This topic has been autolocked for inactivity. If you have something to add, Click Here to request it is re-opened.
#1520555 by tidus (Power User) at 2013-02-12 14:00:24 (5 months ago) - [Report]
Baptist Church in my city organizes an event and there will be a discussion and a little debate on this subject :
'Is atheism good for a human?'
I never bean to the this kind of debates...i will have a right to ask question to an atheist and a theist...
I have prepared some question but i am willing to discuss here also. I am open for an healthy discussion about this subject.
So TBy what do you think 'Is atheism good for a human?'
#1520556 by DXC (The King) at 2013-02-12 14:13:25 (5 months ago) - [Report]
Yes, atheism is good for a human, it's what defines humanity.
This is a much debated subject right here on TB. There's plenty of opinions from both side that you can read to educate yourself on the matter.
In my point of view, i find it hard to believe that a baptist church hosting a debate with the theme "Is atheism good for a human?" will be something unbiased.
So, don't expect a debate... Don't expect all the easily refutable religious views on some of humanity's matters to be disputed thoroughly. Don't expect those "atheist representatives" to be able to spark the debate or retort in an efficient and educated way towards the usually uneducated and ignorant views of your normal religion brainwashed person.
#1520560 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-12 14:33:26 (5 months ago) - [Report]
History proves that atheists make a worse enemy of free will and expression than socialism did in the 30-40s. They were a bit unlike the 00s with the hip talkers like Dawkins and Hitchens..
People that are well-off can afford to care about nothing, don't have any opinion, because they call themselves atheists, and it is a safe-house expression therefore; they don't care about anything either in the progress. Typically that is what atheists are, hedonists really, that only care about stuffing their bellies and spending money. According to them, their life is meaningless and so is the life of everyone else; only an atheist is the only one that have fully come to that realization. Actually there are benefits, because we desperately need consumers. Thusly, having atheists is not only good for society, but a natural component of any consumerist society.
it's not the religion that makes the man. many people amongst the same religions act very differently than one another. people as atheists can have a better moral compass than religious people as well.
the more important thing is environment, caring relationships, upbringing and education as those things determine the quality of the man.
Atheism in it self is only the lack of belief in god(s) and that lack alone does not do anything for you as being a human in general.
But in general it is better to believe as many true things as possible rather than believing in something which is not true, due the fact that believes might affect your actions, and actions based on reality are generally better than actions based on non reality.
Although somebody being an atheist does not guarantee that he/she is irrational in some other matters. There are lot's of people who don't believe in god, but believe in all kind of pseudo science.
But I have to say that for some people it is better that they are not atheists.
We have had examples here in our forums where people hate somebody and are not harming that person only because they fear that god is watching and will punish him when the judgement is done after death. I whole heartetly encourage those people to believe in god, since it that case the irrational belief results a better outcome than a rational belief.
We have had also examples of people who have admitted that they would kill their own child if god would ask them to do so, and in such case being an atheist would be a better choice.
But faith by definition is believing in something without a good reason (if there would be a good reason, there would be no need for faith), and in general thats a pretty bad thing and in most cases (which are non religious) lead to bad outcomes.
And thats why religious people usually don't use faith in issues outside religion (they regonice the fact that it's stupid), but somehow are not able to practise this same rational thinking when it's about god.
Summa summarum, it depens on person, for me atheism is a necessity, I can't believe cause there is no evidence (just like a gay person can't be straight, he/she could pretend, but he/she wouldn't be the person he/she really is).
So for me it is good, I am what I am, I don't have to pretend to be something else and those I care and who care about me, accept me as I am.
For some it might be bad (it makes their life worse atleast for a while), they can be even outcasted by their family if they find out that he/she is an atheist. Then being what you are can make your life difficult and bring lots of sorrow.
Ofcourse this works the other way round too, same things can happen to religous persons.
hOG wrote:
In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] The noun troll may also refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."
In this case the troll posted was not excellent.
Quote:
people as atheists can have a better moral compass than religious people as well.
