Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
821

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[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]

Let me congratulate you on your intelligent PM. Who gives a fuck about what Christians have done? A lot of people, atheism in America is a direct denial of the Christian God. Kind of strange to say you do not care about something that your world view is based on being against that thing.

That’s like me saying I do not care about communism, but I am anti-communist and I will tell everyone and argue with everyone about it. But I do not give a fuck about it.[/quote]

You took it out of context mate - i said who cares that christians codemned stalin. - if you had of said, an independent body, maybe the UN, condemned stalin of his crimes due to the fact he was atheist maybe that would hold up - but saying christians said this “…” means nothing. In fact christians should be the last people to “condemn” anyone.

[/quote]
Not just Christians, but Catholics. Like that society that is headquartered in the Vatican City, that so many people love to hate. Why should Christians be the last people to condemn anyone.[/quote]

Because of their obvious bias. Just the same, i would say atheist or any group of people for that matter should be the last people to condemn anyone, hence “an independent body”…
[/quote]

O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a shit
By any other name would smell as sweet;

Why should we only allow “independent bodies” be able to condemn anyone, is it not the duty of all people to condemn that which is unjust? Or is it morally just to stand idly by as someone causes unjust suffering, when voicing condemnation will bring no further harm?

822

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
To those who state why isn’t the universe the uncaused, the universe is not the first cause because one of the properties of the first cause is that its eternal, the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Pat’s argument is not that everything has a cause but that as one follows the casual chain it cannot have an infinite regress and the logical conclusion is you start with a first cause. Why not more than 1 uncaused cause? Occum’s razor say not to multiply entities beyond necessity.

Hey krsoneeeee you going to respond to my reply on page 30?[/quote]

For all we know the universe is “eternal” too, for the very reason that it requires a universe for “time” and “causality” to exist.
[/quote]
Um, no one has every created the theory that stated that the universe is eternal, I am pretty sure cosmology has proven otherwise.

This last sentence needs revising, or I need to go to bed.

823

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[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]

Let me congratulate you on your intelligent PM. Who gives a fuck about what Christians have done? A lot of people, atheism in America is a direct denial of the Christian God. Kind of strange to say you do not care about something that your world view is based on being against that thing.

That’s like me saying I do not care about communism, but I am anti-communist and I will tell everyone and argue with everyone about it. But I do not give a fuck about it.[/quote]

You took it out of context mate - i said who cares that christians codemned stalin. - if you had of said, an independent body, maybe the UN, condemned stalin of his crimes due to the fact he was atheist maybe that would hold up - but saying christians said this “…” means nothing. In fact christians should be the last people to “condemn” anyone.

[/quote]
Not just Christians, but Catholics. Like that society that is headquartered in the Vatican City, that so many people love to hate. Why should Christians be the last people to condemn anyone.[/quote]

Because of their obvious bias. Just the same, i would say atheist or any group of people for that matter should be the last people to condemn anyone, hence “an independent body”…
[/quote]

Isn’t that ad hominem abuse? What does it matter that the Catholic Church is religious when it comes to the legitimacy of their condemnation?

[/quote]

Because you are assuming the legitimacy of their condemnations, are legitimate. You said earlier the church condemned stalin’s atheism as the reason he did evils, where as Im pretty sure there is no evidence to support this. Where as there are many citation’s of religion being the reason for MANY evil acts.
[/quote]

I never said the Church condemned Stalin’s atheism.

Let’s not start this fight, because so far the record on this topic is decidedly slanted Christians.

824

[quote]kamui wrote:
Chris,
you seem to confuse creation and causation
two different concepts.

God (in catholic theology) did not create himself at any point of time. He always existed, yet he is cause of himself (logically, not chronologically).

if not, He is not omnipotent and theology would be impossible as a science because we can’t articulate a rational discourse about an uncaused (and therefore undetermined) thing.

I’ll have to look a little deeper on the subject, however I’ll stick as undecided with a slant towards you make sense. I am infallible so I’ll have to go to a more authoritative source than my own reason.

825

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Either you cannot read, you don’t want to, or you are just responding without having done so.

Please re-read what I wrote and respond to what I actually said, not some imaginary dialog that you want to hear me saying.

I’m one post away from abandoning this argument if you continue to refuse to respond in good faith.
[/quote]

SORRY MR “IM FUCKING AWESOME” - but I think the miscommunication is probably more likely due to this form of medium being unable to convey the message ie tone etc etc

I think I addressed some of the issues you wrote about so maybe we should both re-read it?

The only thing I didnt talk about was the fact you dont want to compare religion and science but I think that is at the core of what we are talking about.
[/quote]

See Cortes, already getting angry responses.[/quote]

Im not angry - his first few sentences? what was the point in attempting to patronise me when Im pretty sure each of my paragrah’s corresponded directly to each of his.

The reason religion has lasted so long is that people love to loved and hate to be hated - you “taking his side”, forming a group, and ensuing im angry is a prime example. ridiculous. If you read what i wrote its in a very mild tone, or at least thats how I intended it to be conveyed…

anyway we’re off topic…Im still searching for some good NEW topics[/quote]

Actually, I have no clue what you two are talking about. I just remember him saying something about no one responding to him and I saw your response, so I made my comment. Not taking sides since I have no clue what you two have said.

