfishness.

From your last post:

"Your ideology was accused of being overly materialistic"

Emphasis mine. Wait... you're a troll, aren't you? I forgot how rife with them this place is. Not very good ones, either.

By the way, there were 13 direct, non-rhetorical questions in my last post. You addressed precisely none of them. Anyway, back to your bridge, Badger. Or maybe just get a life.

I will say this once again, YOU are not the ideology.

As I stated, I would be happy to engage, but ...

One, you insist on taking this personally rather than objectively (YOUR ideology is going to be criticized in a debate forum, and bristling emotionalism is not way to invite DISCUSSION on your ideology.

If you think there is an error, try correcting the error.

Two, 13 questions that do absolutely nothing to address the point, save one statement where you declare YOURSELF not materialistic, well ... what happens when we disagree? Now, instead of focusing on thought processes and ideological statements we are focused on YOU - and any criticism is, of course, an attack, correct?

Furthermore, by asking questions whose solely intent appears to be to shift the burden, and this the criticism, only the other person's ideology - you are indicating that YOU do not wish to discuss atheism.

Well, I would like to discuss atheism, and the claim that it is materialistic. One of the trends in atheism is that it is, rather than being cogent and reasonable, objectively passionless, is that it is highly emotional and needless antagonistic.

With YOU firmly in the debate rather than the idea, what you are asking for is not a discussion - but a personal battle. The result isn't about atheism at all, its about avoiding criticism because the criticism is not PERSONAL.

There are a lot of atheists out there, and there are a LOT of atheists whose actions have helped refine its reputation writ large. Are you even aware of the reputation that YOUR IDEOLOGY has out there?

Perhaps is time to take YOURSELF out of the ideology, and examine what it is that drove you not just to it ... but to it with such passion and gusto. If its as cogent and rational as you wish us to believe, then it stands to reason that it should be explainable and discussable WITHOUT involving YOU personally.

Its a debate forum after all.

BTW - in case you missed it, this is an invitation for respectful dialogue. It has to start somewhere. It cannot go much of anywhere when you, ostensibly, cannot acknowledge, "Yes, ALOT of atheists do indeed do that ... however IMPO, ... whatever." That stands in a sharp contrast to, "Well, that is not what 'I" think!!!!"

Once again, you are not atheism, and I will remind you that a great many people have interacted with atheists in this day and age - many of those interactions have not been positive for religious people. The result? Whether you believe YOU should be treated like the enemy, many atheists have created a hostile relationship with religious people.

Having interacted with more than a few, I will tell you bluntly that most atheists cannot discuss religion civilly, whether they are criticizing it or whether they are being criticized by it.

If this is too personal for you? If you find that you cannot objectively discuss your ideology without needlessly dragging yourself in? There really is not point in discussing much of anything.

I get the very distinct impression that this is simply disagreeing because the criticism is aimed at YOUR ideology? That denial is based on the perception that its an insult rather than the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claim.

If what you wish is to counter that claim, than simply demonstrate how the conclusion that there is no God can lead to ... immaterialism. If you are American, in a consumption based economic system? Then contrast your immaterialism with the average American, and how the differences were informed by your atheism.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 4:13:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The point which you seem sadly too dim to grasp is that there is no 'atheism' in the way you are trying to define it. There are merely many atheists who share one and only one position to tie them together, which is a lack of belief in god(s).

It is impossible for me to respect someone who is so dishonest as to babble insanely about 'atheist ideology' or some abstract 'atheism' that is more than just "a state of not believing in the existence of god(s)". If you are not intentionally being dishonest then you are too stupid to understand the basic terminology and are, as with the dishonesty scenario, not really worth discussing things with in the first place.

Thirdly, of course, you're fairly obviously just yet another puppet account of the handful of rather cretinous trolls this place is home to.

If there's anything unclear about the above then please feel free to address your concerns to someone who cares what you think enough to want to hear more from you. I do not.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 5:07:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

When you talk about being "good" to others I bet what you are talking about is well being.