Most of us have and there is a simple reason for that. We have to base our morals on our own rational thinking (both collective and individual) rather than having morals dictated to us by an authority, especially when we talk about morality in bible and quaran.
Luckily most religious people (like hOG) cherry pick the morals and accept only those which go along with their own conception of morals and ditch those which are against their own conception.
But there are still plenty of those who have accept the divine command principle and don't understand that it as an concept is by definition immoral.
In my point of view, i find it hard to believe that a baptist church hosting a debate with the theme "Is atheism good for a human?" will be something unbiased.
Yep, it will be about "where do you get your moral compass", mao,lenin and hitler, sadness how you have nothing to wait, no meaning of life if you are just a collection of atoms and when you die it's over. What prevents you go eating babies if there is nobody to judge you after you are dead and there is no meaning and creator.
Could be that the good old pascal's wager is represented.
And ofcourse one person who used to be a devoted atheist before, but...
The usuall shit which has been answered and debunked million times already.
#1520572 by tidus (Power User) at 2013-02-12 15:49:46 (5 months ago) - [Report]
I made my little speech and 3 question for tonight debate.
And if someone from this forum wants to contribute with 3 more good question feel free to add some.
Questions will be for Baptist church priest an hard core theist asked by me. If he gets angry i will take his photo and show the results here.
I made my little speech and 3 question for tonight debate.
And if someone from this forum wants to contribute with 3 more good question feel free to add some.
Questions will be for Baptist church priest an hard core theist asked by me. If he gets angry i will take his photo and show the results here.
EDIT:
thx THEBiZ, sniper & h0G for reply.
sounds like you are going to make a scene and not actually debate your own personal opinion on the subject. If you have to get talking points from this forum to parrot you may as well just sit in the audience and listen to other debate the topic.
I know this sounds silly, but I believe in no god, because I have no evidence there is one. Therefore I call myself a atheist, but I don't really have any good talking points myself, so if I were in the same situation as Tidus, I too would get my debate questions from someone else.
I believe that humans controll their own lives and make their own decisions, and that when we die everything just goes black. No religion has ever given me any evidence of the contrary.
#1520580 by tidus (Power User) at 2013-02-12 16:10:37 (5 months ago) - [Report]
qbert95 wrote:
tidus wrote:
I made my little speech and 3 question for tonight debate.
And if someone from this forum wants to contribute with 3 more good question feel free to add some.
Questions will be for Baptist church priest an hard core theist asked by me. If he gets angry i will take his photo and show the results here.
EDIT:
thx THEBiZ, sniper & h0G for reply.
sounds like you are going to make a scene and not actually debate your own personal opinion on the subject. If you have to get talking points from this forum to parrot you may as well just sit in the audience and listen to other debate the topic.
The only truth in your post that has something with me is that parrot - let me explain how ...by evolution that parrot is my cousin. (and yours too) I have my own opinion about this subject but is it wrong to post here and ask here people for more colorful opinions?
This is one of two forums that i post in English, and i like it.
So mate if you don't have anything smart to say on this matter pls don't waste your time. :*
About atheism , that priest he still thinks that atheism is an religion...so i must admit it will be boring but i am spicy and i will try to make it more interesting.
EDIT: @Lomeus91 don't worry i have my talking points and my opinion together with my question. And for example if i don't have them its not a shame to ask or to say i don't have. and there are much more i would say atheist forums where i can post and ask but i don't need that , i simply wanted to talk here with TBy members.
#1520590 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-12 17:06:27 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@tidus
What are you questions three?
@Sniper
Lots of half-truths.
Under Lenin e.g. atheism was not "only" a lack of belief in god(s). There are other examples that doesn't involve Russia, if you prefer, and are much worse. I have to wonder why you are discounting the historical evidence for your claimed position though, as others have taken on the same label as you, but have had no problems acknowledging that the word has actual meaning and implications. Probably because it is embarrassing to you. I can't even believe you would compare yourself to a homosexual, i.e. someone with a different sexuality than that of a heterosexual person. Sexuality is comparative to an areligious position? Or are you convinced that homosexuality is just about a state of mind, an opinion that can be changed, like you yourself did once in regards to theism/atheism, that just think up good reasons for not digging female ass?
