Atheism

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'll try to sum this up. I have no reason to have ill feelings towards atheists, but I do have issues with the message of atheism. The message that I'm referring to is the message that none of our actions have any spiritual consequences. The message that the individual is god, essentially, and there are only other humans to answer to and obey. The message that humans are a blip on the dust speck in space called earth and are no more or less important in the grand scheme than a fungus. The message that the universe is a byproduct of a mathematic computation that must somehow begin by tapping into some form of a timeless power source that is likely not as conscious as we are. Lastly the message that we do not have any force to thank for what we have in life, that would appreciate gratitude for giving us life.

Considering the fact that atheism bases it's entire message on the paltry bit of intelligence that humans have gathered about the universe, I can understand your feeling insulted by an idea.

Just to reiterate, you must take what I said out of context to reach the conclusion that I somehow suggested that atheists don't find love important, or don't like love. If you drop the word spiritually you change the meaning of what I wrote, similar to when you responded to another sentence after you subtracted the word commanded. I'm sure you're aware of this, so what's with hyping yourself up off of things you invented?

Plainly, atheists aren't supposed to love anyone or anything that that they don't feel like loving. If I'm not mistaken the only thing an atheist is supposed to do is survive, the same thing an amoeba is supposed to do. Introduce suicide and people don't even HAVE to do that. To me it's an insult to humanity as a whole to suggest that we are equal to the amoeba concerning what we are SUPPOSED/meant to do, perhaps inferior considering our self destructive nature.

In conclusion I can see atheism suggesting that cockroaches and bacteria are superior to humans,while not in complexity,rather their ability to do what they are SUPPOSED/meant to do.

Humanity inferior to cockroaches? That's insulting.
Love everyone/your enemies? How you find it insulting that I believe that you, a stranger/an anonymous person are as worthy of love from me as my wife and kid is beyond me.

I'll show you why I have a problem with atheism.

If I annoy someone in traffic, and they follow me and kill me, and pull it off without getting caught and feel good about their kill, according to atheism have they done anything wrong?

Atheism isn't a message. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. That's it. Anything beyond that is personal, not inherent to their atheism.

Case in point: I love, I am grateful for that which I should be, I recognize moral consequences. In fact, as a result of my deterministic beliefs, I do not fault people for their actions, however evil, and as such have always been able to forgive and/or continue to love everyone. Hell, I'm more forgiving as an atheist than I was as a Christian...that belief was far more vitriolic and damning of sins and evil works. Just because you can't fathom how atheists can do these things doesn't mean they can't. Just because you can't see the reasons for such empathy and love outside a God doesn't mean that such reasons don't exist.

And the whole cockroach thing is a blatant strawman, not even worth refuting formally.

Say what you will about atheists individually, some can be a-holes. But about atheism as a whole, you're dead wrong, and merely slipping into the same false stereotypes that exist out there.

Originally posted by Digi
Atheism isn't a message. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. [b]That's it. Anything beyond that is personal, not inherent to their atheism.

Case in point: I love, I am grateful for that which I should be, I recognize moral consequences. In fact, as a result of my deterministic beliefs, I do not fault people for their actions, however evil, and as such have always been able to forgive and/or continue to love everyone. Hell, I'm more forgiving as an atheist than I was as a Christian...that belief was far more vitriolic and damning of sins and evil works. Just because you can't fathom how atheists can do these things doesn't mean they can't. Just because you can't see the reasons for such empathy and love outside a God doesn't mean that such reasons don't exist.

And the whole cockroach thing is a blatant strawman, not even worth refuting formally.

Say what you will about atheists individually, some can be a-holes. But about atheism as a whole, you're dead wrong, and merely slipping into the same false stereotypes that exist out there. [/B]

You say that atheism is not a message. You say that it simply believes there is no God.

Realize that the message that there is no God to answer to is inherent within the idea that there is no God.

You defend atheism over your fellow atheists. Why? According to you atheists have the capacity to love and enjoy life as much as any theist. Atheism sends a far more neutral message than atheists.

My previous question goes unanswered by anyone claiming to understand atheism. The question isn't meant to insult atheists, any more than the questions I ask religious teachers is meant to insult their beliefs. I asked that if a man kills somebody, gets away with it, and feels good about, then according to atheism has he done any wrong?