Trouble is once you link well being and morality this is the exact kind of morality that many non believer and some believer use to reject various religious claims.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 6:29:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

Saying there is no purpose is like saying there is no purpose. Yet, we know that's not true. Atheists and theists, alike, are driven by purpose; if they weren't, they would soon become despondent and die. You can't say people don't have purpose, when it is they have determination and drive.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:50:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 4:13:14 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The point which you seem sadly too dim to grasp is that there is no 'atheism' in the way you are trying to define it. There are merely many atheists who share one and only one position to tie them together, which is a lack of belief in god(s).

It is impossible for me to respect someone who is so dishonest as to babble insanely about 'atheist ideology' or some abstract 'atheism' that is more than just "a state of not believing in the existence of god(s)". If you are not intentionally being dishonest then you are too stupid to understand the basic terminology and are, as with the dishonesty scenario, not really worth discussing things with in the first place.

Thirdly, of course, you're fairly obviously just yet another puppet account of the handful of rather cretinous trolls this place is home to.

If there's anything unclear about the above then please feel free to address your concerns to someone who cares what you think enough to want to hear more from you. I do not.

And this is exactly why I thought you were incapable of having a discussion.

Thank you for proving me right.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:53:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 6:29:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

Saying there is no purpose is like saying there is no purpose. Yet, we know that's not true. Atheists and theists, alike, are driven by purpose; if they weren't, they would soon become despondent and die. You can't say people don't have purpose, when it is they have determination and drive.

I agree with this.

The trouble is finding that purpose? Being contended may not require determination and drive, it simply depends on what your purpose is?

What is the meaning of life? Why do we exist? And these areas, science with all its wonders, offers scant insights other than to tell us that we exist.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 10:37:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

I actually disagree with this view. I think it is possible to have good atheists but because of the lack of divine reinforcement in that view (the lack of a devil or a morally-concerned God), it can be a very tough challenge to be a good atheist. I don't believe it's impossible, but it's no doubt probably very tough.

There is no reason to be a good atheists unless you subscribe to a worldview like John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism), or John Paul Satre (existentialism and secular humanism; the reduction of social entropy and misery); however, if the atheist believes the view that everything and anything is justified and there is no legitimate moral basis for anything, objective or subjective, then I would say this atheist cannot possibly be good and of any moral value to society.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 10:40:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's almost no atheists that take that latter position, though. All the ones I know are existentialists, humanists and so forth. Thankfully very few utilitarians, though.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 11:35:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 10:40:58 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
There's almost no atheists that take that latter position, though. All the ones I know are existentialists, humanists and so forth. Thankfully very few utilitarians, though.

Yes. Most atheists I'm aware of have admiration for these views; I sincerely hope they can remain firm in their adherence to this beliefs, for the sake of humanity.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 11:44:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Of" should have been "or" and the people who designed this forum software should be publicly flogged.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:16:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 1:11:45 AM, neutral wrote:
At 3/23/2014 5:12:14 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

None of these positions are bad, but neither are they things that arise from the conclusion of atheism. I would be very hard pressed to find someone, of any faith, for example who thought that murder was good or that charity was bad.

The point isn't that religion is necessarily a hindrance to good, just that atheism isn't.

I do see one thing here that I thing is a clear difference between atheism and religion.

Your argument serves from the point of view of you.

Giving charity is the right thing to do as a statement contrasts neatly with giving charity is right because I believe it is so.

Each of these statements rests with your point of view rather than from a position of universal standards. By resting solely on our own point of view, we necessitate the removal of admission of our limitations. There are other people out there, some smarter, some vastly more experienced, some more charismatic, some wiser, etc.

Yes, but a fluid moral system that rests its foundation on something commonly accepted as good (the survival and comfort of our species and any other intelligent life form that we know of) is better then the rigid belief structure of a 2000 year old book.

Most people can decide to be good on their own, and those who are bad are not bad because we didn't give them the right morals. They are bad simply because they are in bad situations. Why do poor people commit more crimes? Why are nations in poverty or drought or some other like situation more likely to experience political and social instability? I hate to do this ('cause my families Jewish), but Hitler lived in WW1 and post WW1 Germany, a completely shattered place. His father was terrible and his mother was dead. Was Hitler evil because he was not given the right morals at youth, or was he evil because he lived in a bad place at a bad time? Bad situations breed bad people.

The difference in ethical framework here is that ethics rests pun our own self conviction in ethics, and, if we are not convinced, to abandon the ethical concept as untenable.

