Why there is No such thing as a good atheist

[mhaberling]

Azdgari...

If you stop at deciding we have no argument. My question is weather you can act to stop an action without saying your morality is better. If you can't, by what means do you measure your morality vs someone else's?

[ParkingPlaces]

Not true. You know too little about morality to be trying to describe it.

Plus, if you were being robbed, you would probably shoot the bad guys, even though you have a commandment that says not to kill. I think one of the reasons your religion is so popular is that is has so many loopholes.

I certainly wouldn't shoot the guy. I would tell him that I forgive him and I would try and convince him to accept Jesus Christ as his savior.

Just shooting him solves nothing and could send a soul to hell that could have been saved.

Shouldn't you know this stuff as a former Christian?

Just to clear up, I quit being a christian over 50 years ago, and I was only one because my parents told me I was. I agreed to it only until I figured out it was wrong.

I'm glad to hear to don't shoot folks. Neither do I. I don't do it because I suffer from actual empathy. From which I get my morality. Which has kept me both likable and out of prison for over six decades.

edit: fixed quote problem

[Azdgari]

Azdgari...

If you stop at deciding we have no argument. My question is weather you can act to stop an action without saying your morality is better with respect to X standard. If you can't, by what means do you measure your morality vs someone else's?

I bolded the part you left out.  Deliberately left out, it must be, since I've pointed out this problem already.  Complete your damned question.

[Nam]

From article:

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

I disagree with all three mainly because, as an atheist: I really don't care if any of it is true or not. #1 -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't: I don't care either way; #2 -- again: could be true, could not be: I don't care; #3 -- what religion says the universe has a conscious? Yet, irrelevant. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't: I don't care.

The problem this person seems to have, in my opinion, is that s/he starts with the conclusion before the argument. Already has the definitions of good/bad yet provides no definitions for them. Already has the opinion that what they state is factual without providing any sources, consensus or not, anywhere. S/he began losing their argument from the beginning.

Yes, quotes are presented but no real purpose in them but their own bias (theirs, and her/his). Also, the points on morality seems more of a "scientific" viewpoint. I know people like to say that science and atheism go hand-in-hand (some atheists included) but they don't. They have nothing to do with each other, in my opinion. Atheism is just non-belief in god/s. For me, coming to that conclusion, "science" in such regard (unless dealing in semantics) had nothing to do with it.

If I don't like a movie, or television show, was science involved in how I determined that? No.

-Nam

[Nam]

What next? Atheists have no feelings! Atheists have no empathy!

I have empathy for fictional people.



-Nam

[Aaron123]

Aaron123...

A theist would say that Rape is bad because it is immoral according to God's truth. In other words, rape is bad because the statement: Rape is Bad. Is and has always been true.

So if god said "rape is good", you would be OK with that?  You'd have no thoughts or opinions on the subject? 

An atheist would say rape is bad why? AAron123, if there is no God, and no moral truth as a result, then from what grounds could you say rape is bad? Do you have any logical reason? As an atheist to you think it is always bad and no one should do it. ( an argument for objective morals ). Or is that something you simply have an opinion on that is neither true nor false ( Coke Vs. Pepsi ).

Theists believe in a world where morality can live in harmony with logic. 

I can think of one simple reason why we consider rape to be a very bad thing.  It harms the victim.  It harms the victim in both physical and physiological ways.  Rape is an act with the intent to cause harm.

I find it very strange that your standard for morality apparently gives no consideration for whenever a person may or may not be harmed by an act.  Instead, it's simply "whatever god says!".

[Antidote]

Says the guy who believes the "Might makes right" mentality of the bible.

Seriously:

• Slavery
• Incest
• Genocide
• Matricide
• Patricide
• Infanticide

ALL of those are both endorsed, and even DEMANDED, by the "good book," it's too bad that these people refuse to read their own holy book, then decide to paint atheists with a broad brush. And on top of that, lumping us in with the likes of Hitler, who was a Roman Catholic. He wrote about his disdain for Darwin's theory of Evolution in Mein Kampf. I'll give them Stalin, but he didn't do anything in the name of "atheism," he had a vendetta against the church because they refused to help him with something (can't for the life of me remember what it was), Pol Pott? dunno, Mao? No idea.

[Nam]

Antidote,

How about Plutarco Elías Calles?

-Nam

[Ivellios]

Aaron123...

A theist would say that Rape is bad because it is immoral according to God's truth. In other words, rape is bad because the statement: Rape is Bad. Is and has always been true.