Going with what I know about atheism, humans may agree that he is guilty of a wrong, but if they are unaware then he is not wrong or right by any other standards. His actions are moot and he will never be held accountable by God. There is no authority beyond human or the physical plane.

Thus my problem with the message that you claim does not exist. I'll use an analogy to show you what I mean. If you go into a high-school and you tell the students there over the loudspeaker, " The adults are not here." you cannot tell me that regardless of whether the teachers are watching the kids from the principals office via spy-cam,or they are actually not present, that the person who made the announcement on the loudspeaker sent no message.

Now if God where to play the role that adults in a school play, then we wouldn't have any more free will than students have free reign. With free will comes sincerity and that school announcement experiment would prove it, as most high schools would devolve in seconds following such an announcement.

There is no supreme authority figure. If atheism is not synonymous with this idea then I will admit being obviously ignorant of what atheism really means.

However if the two are one and the same, I feel as though the zealous atheists look at all theist as students to non-existent teachers, especially when we try to suggest that perhaps we shouldn't be so bad. "AWW! you dummy, don't you know there ain't no teachers/God!! You're just a goody-two shoes!" A group that will mock doing good for God's sake because there's no such thing in their opinion.

Modest people on either side are far more courteous and open-minded as expected. Reality is that most people aren't modest and if you have two camps with one saying "Be Good, cause God is watching" and the other saying "We believe that they are incorrect" they're going to be at odds.

When neither side can possibly prove the other irrefutably wrong, I'm of the opinion that the camp that wants to be good because the unseen authority would be ashamed if they were bad, sends a more realistic message. The opposing message simply being, there is no unseen authority.

My previous question goes unanswered by anyone claiming to understand atheism. The question isn't meant to insult atheists, any more than the questions I ask religious teachers is meant to insult their beliefs. I asked that if a man kills somebody, gets away with it, and feels good about, then according to atheism has he done any wrong?

It's equivalent to asking "If someone believes in a toaster and they kill somebody and get away with it and feel good about about, then, according to his believe in the toaster has he done any wrong?"

It is a fundamentally invalid question not in accordance with reality. I hope you understand that now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's equivalent to asking "If someone believes in a toaster and they kill somebody and get away with it and feel good about about, then, according to his believe in the toaster has he done any wrong?"

I was going to say the exact same thing, only with refrigerator

Originally posted by inimalist
I was going to say the exact same thing, only with refrigerator

Ah...that would have been better.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I asked that if a man kills somebody, gets away with it, and feels good about, then according to atheism has he done any wrong?

Depends on the moral standards you are "judging" the actions by.

Assume there is no God, higher power, or transcendent reality.

The answer to the question becomes: Depends on the dictates of the society in which he lives.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a fundamentally invalid question not in accordance with reality. I hope you understand that now.

I disagree. It has a perfectly legitimate answer.

Mister, It's alarming that you can't see a reason to do good outside of a divine authority figure.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. It has a perfectly legitimate answer.

Well, yes, I guess. It has an answer. The one I gave. It's not a yes or no answer though, which is what Mister expects. The one you gave is flawed, as that is not a statement of atheism, but one that some atheistic beliefs would give.

Unless you want to say that it is no, because it is neither. So that it would also be "no" to the question "I asked that if a man kills somebody, gets away with it, and feels good about, then according to atheism has he done any right? ". It doesn't change the fact that atheism and theism are completely interchangeable in the question though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah...that would have been better.

The idea that he isn't wrong is the idea I'm opposed to. Since atheism includes that idea I'm opposed to it. It is my belief we don't live in an existence where he is not wrong and won't be held accountable for his wrongdoing.

I'll believe that to my grave, without a test tube full of Gods DNA. I've enjoyed the discussion and I'm all done, and know that Digi is right about me not being capable of presenting much if any empirical evidence supporting the Christian beliefs and also about me having to admit much of my beliefs are faith based, even if it's not totally blind faith.

That being said I hope my faith isn't in error and God does love us all, even those that hate him. Even though I have faith that what I believe is the truth, I also have knowledge that humans err, and there is no way for me to confirm the validity of everything I learn. In those instances I'll use my heart as a guide. Good thread Digi.