But you are absolutely right that "a lack" of something doesn't do anything at all for anyone else - other than, that human being who must as a result of his atheism be confrontationist with his or her claims of knowledge about everything being a void naturally.. preferably to those who have different convictions. He/she is just embarrassed to admit that atheism today doesn't really bear any other meaning than the full acquittal of responsibility for other people, and of the guilt that you feel by perusing your own agenda and ego. It is okay, you can do that, I won't blame you, but you knew that believing in God would.
As for reasons, a good reason is not the same thing as a conclusion that is reached on evidence-based reason. By suggesting any "good reason" is based on scientific reasoning you are discounting not just the "good reasons" that have or are made by men and women on a daily basis, but how humans reason. Good reasons/bad reasons are not based on laws that have been meticulously worked on by science over centuries for -academic- purposes, such as for example intellectual reason. Science can only support one form of reasoning at a time and in general not competent when it comes to discussing faith. Unless it comes to talking about the human body and faith, its impact on the mind or its impact on society, then it is fully geared. As for faith there might be any number of reasons. By forcing out all other means of reasoning but one, you are trying to convince us you are some sort of superhuman. The superhuman Sniper makes only good reasons based on evidence-based reasoning. PERIOD. Yeah right. Nor can you make the coupling to philosophy that you did before that atheism in itself is only a lack of belief. You are just repeating what others have been discussed throughout the centuries in philosophy class, not science class mind you, and it is a cheap conclusion to make here that if atheism sound as if it means nothing, then it does nothing. History proves otherwise. So why be dishonest and disregard your own antipathy towards religion, because you happened to have read an entry on atheism in a dictionary before you posted?
Quote:
Most of us have and there is a simple reason for that. We have to base our morals on our own rational thinking (both collective and individual) rather than having morals dictated to us by an authority, especially when we talk about morality in bible and quaran.
Lo, the fool!
You can't escape the influence that religion has had on culture. Neither can your children even if you decide to home-school them. And even though you are a cultural despiser at heart, hating your own suomi-Christian culture and Islamic culture evenly, even going so far as to deny that Christianity and Islam do not view authority differently, you should still know better than to trip on authority. After all you are not an anarchist, Sniper. You are shaped by culture, the military codex, if your upbringing went as it should, authority translated to culture, which is predominantly Christian (protestant and orthodox in Finnish case) gave you the tools to recognize good from bad behavior. Stop denying your country's history and demographic.
Quote:
Luckily most religious people (like hOG) cherry pick the morals and accept only those which go along with their own conception of morals and ditch those which are against their own conception.
OH NOES.. the fatal cherry picking argument, which no one has never triumphed overs..
Unlike hOG, Sniper has no moral compass and no idea of where to find the fountain of youth, but he can mimic the moral mannerisms of the folk that inhabit the society he lives in and he does have the luxury then to be relieved all the same, because all that responsibility, of being committed to finding his own truth, and being committed towards others, is quite a burden, so it is a relief to say "I'm an atheist" and then only give a flying fuck if it involves a sauna and asses firmly planted.
The superhuman Sniper makes only good reasons based on evidence-based reasoning. PERIOD. Yeah right.
I don't, I can for example buy too expensive shoes to my wife when we are out shopping and I see how much she wants them and I see the look on her face. I know it's just stupid to buy those shoes and that it's not reasonable in any way, but I still do it, I aknowledge it, my selfish want to pleasure her (makes me feel good too) overrides the rationality.
But In the questions like religions (which are fundamental and life altering, buying those shoes is not), I use evidence based reasoning, based on many things.
Quote:
Under Lenin e.g. atheism was not "only" a lack of belief in god(s).
Nope, Lenin was atheist who did things. Lenin (or any other person who is atheist but does shitty things) are not persons who define atheism.
You try to use this as your argument, but it fails every time.
Just like me, I am atheist and anti-religious, but I would be anti-religious even if I would be theist.