Duet 22

If a virgin is raped and the rapist caught in the act, the rapist must pay the father 50 shekels, the maximum price a virgin is worth, and she must marry the rapist. He can never divorce her as long as he or she lives. (remember the married woman having sex outside of marriage is adultry and stoned to death. The man, as long as the mistress is not married[1], it is infidelity and the only divorce YHWH supports. So he has free reign to cheat and she cannot excercise what would be her only right in that situation)

If a married woman is raped within city limits she is to be stoned to death for adultry. For she wanted it, otherwise she would have yelled out loud enough that someone would have rescued her. YHWH ignores the fact that there are way to prevent a woman calling for help.

If a married woman is raped outside city limits, it's assumed she called out for help. So only the man is stoned for adultry.

If a virgin is raped but the rape is not discovered, then it never happened. Otherwise it's her word versus his, and a woman's word means nothing. When she is later married and it discovered that she did not have an intact hymen, she is to be stoned to death on her father's steps and the father sued 300 shekels for selling defective merchandise.

Rape bad according to the Bible? I only see that the only penalty levied against the rapist is if the woman he raped was already married. In fact this law actually promotes rape, as long as you are not caught in the act. Clearly you're yet another Christian saying things about "what the bible says," despite having never read it.

1.	woman married = adultry

[magicmiles]

I can think of one simple reason why we consider rape to be a very bad thing.  It harms the victim.  It harms the victim in both physical and physiological ways.  Rape is an act with the intent to cause harm.

Devil's advocate question:

Why is it bad to harm somebody? If I thought it was good to harm somebody, why would I be wrong?

[Antidote]

Antidote,

How about Plutarco Elías Calles?

-Nam

From what I can gather he was pretty much indoctrinated with a hatred of the Catholic church by his uncle, but no details about said uncle are provided, so I'll refrain from commenting on it.

[wright]

Devil's advocate question:

Why is it bad to harm somebody? If I thought it was good to harm somebody, why would I be wrong?

Because taking pleasure from harming others is a maladaptive behavior in a social species like humans. It can be beneficial for the abuser / criminal in the short term, but the pain and loss it causes others provokes defensive behavior. Thus, prisons and (ideally) rehabilitation.

[Aaron123]

Devil's advocate question:

Why is it bad to harm somebody? If I thought it was good to harm somebody, why would I be wrong?

You would need to explain why you consider it a Good Thing to harm somebody.  In what way would it be "good" to harm someone, in this case, by raping them?

Also, does this idea of "doing good by harm" gives any considerations for the victim?  Your post doesn't seem to give any concern for the victim(s) involved.

[Astreja]

If we were both atheists and someone wanted to rob our house, we have to let them rob it.

Not true. You know too little about morality to be trying to describe it.

Plus, if you were being robbed, you would probably shoot the bad guys, even though you have a commandment that says not to kill. I think one of the reasons your religion is so popular is that is has so many loopholes.

I believe that the right to defend oneself and one's loved ones trumps all other considerations in morality. Self-defence not only predates Christianity, but in many respects is an anti-Christian sentiment in light of "Love your enemy" and "If someone sues you for your shirt, give him your coat as well" and "Do not resist evil."

If someone were to break into My home, they would not be treated mercifully.  I also do not think that I would be entertaining abstract thoughts of morality and religion at such a time -- I'd be too busy pummelling the interlopers with various household objects while waiting for the constabulary to arrive.

[natlegend]

Devil's advocate question:

Why is it bad to harm somebody? If I thought it was good to harm somebody, why would I be wrong?

Because you would be a sociopath.

[skeptic54768]

Devil's advocate question:

Why is it bad to harm somebody? If I thought it was good to harm somebody, why would I be wrong?

Because you would be a sociopath.

Not according to himself. According to you, he would be.
Whose standard is better?

Let's say an old lady takes 1,000 dollars out of the bank and you hit her over the head with a bat and steal the money and get away with no witnesses. You just got 1,000 bucks! Wouldn't you be happy?

[skeptic54768]

Not true. You know too little about morality to be trying to describe it.

Plus, if you were being robbed, you would probably shoot the bad guys, even though you have a commandment that says not to kill. I think one of the reasons your religion is so popular is that is has so many loopholes.

I certainly wouldn't shoot the guy. I would tell him that I forgive him and I would try and convince him to accept Jesus Christ as his savior.

Just shooting him solves nothing and could send a soul to hell that could have been saved.

Shouldn't you know this stuff as a former Christian?

Just to clear up, I quit being a christian over 50 years ago, and I was only one because my parents told me I was. I agreed to it only until I figured out it was wrong.

I'm glad to hear to don't shoot folks. Neither do I. I don't do it because I suffer from actual empathy. From which I get my morality. Which has kept me both likable and out of prison for over six decades.

edit: fixed quote problem

Empathy is not a standard. Hitler had empathy for the Aryan race.