Originally posted by The MISTER
They're both very good. Neither wrong or right. the question wasn't invalid and you answered it well, thanks.

The idea that he isn't wrong is the idea I'm opposed to. Since atheism includes that idea I'm opposed to it. It is my belief we don't live in an existence where he is not wrong and won't be held accountable for his wrongdoing.

By the same standard you have to be opposed to Theism though.

There are many believes that incorporate Atheism in which that man would be absolutely and most definitely wrong.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The idea that he isn't wrong is the idea I'm opposed to. Since atheism includes that idea I'm opposed to it. It is my belief we don't live in an existence where he is not wrong and won't be held accountable for his wrongdoing.

but that is a total straw man. people are able to create moral and legal codes without any need of a God.

atheism is not the same as moral relativism. I've personally argued a number of times about an objective form of morality based generally on human suffering, and by such a code, the man would be wrong.

even someone like digi, whose approach to morality does seek to reduce incriminating people for their actions, is based more on his reading of physics, not from his atheism. only for religious people would a persons belief about a creator be tied to their moral system. when you have no such belief, you define morals based on other tangible things, you don't abandon the concept of morality entirely.

second thoughts wasting my time.

Originally posted by Deadline
second thoughts wasting my time.

What do you mean?

YouTube video

Just dumping this here, see ya.

Nice video, xyz, thanks.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I agree that moral decisions are worthless if you don't understand. That's why I wholeheartedly believe the teaching of love thy neighbor as thyself is gospel. Anyone who claims that they don't understand that is claiming that they don't know what they wouldn't like. And that's a load of BS.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But if you only do it because you think you'll be punished otherwise, I don't feel like you really understand the inherent power of the teaching. To me, I think change comes from within. I feel like giving an outside force moral authority means you're basically doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. What has real power to me, is when I can realize the logical rightness of an idea, and have an intuitive understanding of it.

Heh. A much more eloquent way of phrasing. As opposed to my rebuttal (which I think is similar in philosophy, if not approach):

Originally posted by Digi
Mister, It's alarming that you can't see a reason to do good outside of a divine authority figure.

Originally posted by inimalist
but that is a total straw man. people are able to create moral and legal codes without any need of a God.

atheism is not the same as moral relativism. I've personally argued a number of times about an objective form of morality based generally on human suffering, and by such a code, the man would be wrong.

even someone like digi, whose approach to morality does seek to reduce incriminating people for their actions, is based more on his reading of physics, not from his atheism. only for religious people would a persons belief about a creator be tied to their moral system. when you have no such belief, you define morals based on other tangible things, you don't abandon the concept of morality entirely.

I agree to a point. People are able to create moral and legal codes without any need of God. Morality is not an issue of religeon it is a fundamental human principle. Your moral codes can be linked into your religeon if you have one but shouldnt be based on it.

I would'nt classify myself as an athiest, nor would i classify myself as a religious person. I have faith but dont believe in organised religeon and Im sure there are many of us out there. Everyone has the ability to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong without having to have someone guide you through it.

If you base your moral code off of religeon, then you are going to become extemely confused. Baring in mind that i hav'nt read the bible all the way through, and will admit to skimming most parts, it seems to contradict itself an awfull lot!

I mean you have 'an eye for an eye' talking about revenge of an equal cost, but you also have 'though shalt not kill'

Talk about mixed messages!
It doesnt take a genius to figure out that some things are just wrong, anyone who doesnt understand that is a few fries short of a happy meal!

Originally posted by Digi
Mister, It's alarming that you can't see a reason to do good outside of a divine authority figure.

Originally posted by Quark_666
*whispers*
I think it's time to quit talking atheism to this guy....

I'd actually argue it's precisely why I should continue to discuss this with him. I'm not in the business of attempted conversions, but enjoy the idea of showing someone a possibility they had not considered or understood beforehand. It's clear he approaches the idea of atheism much differently than atheists do, so it's an interesting challenge to have him switch perspectives (at least for the sake of understanding, not "switch" as in change beliefs).

And yes, it's potentially futile challenge as well, I'm aware. But what about internet debate isn't a touch futile to begin with? We clearly enjoy it for other reasons outside of "winning" or being/seeming/feeling right all the time. So meh.