Quote:
other than, that human being who must as a result of his atheism be confrontationist with his or her claims of knowledge about everything being a void naturally
So far there is no evidence for any other kind existence, only natural, a universe where only natural things exist.
Atheism is the result of my skeptisism and reasoning, not the other way round.
Quote:
You can't escape the influence that religion has had on culture.
I have never claimed that it has no had infuence (both bad and good).
But the less authority religion has had in history the more advanced we have get.
Western secular societies are on the top of their game today (both technically and liberty wise) when religion has barely any authority in our countries.
Quote:
And even though you are a cultural despiser at heart, hating your own suomi-Christian culture and Islamic culture evenly
Not true and you know it. In the immigration thread I clearly stated that I am not cultural relativist,in my eyes some cultures are better than others and my own culture which has big christian influence (we have a state church still) is much better than any islamic culture.
But it will be even better when we crush our state church and treat religion as we treat all the other old myths we have.
Quote:
gave you the tools to recognize good from bad behavior
True, but when the christian culture tried to promote values which I myself saw being wrong (for example in my youth gays were ridiculed by our religion teachers, so where single parents,also in our class there were lestadian kids who were ridiculed), I stood against those values and expressed my opinion and used my own moral values instead of what was promoted by the society.
In the early 70's those were values which was promoted in our school system and I was in constant troubles when I was againts such shit,even at young age, and guess what, I was threaten with the christian god because I had my own moral values which were against the accepted values.
My point is that I don't need religon to regonice good and bad, nobody does.
Quote:
OH NOES.. the fatal cherry picking argument,
It does not go away with OH NOES, it's valid. You clearly have cherry picked the values which you accept and rejected which are against your values.
Quote:
Sexuality is comparative to an areligious position? Or are you convinced that homosexuality is just about a state of mind
My point was that I can't believe just like a gay can't be straight, it's not a choice for me.
Ofcourse if there will be evidence to convince me, then I believe the situation turns upside down.
With evidence I can't be atheist, it's not a choice.
I think it's good for people to be logical, sensible and to think critically. In this day and age it amazes me that religion is still so prevalent in first world countries where most people have access to information.
#1520616 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-12 19:53:25 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@tidus
I demand that you hearken unto me. What are your question three?
@Omega
Quote:
I don't, I can for example buy too expensive shoes to my wife when we are out shopping and I see how much she wants them and I see the look on her face. I know it's just stupid to buy those shoes and that it's not reasonable in any way, but I still do it, I aknowledge it, my selfish want to pleasure her (makes me feel good too) overrides the rationality.
But In the questions like religions (which are fundamental and life altering, buying those shoes is not), I use evidence based reasoning, based on many things.
Thank you for proving my -points- that you are not a super-human, about including emotional reasoning e.g., and how it is effortless to try to be a superhuman in all walks of life. Expand your shopping example to other walks of life and jettison the assumption that everyone thinks as you do.
Quote:
Nope, Lenin was atheist who did things. Lenin (or any other person who is atheist but does shitty things) are not persons who define atheism.
You try to use this as your argument, but it fails every time.
Just like me, I am atheist and anti-religious, but I would be anti-religious even if I would be theist.
Of course I am not just thinking of Lenin. In God Delusion, in regards to this argument, Dawkins thinks about the person Hitler, the person Lenin, the person Stalin and completely, with purpose, avoids to talk about what actually happened at that point in time. As do you. It is off the mark. If history doesn't help us in defining atheism - then it falls back on you to define it. I guess. I get it you are only speaking for yourself, but then you should understand it is a stretch to claim that atheism is nothing. Especially considering your antipathy. After all you have good emotional reasons for taking on the label of an atheist.
Quote:
So far there is no evidence for any other kind existence, only natural, a universe where only natural things exist.
Atheism is the result of my skeptisism and reasoning, not the other way round.
I think personally that I'm more free, not to say more of a skeptic than you are, considering that I'm willing to play with the idea of a non purposeful universe, which is the observation that appear most truthful to the naked eye.
Quote:
I have never claimed that it has no had infuence (both bad and good).
