[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name -
[/quote]
With good reason…They’ve done a lot of bad shit. [/quote]
This was covered early in the thread. People have done a lot of harm in the name of Christianity as well.
I champion the values of the new testament b/c they have a good history of success and demonstrate good evolutionary ethics for the most part.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Atheism=/=immoral-meaningless universe
You don’t need to prescribe to a religious ‘moral preferences’ package to have a value system. A value system can be developed otherwise.
[/quote]
What is it developed from?[/quote]
I think I went over this already.
the [quote]borrowed ethics[/quote] argument is getting old.
atheistic philosophers developped their own ethics (heck, they invented the word “ethics”) centuries before the writing of the New Testament.
centuries later, the bishops, doctors and popes of the medieval church still used their books to understand and complement their own.
and they still use them today.
the Catholic Church is probably the last supporter of the aristotelian/stoician concept of Natural Law.
who borrowed what again ?
The stoics can be considered atheists?!
they see Nature (or more exactly “the natural, material and rational order”) as God.
so their “God” is neither personnal nor transcendant in any way.
it qualify stoicism as a “practical atheism” in my book.
in any case, their god is not the Supreme Supernatural Being we are speaking about in this thread.
[quote]kamui wrote:
chobothx
the only thing you need to understand that unborn babies have an objective intrinsic value is a clear understanding of the words :
“objective”
“intrinsic”
and “value”
and some knowledge about unborn babies.
no god needed.
and it’s not a preference, it’s a fact. regardless of your thoughts and practices.
on the other hand, if you believe in God, have learned some abstract definition of moral in a religious book but lack clear understanding of these words and/or have no knowledge about unborn babies, you could still act in a perfectly immoral way.
[/quote]
If I may offer a thought. In a post modern thought your very use of the words “objective” “intrinsic” and “value” have no meaning outside of the meaning you the individual give it.
So what you decide those words mean is relative only to you. Since I can attribute my own meaning to them and it be different than yours.
That is post moderenism. That is what the other guy is arguing concerning moral relativism. It is all subjective with out an authority to govern.
Your arguments as best I can tell are denying post modern thought, which is fine, but they are not actually addressing his argument. In turn he is not accepting your argument.
It might be better if you were to both conclude can atheism exist without post modernism as a consequence?
I am of the opinion that it can’t the two go hand in hand.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name - For example Im technically atheist because i dont believe in any god. But “I contend we are all atheists” is a pretty good quote, as religious folk don’t believe in every “GOD”. SO how can atheist have any more or less moral values???
Also, I HATE it when religious people cite people like stalin, hitler etc - regardless of whether they were actually atheists, nothing they did was ever done in the name of atheism, the same, sadly can not be said for religion. These people did what they did because they are evil fuckers not because they are atheist.
One last thing - Imo religion isn’t “bad” because there is a lot of good work with sick/homeless ppl etc etc but i think too many religious ppl have had the wool pulled over there eyes. Ie just because we don’t (yet) fully understand how we got here it doesn’t mean we should just say, “fuck it, it was magic” …
Its bullshit anyway - Most people are religious because their parents force them into one religion, rather than showing them all the options and let them pick if they so choose.
[/quote]
I think you confuse the difference between doing something in the name of Christianity and atheist not condemning an action.
Christians condemned Stalin, Hitler, &c. Atheism did not. Being silent on a subject is the same as doing it yourself.[/quote]
I don’t understand what you mean? - christians codmened stalin and hitler? (who gives a F what christians have done its not like they’re judge and jury)
???Maybe atheists can separate their beliefs from a situation where as christians, clusping for anything that will attack atheism, cant.
You need to understand that atheism usually has nothing to do with a lot of the things people blame upon it.
I don’t believe in your religion, but you dont believe in, say, Hindu. SO how are we any different…
On a side note, not sure if this has been brought up but Australia actually has an atheist Prime Minister now - She is a very intelligent woman too.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Einstein was a pantheist. his views were quite similar to spinozism.
ie : his God was a cosmic and strictly immanent God.
if he is a theist, then i’m one too.
but the Church would not agree.
[/quote]
Ok, then you’re a theist.
What church?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name -
[/quote]
With good reason…They’ve done a lot of bad shit. [/quote]
This was covered early in the thread. People have done a lot of harm in the name of Christianity as well.
[/quote]
I know, it’s been covered a billion times. But one is always brought up and so will the other. We’re always trying to prove you’re eviler than us, and vice versa. It’s like the back ground hum to the whole thread…
“I am better because I am not like ________”
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Atheism=/=immoral-meaningless universe
You don’t need to prescribe to a religious ‘moral preferences’ package to have a value system. A value system can be developed otherwise.
[/quote]
What is it developed from?[/quote]
I think I went over this already.
[/quote]
If you tell me about where, I’ll try to find it but I can’t search the whole thing.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
chobothx
the only thing you need to understand that unborn babies have an objective intrinsic value is a clear understanding of the words :
“objective”
“intrinsic”
and “value”
and some knowledge about unborn babies.
no god needed.
and it’s not a preference, it’s a fact. regardless of your thoughts and practices.
on the other hand, if you believe in God, have learned some abstract definition of moral in a religious book but lack clear understanding of these words and/or have no knowledge about unborn babies, you could still act in a perfectly immoral way.
[/quote]
If I may offer a thought. In a post modern thought your very use of the words “objective” “intrinsic” and “value” have no meaning outside of the meaning you the individual give it.
So what you decide those words mean is relative only to you. Since I can attribute my own meaning to them and it be different than yours.
That is post moderenism. That is what the other guy is arguing concerning moral relativism. It is all subjective with out an authority to govern.
Your arguments as best I can tell are denying post modern thought, which is fine, but they are not actually addressing his argument. In turn he is not accepting your argument.
It might be better if you were to both conclude can atheism exist without post modernism as a consequence?
I am of the opinion that it can’t the two go hand in hand.[/quote]
You are precisely correct.
As someone has summed this thought up in the phrase, “It all depends on what ‘is’ means.”
Perhaps we ought to move on to debating whether or not objective truth exists in this world, since we go round and round in circles with no means to arbitrate between the two opposing arguments.
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
Is this statement a scientific truth?
If this statement is true but not a scientific truth, then all truth is not scientific, thus in effect you have said nothing.
“When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
You just committed the same blunder as David Hume.
Self Destruct more plz.
[quote]chobothx wrote:
Perhaps we ought to move on to debating whether or not objective truth exists in this world, since we go round and round in circles with no means to arbitrate between the two opposing arguments.[/quote]
If it ever did than it still does. If it doesn’t exist now, then it never did. Logic is the arbitrator. And yes, objective truth does exist, but what it is, is drastically different than most people’s intuition. Nothing empirical / physical can be proven to exist deductively beyond the shadow of any doubt.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.
Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.
[quote]chobothx wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
Is this statement a scientific truth?
If this statement is true but not a scientific truth, then all truth is not scientific, thus in effect you have said nothing.
“When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
You just committed the same blunder as David Hume.
Self Destruct more plz.[/quote]
Yet Hume was bloody brilliant, except for the fact he kept tripping over his own arguments and proving himself wrong. His principles of unequivocal proof I use all the time.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.
Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]
Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.
[quote]pat wrote:
Yet Hume was bloody brilliant, except for the fact he kept tripping over his own arguments and proving himself wrong. His principles of unequivocal proof I use all the time.[/quote]
Aye, he reminds me of the Indian proverb…
“He who speaks, does not know; he who knows, does not speak.”
“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”
Self destructing statements…