Actually, you’re right on the whole love to be loved and hate to be hated, but being a Catholic does not provide such comforts. A lot of the time I am hated for my convictions. You won’t hear it in the MM, but Catholics are killed every day in the East. A not so close friend of mine is (edit: was) in a Chinese prison for suspicion of being a Christian.

826

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]

Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]

How can you accept this and not accept the premise that the universe is uncaused?[/quote]

Because the universe doesn’t have the characteristics, plus things die. And if the universe were uncaused then itself couldn’t die and nothing begot of the universe could die.[/quote]

By your logic nothing begot of God should be able to die.[/quote]

You’re right, Jesus is in Heaven alive (according to theology). I didn’t say made. I said begot, there is a difference in those two words. Isn’t there?

827

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]

Theology is not a science.[/quote]

Um, yes it is.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.[/quote]

Yes, it is.[/quote]

No, it really isn’t.[/quote]

I suppose it is, isn’t it? And if not, what is it?

828

[quote]kamui wrote:

Actually begot e.g. A man begets lil babies, birds begets baby birds, a dog begets pups. Made e.g., A man made a house, a bird made a nest, a dog made…a hole?

829

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Does that mean Im still off the mark with your point of view or hit the nail on the head and you give up?
[/quote]

First one and the latter half of the second.

830

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
At the risk of misinterpreting your position, based upon what you’ve told me so far, morality is determined by the times, the particular situation of a given society, and the collective consensus of that society. [/quote]

Bingo. Couldn’t have said it better myself. However, I would like to add that I feel some moralities are better than others at developing societies and some are even destructive. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the human sacrifice on a mass scale done by the Aztecs was a self-destructive form of ‘morality’. [/quote]

Okay, thanks for the candid response. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to unfurl this line of thinking a bit. Great choice in bringing up the Aztecs, btw, they are my personal favorite society to use as an example in these discussions of absolute/relative morality.

But let’s stick with the Spartans for a little bit longer, as that’s what we started with. So you stated (forgive me I don’t have your post right before me so I am working from memory) that tossing those wimpy little girly-babies into the dead-baby pit was, at that time and place and society, “moral,” because it help their society to become strong, thrive, perhaps even survive. If I get off track here please reign me in.

Okay, so, Sparta was a fully functioning society with a strong incentive toward it’s own survival. I just quickly googled and answers were all over the place, but it appears the population of Ancient Sparta was anywhere between 100,000 and 400,000 people. Now I’ll put aside the fact that a large portion of whatever number this is was actually enslaved servants, and we’ll just take them as they are. So, based upon what you have said so far, Spartan’s decision to play baby frisbee with the weaker, “ungood” babies can be described as moral because of the larger interest in the strengthening and survival of the society as a whole.

Am I still okay so far?
[/quote]

Now that I have made a working definition of morality, I would say it was not moral but it was effective at making their society. Essentially, the ends justified the means.[/quote]

You might want to think about this a bit more. If you are going to attempt to attribute morality to evolutionary processes you are opening a real Pandora’s box full of dilemmas. You sure you want to go there?

831

Yes.

832

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]

Theology is not a science.[/quote]

Um, yes it is.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.[/quote]

Yes, it is.[/quote]

No, it really isn’t.[/quote]

I suppose it is, isn’t it? And if not, what is it?[/quote]

It isn’t. What it is is a joke. It is to Philosophy what Alchemy is to Chemistry.

833

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]

Theology is not a science.[/quote]

Um, yes it is.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.[/quote]

Yes, it is.[/quote]

No, it really isn’t.[/quote]

I suppose it is, isn’t it? And if not, what is it?[/quote]

It isn’t. What it is is a joke. It is to Philosophy what Alchemy is to Chemistry.[/quote]

And, for that matter, philosophy is not a science. This isn’t a topic for debate. These matters are solved by definition.

834

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I feel that morality is a word that describes an evolutionary construct and is considered a tier above ethics, politics, and economics because it is a more universal concept. As such, morality tends to be much more static throughout time and different cultures even if a society chooses not to act on their morality.

There are some that lack this evolutionary construct and end often end up in prisons and such places and the only reason they are aware of it is because they have been told about it over and over again.

I would also like to add that I believe morality is a huge reason humans have been as successful as a species up to this point.[/quote]

Is this your definition of morality?

Sorry, but you are going to have to dumb it down a bit more for my slow brain to follow.

I’ll let you keep your contention that morality is based in the process of human evolution for now. (No matter where you contend the “source” of relativism springs from, in the end it leads us to the same place). Can you just tell me, in a single or perhaps two sentences, what the meaning of the word “moral” is?

I’ll give you a situation I have plenty of experience with: Pretend I am a foreigner with only the most limited grasp of the English language. Please teach me the meaning of the word “moral.”

I will give you my definition, devoid of all sources:

Moral = What is right, or what a human should do. The opposite of moral being, essentially, evil, or wrong, what a human should not do.