[skeptic54768]

From article:

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

I disagree with all three mainly because, as an atheist: I really don't care if any of it is true or not. #1 -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't: I don't care either way; #2 -- again: could be true, could not be: I don't care; #3 -- what religion says the universe has a conscious? Yet, irrelevant. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't: I don't care.

The problem this person seems to have, in my opinion, is that s/he starts with the conclusion before the argument. Already has the definitions of good/bad yet provides no definitions for them. Already has the opinion that what they state is factual without providing any sources, consensus or not, anywhere. S/he began losing their argument from the beginning.

Yes, quotes are presented but no real purpose in them but their own bias (theirs, and her/his). Also, the points on morality seems more of a "scientific" viewpoint. I know people like to say that science and atheism go hand-in-hand (some atheists included) but they don't. They have nothing to do with each other, in my opinion. Atheism is just non-belief in god/s. For me, coming to that conclusion, "science" in such regard (unless dealing in semantics) had nothing to do with it.

If I don't like a movie, or television show, was science involved in how I determined that? No.

-Nam

Current evidence indicates that consciousness is responsible for the universe as opposed to the universe being responsible for consciousness, which is taught as part of the atheistic doctrine.

Plus, if #1 is false, then atheism is false. So, you can't say you don't care about it, Nam. What kind of person doesn't care about their own beliefs?

[Aaron123]

Not according to himself. According to you, he would be.
Whose standard is better?

Let's say an old lady takes 1,000 dollars out of the bank and you hit her over the head with a bat and steal the money and get away with no witnesses. You just got 1,000 bucks! Wouldn't you be happy?

Once again, the theist argument shows no consideration for the victim.  Why is that?

[ParkingPlaces]

Devil's advocate question:

Why is it bad to harm somebody? If I thought it was good to harm somebody, why would I be wrong?

Because you would be a sociopath.

Not according to himself. According to you, he would be.
Whose standard is better?

Let's say an old lady takes 1,000 dollars out of the bank and you hit her over the head with a bat and steal the money and get away with no witnesses. You just got 1,000 bucks! Wouldn't you be happy?

Do things really have to be that simple for you to understand them? Do you actually think morality=whatever the heck we want it to?

If I lived alone on this planet, and it was a lifeless place, I could probably do anything I darn well pleased and it wouldn't matter. But once other living things come into the picture, then my actions can have consequence. And those consequences are not always trivial. And if I want the behavior of others to be consistent with what I prefer, I'd better be darned sure my behavior is consistent with what they prefer.

We are social animals, not individual predators. That I can give a little old lady a concussion for fun and profit is not automatically just fine because I liked it. I'm an atheist, not an island. If I am to coexist with fellow humans and the planet itself, I'll get to hang around a lot longer if I don't play with baseball bats or matches.

And Hitler didn't have enough empathy. I do.

If it confuses you that I would take others into consideration, then you aren't taking others into consideration for the right reasons.

Edit: Removed repetitive sentence

[Aaron123]

Current evidence indicates that consciousness is responsible for the universe as opposed to the universe being responsible for consciousness, which is taught as part of the atheistic doctrine.

Plus, if #1 is false, then atheism is false. So, you can't say you don't care about it, Nam. What kind of person doesn't care about their own beliefs?

What is this "atheistic doctrine" you speak of, and what are its contents?

The only "atheistic doctrine" I am aware of is that there is a lack of sufficient evidence for the existence of god-beings.

[skeptic54768]

Devil's advocate question:

Why is it bad to harm somebody? If I thought it was good to harm somebody, why would I be wrong?

Because you would be a sociopath.

Not according to himself. According to you, he would be.
Whose standard is better?

Let's say an old lady takes 1,000 dollars out of the bank and you hit her over the head with a bat and steal the money and get away with no witnesses. You just got 1,000 bucks! Wouldn't you be happy?

Do things really have to be that simple for you to understand them? Do you actually think morality=whatever the heck we want it to?

If I lived alone on this planet, and it was a lifeless place, I could probably do anything I darn well pleased and it wouldn't matter. But once other living things come into the picture, then my actions can have consequence. And those consequences are not always trivial. And if I want the behavior of others to be consistent with what I prefer, I'd better be darned sure my behavior is consistent with what they prefer.

We are social animals, not individual predators. That I can give a little old lady a concussion for fun and profit is not automatically just fine because I liked it. I'm an atheist, not an island. If I am to coexist with fellow humans and the planet itself, I'll get to hang around a lot longer if I don't play with baseball bats or matches.

And Hitler didn't have enough empathy. I do.

If it confuses you that I would take others into consideration, then you aren't taking others into consideration for the right reasons.

Edit: Removed repetitive sentence

Did you miss the part where I said that you got away with no witnesses. If you can get away with crime, why not do it? Who's gonna stop you if nobody ever finds out?