Religion, postulating an universal truth, acknowledges that ethics is about more than ourselves. When we arrive at a point of contention, a point of disagreement with universal moral principles, the it is incumbent upon us to reason and explain why. The choice not to follow, thusly being an informed matter of conscience.

It would be wrong to simply say adhering to universal moral code is correct, the unthinking adherence to anything would be wrong. Yet it is equally unwise to postulate that we have ourselves mastered the ethical framework with our powers of reason. Human are notoriously fickle and emotional, and the pulling of biases and emotional legion.

I agree that your way of thinking is far superior and more beneficial than biblical literalism or other similar beliefs, but I fail to see the necessity of faith in developing an ethical framework. If you decide in the end on your own convictions, then what is the difference?

To form an ethical framework based merely on our own observations is challenging in the extreme. It is easy on the obvious, and become notoriously difficult in grayer areas where all the facts, circumstances, and outcomes are not known.

Well, we can't know what will play out for the best. H*ll, me stepping on an ant could cause a chain reaction that causes nuclear annihilation in the future. This is, of course, a massive exaggeration, but you get my point. Ethics is a grey area that is open to debate. Often times we don't know until it has been tried, but after, we can make a more informed decision.

And of course nothing is black and white. Should someone who murdered a child be sentenced the same as a man who went crazy and killed his wife after finding out she cheated? Or a man who ended his brother's life by pulling the life support cord, because his brother asked him to? These are all murder aren't they?

It is for this very reason that we have a system of courts, rather than our own conscience to determine ethical matters.

Aren't the courts just based on the judge's or a selection of 12 random people's consciences? Or the skill of the lawyers?
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 11:00:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 9:53:32 AM, neutral wrote:
At 3/24/2014 6:29:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

Saying there is no purpose is like saying there is no purpose. Yet, we know that's not true. Atheists and theists, alike, are driven by purpose; if they weren't, they would soon become despondent and die. You can't say people don't have purpose, when it is they have determination and drive.

I agree with this.

The trouble is finding that purpose? Being contended may not require determination and drive, it simply depends on what your purpose is?

I believe purpose is, inherently, there. The very fact you're alive speaks of desire, and desire speaks of purpose. If you felt nothing were purposeful, you would soon become disinterested and disinterested, you would become despondent.

The problem I see is not we don't have purpose that inspires our hearts with the breath of life, but purpose being so readily available, has become as mundane and second nature as the air we breathe. It's only when it is something is missed for any length of time do we truly appreciate it. Enjoy life while
you still have desire; for, once it's gone, so are you.

What is the meaning of life? Why do we exist? And these areas, science with all its wonders, offers scant insights other than to tell us that we exist

Existence, in and of itself, has meaning. If it didn't, it would have, absolutely, no significance; and, having no significance, it would be illogical, in and of itself; and, that makes no sense.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:15:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is materialistic at it's core and relies on accepting there is no purpose in the universe. Without purpose to life, what motivates goodness towards other people? Nothing. Atheism is a completely amoral belief-system.

Atheists- if you disagree- please tell me what objective reason you have to be good to others.

I think there are some good atheist out there, they just mistake morals for honor codes. Now, if you were to say righteous. I could understand that.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:25:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 9:16:31 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/24/2014 1:11:45 AM, neutral wrote:
At 3/23/2014 5:12:14 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

Yes, but a fluid moral system that rests its foundation on something commonly accepted as good (the survival and comfort of our species and any other intelligent life form that we know of) is better then the rigid belief structure of a 2000 year old book.

Most people can decide to be good on their own, and those who are bad are not bad because we didn't give them the right morals. They are bad simply because they are in bad situations. Why do poor people commit more crimes? Why are nations in poverty or drought or some other like situation more likely to experience political and social instability? I hate to do this ('cause my families Jewish), but Hitler lived in WW1 and post WW1 Germany, a completely shattered place. His father was terrible and his mother was dead. Was Hitler evil because he was not given the right morals at youth, or was he evil because he lived in a bad place at a bad time? Bad situations breed bad people.

No, they do not ...

Lets start with the contradiction, that people can choose to be good but are made bad by their 'upbringing'.

So ... every abuse victim is condemned to be violent and maladjusted for eternity? All the impoverished are criminals? All those lacking in education or literacy are unethical? All our returning veterans subject dot horror should be treated like lepers?