But the less authority religion has had in history the more advanced we have get.
Western secular societies are on the top of their game today (both technically and liberty wise) when religion has barely any authority in our countries.
Ye-ah, but freedom of religion and the right to speak your mind was invented before the Enlightenment began and in a religious context and with reasoning based on Christian texts (John Stuart Mill is not afraid to reference Jesus in his On Liberty e.g.). This is true, and not really surprising, if you look at history of Europe, particular England in the early modern period. They invented the concept of religious freedom, because of the catholic and protestant polemics at that time. Each of them divided into many groups, each declaring that the other is not allowed to speak, resulting in protestant groups that went all in for freedom of expression - even for atheists and catholics - as long as no harm comes to the state (which is the base principle for any constitution this day). Religious pluralism resulted in the case of Europe in that time, in religious freedoms - which is the perquisite for the idea of free speech to develop. It was necessary from a political point of view, and practical from a religious point of view. Western society is on the top of its game, because it has been affected in all the right ways for it to undergo at an early point in time, and unlike other cultures, an industrial and technological revolution. Secularism, which is more or less the parting of the church from the state, is another bonus. But religion has lots of authority still, because we only changed the way religion affected culture when the age of secularism began, we didn't rid ourselves of religion in our culture.
Quote:
Not true and you know it. In the immigration thread I clearly stated that I am not cultural relativist,in my eyes some cultures are better than others and my own culture which has big christian influence (we have a state church still) is much better than any islamic culture.
But it will be even better when we crush our state church and treat religion as we treat all the other old myths we have.
But? But? But there can be no BUT; you are a cultural relativist and the conclusion is rife with cultural relativism and the complete nonchalant approach to protecting Finnish culture and Finnish values. Can't you tell??? I hear this from atheists who are politically right-leaning all the time; X is better than Y, but I want both demolished. The major cultural containers in a European context will always be the churches, because they connect us with a common history. In the case of Finland this is no different. Good luck with your project and when it is done you'll be able to say that all of them are equally myths. You will have won and so will the cultural relativists, same-same scenario. Why raise one myth above the other.. or one culture above the other.. you have no real reason to suggest we should when you argue from your "butt".
Quote:
True, but when the christian culture tried to promote values which I myself saw being wrong (for example in my youth gays were ridiculed by our religion teachers, so where single parents,also in our class there were lestadian kids who were ridiculed), I stood against those values and expressed my opinion and used my own moral values instead of what was promoted by the society.
In the early 70's those were values which was promoted in our school system and I was in constant troubles when I was againts such shit,even at young age, and guess what, I was threaten with the christian god because I had my own moral values which were against the accepted values.
My point is that I don't need religon to regonice good and bad, nobody does.
Most values are promoted and claimed on us unconsciously on a daily basis. That is the point of showing culture as an iceberg. You have no say in how the culture you grew up in actually affects you. For example in treating your wife and buying her gifts, you make an effort at acknowledging her as an equal that also desire affection as you desire affection. You make assumptions in regards to what would be appropriate behavior then in regard to showing your affection. Perhaps in another culture, a slap on the wrists comes natural and is enough to get a weaker sex' anticipations and moods down.
You can say you are not affected by culture to the extent that orders and religious commandments do not lay claim on you, but the underlying ones do (and they are passed on for example from generation to generation).
Quote:
It does not go away with OH NOES, it's valid. You clearly have cherry picked the values which you accept and rejected which are against your values.
The error you make is thinking that I am required to do otherwise. Or that I'm putting myself in a risky position by admitting that I am thinking and believing all by myself with no middleman (e.g. a pope) to interfere.
Quote:
My point was that I can't believe just like a gay can't be straight, it's not a choice for me.
Ofcourse if there will be evidence to convince me, then I believe the situation turns upside down.
With evidence I can't be atheist, it's not a choice.
My point was that it was a gross characterization, because a homosexual can't change his sexuality like he can change his or her opinion, but you on the other hand like the homosexual and the heterosexual, can change your opinion, just as you did when you were younger. It is a choice for you to be openly atheist, it is not a choice for a homosexual to be a homosexual. You rely on evidence-based reasoning when confronted with the idea that your opinion might be false, which is understandable, but not very human.