[skeptic54768]

Current evidence indicates that consciousness is responsible for the universe as opposed to the universe being responsible for consciousness, which is taught as part of the atheistic doctrine.

Plus, if #1 is false, then atheism is false. So, you can't say you don't care about it, Nam. What kind of person doesn't care about their own beliefs?

What is this "atheistic doctrine" you speak of, and what are its contents?

The only "atheistic doctrine" I am aware of is that there is a lack of sufficient evidence for the existence of god-beings.

No, that is agnostic doctrine.

Theist = God is real.

Agnostic = no evidence either way.

Atheist = No God.

[skeptic54768]

Not according to himself. According to you, he would be.
Whose standard is better?

Let's say an old lady takes 1,000 dollars out of the bank and you hit her over the head with a bat and steal the money and get away with no witnesses. You just got 1,000 bucks! Wouldn't you be happy?

Once again, the theist argument shows no consideration for the victim.  Why is that?

Because my subjective morality says that victims don't matter.

[skeptic54768]

If we were both atheists and someone wanted to rob our house, we have to let them rob it.

Not true. You know too little about morality to be trying to describe it.

Plus, if you were being robbed, you would probably shoot the bad guys, even though you have a commandment that says not to kill. I think one of the reasons your religion is so popular is that is has so many loopholes.

I believe that the right to defend oneself and one's loved ones trumps all other considerations in morality. Self-defence not only predates Christianity, but in many respects is an anti-Christian sentiment in light of "Love your enemy" and "If someone sues you for your shirt, give him your coat as well" and "Do not resist evil."

If someone were to break into My home, they would not be treated mercifully.  I also do not think that I would be entertaining abstract thoughts of morality and religion at such a time -- I'd be too busy pummelling the interlopers with various household objects while waiting for the constabulary to arrive.

I do not understand why you atheists claim to say that theistic morals are bad when you just admitted that forgiveness is not in your vocabulary. All you would do is a pummeling beatdown.

Do you know who else doesn't forgive? Satan.

[Aaron123]

No, that is agnostic doctrine.

Theist = God is real.

Agnostic = no evidence either way.

Atheist = No God.

Oh, so now there's "agnostic doctrine"?

So what are these "agnostic doctrine" and "atheist doctrine" you speak of?  None exists, to my knowledge.

[skeptic54768]

No, that is agnostic doctrine.

Theist = God is real.

Agnostic = no evidence either way.

Atheist = No God.

Oh, so now there's "agnostic doctrine"?

So what are these "agnostic doctrine" and "atheist doctrine" you speak of?  None exists, to my knowledge.

Atheist doctrine:

Universe started from nothing.
Laws formed on their own.
Stars and galaxies and solar systems formed on their own.
Life formed on its own.
Life evolved on its own over billions of years to reach its current state.

All that happened on its own and we can't even create a grain of sand on our own.

I don't see why atheists throw a hissy fit over having a doctrine. You don't see theists getting mad about our doctrine. We say we have a doctrine. the atheists can't admit they have one though. It's silly.

[ParkingPlaces]

No, that is agnostic doctrine.

Theist = God is real.

Agnostic = no evidence either way.

Atheist = No God.

Oh, so now there's "agnostic doctrine"?

So what are these "agnostic doctrine" and "atheist doctrine" you speak of?  None exists, to my knowledge.

Atheist doctrine:

Universe started from nothing.
Laws formed on their own.
Stars and galaxies and solar systems formed on their own.
Life formed on its own.
Life evolved on its own over billions of years to reach its current state.

All that happened on its own and we can't even create a grain of sand on our own.

Atheists simply say that there is no god.

That other stuff is science. And you clearly don't understand anything about it, because you stated your objections in such a way that it is clear that you're ignorant about ever aspect of it.

We can make sand, but we don't have to. Its funny that a guy using a computer thinks that we have no control over silica. That's what all your chips are made out of. And we can do more than nature. Like make flexible minerals

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130315074513.htm

Edit: Added clarification

[Aaron123]

Atheist doctrine:

Universe started from nothing.
Laws formed on their own.
Stars and galaxies and solar systems formed on their own.
Life formed on its own.
Life evolved on its own over billions of years to reach its current state.

All that happened on its own and we can't even create a grain of sand on our own.

You've only listed a strawman version of the creation of the universe.  It has nothing to do with atheism.

"Atheism" only means that one does not believe in god-beings.  It has nothing to do with how they think the universe formed.  Someone could believe the universe was created by a unicorn and a jug of milk, and still be an atheist.  Just as long as they don't consider those things to be gods.


Why is there this thinking that atheism involves beliefs in the origin of the universe?  It keeps popping up, and no matter how many times it's shot down, someone keeps bringing it up again and again.