The simply fact of the matter is when we start looking at upbringing, we can clearly see that its not the rule, rather than the exception. People can choose right, even when pressed, and the real danger here is that is someone reaches their braking point ... suddenly unethical behavior is fine?

One could ask for help rather than lash out correct? And many people do. There are MANY more people challenged by the events of life, some more cruel than you can imagine, who seek help rather than go on a murderous rampage.

You mention Hitler? He was a runner in WWI. No doubt he saw great horror, but he was not exactly an infantryman thrust directly into the killing, and the vast majority of WWI vets did not do what Hitler did.

Why people choose wrong? I gives them power. Whether than be drug gangs, who abuse people for the sense of power, or Hitler ... rising to the top of a murderous wrath. It is, at its base, pride - the need for US to have power to exercise dominion over others.

It is why a basic of ethcial conduct is selflessness - to deny oneself.

I agree that your way of thinking is far superior and more beneficial than biblical literalism or other similar beliefs, but I fail to see the necessity of faith in developing an ethical framework. If you decide in the end on your own convictions, then what is the difference?

You need a universal moral code. Otherwise, you simply drift to what you know, and there is far more that you do not know than you do. Ethics of any sort, except in the back and white, requires some measure of faith - whether that be in God or the intrinsic good of humanity.

Well, we can't know what will play out for the best. H*ll, me stepping on an ant could cause a chain reaction that causes nuclear annihilation in the future. This is, of course, a massive exaggeration, but you get my point. Ethics is a grey area that is open to debate. Often times we don't know until it has been tried, but after, we can make a more informed decision.

That is an argument from absurdity. Stepping on an ant will not lead to nuclear annihilation, and the very premise rejects the basis of inductive reasoning. If that drives your thought processes, then you will forever be paralyzed by epistemologic dead ends.

Ethics may be open to debate, but it requires a framework from which to base a statement. Otherwise, its every man for himself. And that ... is ethical chaos.

It is exactly the reasoning employed by revolutionaries during the French and Russian Revolution. An ethical framework that favored the intelligent and the relentless.


And of course nothing is black and white. Should someone who murdered a child be sentenced the same as a man who went crazy and killed his wife after finding out she cheated? Or a man who ended his brother's life by pulling the life support cord, because his brother asked him to? These are all murder aren't they?

And yet, in either case, there must be punishment for the action, consequence correct?

You are aware that the Bible preaches context in judgement? That the lower law of blindly following rules and implementing the same punishment regardless of circumstance ended 2,000 years ago with Jesus?


Aren't the courts just based on the judge's or a selection of 12 random people's consciences? Or the skill of the lawyers?

And what do you think judges do? If there is a gross misapplication of justice, there is a judge to keep it in check, and appeals process (to a court of judges, not jurors).

I fail to see the ethical framework of your point here?

Are you saying YOU would be a better judge? And at that point, I point to the dangers of history of those who relentlessly knew better.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:26:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 11:00:47 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/24/2014 9:53:32 AM, neutral wrote:
At 3/24/2014 6:29:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/23/2014 4:17:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

Saying there is no purpose is like saying there is no purpose. Yet, we know that's not true. Atheists and theists, alike, are driven by purpose; if they weren't, they would soon become despondent and die. You can't say people don't have purpose, when it is they have determination and drive.

I agree with this.

The trouble is finding that purpose? Being contended may not require determination and drive, it simply depends on what your purpose is?

I believe purpose is, inherently, there. The very fact you're alive speaks of desire, and desire speaks of purpose. If you felt nothing were purposeful, you would soon become disinterested and disinterested, you would become despondent.

The problem I see is not we don't have purpose that inspires our hearts with the breath of life, but purpose being so readily available, has become as mundane and second nature as the air we breathe. It's only when it is something is missed for any length of time do we truly appreciate it. Enjoy life while
you still have desire; for, once it's gone, so are you.

What is the meaning of life? Why do we exist? And these areas, science with all its wonders, offers scant insights other than to tell us that we exist

Existence, in and of itself, has meaning. If it didn't, it would have, absolutely, no significance; and, having no significance, it would be illogical, in and of itself; and, that makes no sense.

I agree with you, but a purpose can be both ethical and unethical can it not?