Yes, that is my choice, to be open and loud atheist, thats true, the loud and open are choices I have made.
Quote:
I think personally that I'm more free, not to say more of a skeptic than you are, considering that I'm willing to play with the idea of a non purposeful universe, which is the observation that appear most truthful to the naked eye.
I don't get you here, what do you mean by playing with the idea of non purposeful universe.
Playing as there is a purpose or what ?
If not we share the same view, it seems to be no purpose.
All the evidence points to the fact that there is no purpose (purpose being something similar we humans see as purpose).
Quote:
Thank you for proving my -points- that you are not a super-human, about including emotional reasoning e.g., and how it is effortless to try to be a superhuman in all walks of life. Expand your shopping example to other walks of life and jettison the assumption that everyone thinks as you do.
There was never no need for you to present such points, ofcourse Im not a super human.
But I try to use reasoning as much as possible and aknowledge when I don't use it.
Everyone should use reasoning as much as possible, especially when it is about things which are life altering, much better choices would be made then.
Quote:
I get it you are only speaking for yourself, but then you should understand it is a stretch to claim that atheism is nothing. Especially considering your antipathy. After all you have good emotional reasons for taking on the label of an atheist.
The reasons are not emotional, they are based on reasoning. I can help people to come out with my example and even get few people thinking and challenging their position perhaps.
#1520650 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-12 22:00:25 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@Sniper
Quote:
I don't get you here, what do you mean by playing with the idea of non purposeful universe.
Playing as there is a purpose or what ?
If not we share the same view, it seems to be no purpose.
All the evidence points to the fact that there is no purpose (purpose being something similar we humans see as purpose).
The observation that the universe has no purpose is the easiest observation to make for everyone, because the universe doesn't seem to have a purpose. It doesn't require evidence-based reasoning, science, etc. for this observation to manifest itself in your mind. In this regard, faith is about engaging yourself with the existential doubts that you have over whether you've made a truthful observation about the purpose and role of yourself, the universe, life etc. Therefore, I say I'm more free than you are and more of a skeptic, because I'm free to use any language I like to describe that state of mind, and also willing to engage those doubts, about for example the universe and purpose. Whereas you - because of your exclusion of nearly all forms of human reasoning - seem to opt for a dogmatic point of view, let alone acknowledge you have doubts yourself. Something which is quite hard and only really possible if you are above your own humanity, i.e. a super-human or brainwashed.
Quote:
The reasons are not emotional, they are based on reasoning. I can help people to come out with my example and even get few people thinking and challenging their position perhaps.
emotionally based reasoning, e.g.:
Sniper wrote:
my wife when we are out shopping and I see how much she wants them and I see the look on her face. I know it's just stupid to buy those shoes and that it's not reasonable in any way, but I still do it, I aknowledge it, my selfish want to pleasure her (makes me feel good too) overrides the rationality.
Sniper wrote:
In the early 70's those were values which was promoted in our school system and I was in constant troubles when I was againts such shit,even at young age, and guess what, I was threaten with the christian god because I had my own moral values which were against the accepted values.
If you "come out" with your example, you would with your story be appealing to their ideas about control, authority (emotions, emotions) and and try to persuade them that atheism means rebellion against systems of control, e.g. religion. Like in 70s..
If you want to believe in a god, then good for you. If you don't then so be it. I only ask, that whatever you choose, you don't try to convert me to whatever your choose.
When I talk to people I don'tuse me as an example, I only rely on reasoning, I don't use any stories (not my own or other peoples).
That is when we talk about the existence of god, if we talk about religions, thats another story.
What I ment with my example is me being atheist, open one, not any personal story etc.
Quote:
. In this regard, faith is about engaging yourself with the existential doubts that you have over whether you've made a truthful observation about the purpose and role of yourself, the universe, life etc.
Sure, but it's not only your observation, it's the lack of evidence for universe with purpose too.