I believe my definition works for either of us. It has an effect upon neither my contention that there exists an absolute, changeless, eternal morality, nor yours that morality is relative, situational and mutable. For example I can say throwing a baby off a cliff is immoral no matter what, in any situation, and you can say that it is actually moral in exceptional situations, and then list your arguments why. Either way, we both need to have come to an agreement as to what we are talking about or we could spend pages talking from completely different perspectives (see my short misunderstanding of kamui’s post a few pages back as an example).

Anyway, if you have any problem with my definition, please offer yours so that we can first come to an accord as to what we are talking about, before we start talking about it :wink:

835

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]

Theology is not a science.[/quote]

Um, yes it is.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.[/quote]

Yes, it is.[/quote]

No, it really isn’t.[/quote]

I suppose it is, isn’t it? And if not, what is it?[/quote]

It isn’t. What it is is a joke. It is to Philosophy what Alchemy is to Chemistry.[/quote]

Not to nitpick, okay thats exactly what I’m doing, but there is a clear philosophy, or more like a coherent underlying view of the structure of creation behind alchemy, it wasn’t just about turning stone to gold.

836

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]

Theology is not a science.[/quote]

Um, yes it is.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.[/quote]

Yes, it is.[/quote]

No, it really isn’t.[/quote]

I suppose it is, isn’t it? And if not, what is it?[/quote]

It isn’t. What it is is a joke. It is to Philosophy what Alchemy is to Chemistry.[/quote]

And, for that matter, philosophy is not a science. This isn’t a topic for debate. These matters are solved by definition. [/quote]

Exactly.

837

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Not to nitpick, okay thats exactly what I’m doing, but there is a clear philosophy, or more like a coherent underlying view of the structure of creation behind alchemy, it wasn’t just about turning stone to gold.[/quote]

Alchemy, derived from the Arabic word al-kimia, is both a philosophy and an ancient practice focused on the attempt to change base metals into gold, investigating the preparation of the “elixir of longevity”, and achieving ultimate wisdom, involving the improvement of the alchemist as well as the making of several substances described as possessing unusual properties. The practical aspect of alchemy can be viewed as a protoscience, having generated the basics of modern inorganic chemistry, namely concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances.

838

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I feel that morality is a word that describes an evolutionary construct and is considered a tier above ethics, politics, and economics because it is a more universal concept. As such, morality tends to be much more static throughout time and different cultures even if a society chooses not to act on their morality.

There are some that lack this evolutionary construct and end often end up in prisons and such places and the only reason they are aware of it is because they have been told about it over and over again.

I would also like to add that I believe morality is a huge reason humans have been as successful as a species up to this point.[/quote]

Is this your definition of morality?

Sorry, but you are going to have to dumb it down a bit more for my slow brain to follow.

I’ll let you keep your contention that morality is based in the process of human evolution for now. (No matter where you contend the “source” of relativism springs from, in the end it leads us to the same place). Can you just tell me, in a single or perhaps two sentences, what the meaning of the word “moral” is?

I’ll give you a situation I have plenty of experience with: Pretend I am a foreigner with only the most limited grasp of the English language. Please teach me the meaning of the word “moral.”

I will give you my definition, devoid of all sources:

Moral = What is right, or what a human should do. The opposite of moral being, essentially, evil, or wrong, what a human should not do.

I believe my definition works for either of us. It has an effect upon neither my contention that there exists an absolute, changeless, eternal morality, nor yours that morality is relative, situational and mutable. For example I can say throwing a baby off a cliff is immoral no matter what, in any situation, and you can say that it is actually moral in exceptional situations, and then list your arguments why. Either way, we both need to have come to an agreement as to what we are talking about or we could spend pages talking from completely different perspectives (see my short misunderstanding of kamui’s post a few pages back as an example).

Anyway, if you have any problem with my definition, please offer yours so that we can first come to an accord as to what we are talking about, before we start talking about it ;)[/quote]

I’ll try… This is going to be paraphrase of what I said earlier so it probably won’t be as good.

morality- a mostly universal instinct that gives people the feeling that some things are inherently bad and others are inherently good.

839

There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.

I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.

Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.

That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.

This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”

There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.

840

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Not to nitpick, okay thats exactly what I’m doing, but there is a clear philosophy, or more like a coherent underlying view of the structure of creation behind alchemy, it wasn’t just about turning stone to gold.[/quote]

Alchemy, derived from the Arabic word al-kimia, is both a philosophy and an ancient practice focused on the attempt to change base metals into gold, investigating the preparation of the “elixir of longevity”, and achieving ultimate wisdom, involving the improvement of the alchemist as well as the making of several substances described as possessing unusual properties. The practical aspect of alchemy can be viewed as a protoscience, having generated the basics of modern inorganic chemistry, namely concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances.[/quote]

That longevity stuff was a primary concern in chinese alchemy. The european alchemy was more about refining materials and the soul, everything in creation wanted to be refined (or can I say evolve?) to reach back to god. Alchemy has actually some resemblance with evolutionary thinking. I don’t know for sure since I haven’t studied it myself ( a friend of mine has from whom my knowledge on the subject is from ) but I think alchemy is part of the process that led to the rise of evolutionary ideas.