Im not the only observator and I understand that my observation can be wrong, but when all the other people who observe and study the universe (scientific study) come to same conclusion, it's easy to say that looks like my observation is right.
I dont reject the possibility of purpose, but until there is evidence supporting that, I remind sceptical and don't believe in that. I have open mind, if there will be evidence which satisfies me, I can change my mind.
Looks like we see freedom of mind and sceptisism in very different ways, I don't see faith as a stepstone to freedom as you describe it, I see it as you wishing that things would be the way you would like them to be rather than how they really are.
If I have doubts, I go and study and find where do the evidence point at.
Although I must admit that I have a very good "gut feeling" about people, in most cases when I have met a person first time, my first gut feeling of that person (do we go along,do I want to have anything to do with this person (not talking about pulling an aussie)) has been right. If my gut feeling has said that nope, it usually has been so, after a while that person has done or said something what has proven my gut feeling being right.
But I have never let this gut feeling alone decide, it's been wrong too.
I don't have any good explanation for it, but I don't think it as being something outside the natural world, it most likely is something natural, something in their face, in the way they act/are etc.
Something what evolution has given us as a tool for avoiding bad company / prefer people who are similar as you.
I'd rather ask each part 'does your belief bring good moral to human?'.
From theist the answer will be short: yes.
From atheist the answer will be a sort of 'well, depends...Let me explain.'.
The good moral is the root of a civilized society.
I'd rather ask each part 'does your belief bring good moral to human?'.
From theist the answer will be short: yes.
From atheist the answer will be a sort of 'well, depends...Let me explain.'.
The good moral is the root of a civilized society.
Ofcourse a theist will answer yes, but is that answer correct is then another issue.
I already gave examples,discussion from this forum where somebody was willing to kill his own child if god told him so, if thats good moral to you, then I quess you are morally bankrupted.
History is full of theists who have been doing immoral things and they have claimed to be working in the name of god.
Mormons for example treated black people as second class people who can't get salvation, many people in south usa saw bible (aka god) granting slavery.
Are those examples of good morals ? Ofcourse not.
A belief or non belief itself does not quarantee good or bad morals.
Also there are no universal moral concepts which by default always are correct.
If you are in a situation where permitting one human being to die will save 10 lives, otherwise everybody will die, is it immoral to let than one person die and save the 10 ?
Or a woman giving birth, you can only save one of them,if you save the mother, the child will die, if you save the child, the mother will die, if you do nothing, both will die.
You can't just read the right moral response for that situation from a book.
Situations vary and every situation has the best possible moral solution which has to be considered with reasoning (examing the situation and waiging the possible solutions and then selecting the best solution available for that situation), thats the right way, by following dictated answers by an authority is not the right way and by default immoral.
Quote:
From atheist the answer will be a sort of 'well, depends...Let me explain.'.
Wrong, that is an answer from a person who has high perception of morals, that person can be either atheist or theist.
And the theist would be lying by definition.
You cannot claim that beliefs bring good only all the time.
And in your example, the atheist does understand that. Either that, or he understands the implications of answering yes without any explanation. Because although the question does not state 'only good all the time', it will be interpreted as such, and answers like 'look at [insert bad atheist here], he wasn't good' will be thrown.
The overall topic is a bit weird. Because, by default, it can be both good and bad. But it is by no means by definition good or bad.
Good moral is not something that stems from beliefs and/or religion. Good morals is mainly upbringing, and a bit of inner sense of right and wrong. Religion has always been a tool for conveying moral ideas, so it is easy to confuse the good upbringing gives with the good that religion brings.
And @hOg: don't confuse the delusion of being the only person in the universe that matters with atheism. While the delusion by default results in atheism, the reverse is by no means true. So there is correlation, but no 1on1 identity. So the 'history' you speak of, is quite tainted.
This topic has been autolocked for inactivity. If you have something to add, Click Here to request it is re-opened.
(The King) at 2013-02-12 14:13:25 (5 months ago) - [
(Power User) at 2013-02-12 16:05:39 (5 months ago) - [
