Amoral atheists

[McCulloch]

In another thread

Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.

This is a common misunderstanding among Christians. Since they believe that their God is the source of all moral values, then how can someone who does not believe in the supernatural have moral values.
So, let's debate.
AlAyeti seems to have taken the position that atheists are by definition amoral and self-centered.
I will take the position that atheism is consistent with moral values and is not necessarily self-centered.

[AlAyeti]

Corvus,

"So you propose we trust purported virgins, even though you've made it clear that in this decadent age, true examples of such a creature are hard to find?"

/ / /

Maybe in your world. If children in this decadent age were kept from Pederasts who continue to have dominion over them in schools and the perverts were rooted out by decent people and not silenced by Liberal laws, virginity wouldn't be an enigma, it would be the norm until after graduate school.

Your free and easy lads? I've seen their names on a quilt. Thousands and thousands of them. All memorialized.

[Corvus]

Corvus,

Do they use the term "Fumble" in Australian rules football?

I don't know, I'm too effete to like the virility of contact sports.

One term I know they don't use is "unconstructive one-liners."

[AlAyeti]

Good comeback.

But you have to know I don't want to provide you with any assistance.

I believe in morality.

[bernee51]

Certainly I did not conceive this idea about "the godless" in some original dream.

Methinks it stems from religious prejudice and a total disregard as to what is an 'atheist'

Empiricism and logic drive the position held on how, why and what the stated belief of an atheist is indeed.

I would be pleased to see some, especially in regard to the "stated belief of an atheist"

It is rational to fear an atheist. History is certainly a guide to be trusted.

The same, of course, can be said about Christians, Muslims, and {insert religion here}.

If we can judge the worth of a God-fearer by them doing "wrong," we can then, by logic, be unable to do anything to measure the actions of a nongodian.

How so? Did you not above claim at least (by default) an understanding of 'logic'? How does the conclusion you draw in your last comment relate in anyway to logic?

[bernee51]

There is no basis for non-self philanthropy in an Atheist. There can't be.

On what do you base this assertion? Is it backed by facts or merely your opinion?

"There can't be" is a definitive statement - one apparently without any logic behind it.

Where is happiness originated? Selfishness.

The longing for happiness is choiceless i.e. no one 'chooses' to be unhappy. You may choose one car over another, one god over another...but why?

The longing for happiness in humans is the default position...it has nothing to do with god-belief or 'selfishness'

Where could anger or indignatoin derive its source? "They better not touch MY stuff!"

The 'source' is identification of 'stuff' with the idea of "I-ness" or "mine-ness". It is ego driven, not belief driven. "Don't say things about MY god". Monotheistic religion is basic narcissism...my religion right or wrong. It is pure ethnocentrism that has no tolerance for a worldcentric view. Any true philanthropy there? I think not.

How can a crime be committed against an atheist?

The same way a crime is committed against any other human...by acting immorally (i.e. not in the best interest of the species)

Were there Atheists before Atheism?

Were there atheists before man invented god(s)?

How can there be logic in the mind of a person who wants justice and yet has no higher morality to claim perspective of right and wrong?

This is YOUR perspective (or rather your god's perspective - you have abrogated any rights to 'owning' your own moral view) of right or wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually right or wrong. Why is YOUR perspective any better than that of my Muslim friend over the road? Or my Buddhist friend next door?

You are claiming a "higher' perspective but cannot demonstrate one.

Deism is logical from every perspective.

It is nothing more than wishful thinking from any perspective.

The vary nature of nature - many of the greatest minds the world has ever known - claims that that is factual.

The greatest minds used to believe the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe. They were wrong.

By physical observation. Empirical proof.

I see nothing that is empirical proof of the existence of any god. I take it you are aware of the meaning of the word "empirical".

JIC

Empirical
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
3.Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Atheism seems to be the weakest argument yet created in the minds of men.

Actually it is the exact opposite...it shows strength of character and rational thought. It is not reliant on spurious arguments of the divine to answer questions deemed to hard by theists. It takes courage to say "I don't know". Only logical cowards cry 'goddidit"

[LillSnopp]

Where could anger or indignatoin derive its source? "They better not touch MY stuff!"

I dont care for "stuff", so luckily this does not apply to me. I am not a materialist.

Actually it is the exact opposite...it shows strength of character and rational thought. It is not reliant on spurious arguments of the divine to answer questions deemed to hard by theists. It takes courage to say "I don't know". Only logical cowards cry 'goddidit"

Well said Bernee.
We admit what we dont know. You point to your none-existent God. Thats mature. And also prevents you from actually finding out.

[AlAyeti]

Two non-godians agreeing with each other?

Due to my empirical experience, no surprise there. NAMBLA comes to mind as do pedohiles with a white collar.

Bernee,

An Atheist can only borrow from established religious empiricism to find application of any decency to atheism. I would have to say that that is a good thing. Since an atheist can have no conscience either good or bad -as, to an atheist everything is learned behavior - I would suggest Mother Theresa, or Martin Luther King. Both Christians.

If we use a calculator or the scale of justice to see which is valuable and what is the most dangerous to mankind throughout history, in terms of slaughtered humans, athiesm doesn't hold up well at all.

The Killing fields, the Soviet Empire, China, littered with countless numbers of disposed of human animals. Not really countless, millions and million and millions of valuable people should not be so lightly thought of.

Religoius deaths? There is a counter balance to the atrocities commited by Muslim's and other religious intolrents or other conquerers in the name of religion. It is religion.

Is a traitor a member of that which he is betraying?

The answer is very revealing to both the Atheist and the religious adherant.

[AlAyeti]

Bernee: "It takes courage to say "I don't know". Only logical cowards cry 'goddidit"

Then most Christians are the most courageous people the world has ever known. "Doubting Thomas' are not covered up in Christianty. But no Christian can be a Christian and not "really know" what they believe and why. It is a contradiction of term. The New Testament from the Gospels to Revelation goes into great depth to teach Christians all they need to know about Jesus the Messiah and what it's all about. Butthere are "I don't knowers" somehow, that claim they can believe without learning. Learning wipes away "I don't know."

Cowardice not courage is found in the the person who can't think things out.

This contradicts the stated belief of an Atheist. An Atheist declares as fact "There is no god." The uneducated or slow of wit say "I don't know."

Funny that you would instantly jump on any weakness of the statement coming from a Christian, but find it admirable in non-godians. That is the definition of discrimination.

That you used this sentence is bizarre. The atheist is not a cowardly, like the agnostic. How can anything be accomplished by "I don't know." It's funny that the Bible literally has distaste for "I don't know." Though the fool says "There is no god." is also in the BIble, God in Revelation metaphorically (or not really), spits "I don't knowers," out of His mouth.

Though atheism is wrong, some Atheist truly shake their hand against observable facts and say that we are here by accident. It's sort of admirable. Like an obstinate little child pouting and holding out their lip, it is comforting to a more mature person to see a little fire in the child. But it eventually gets tiring and is not tolerated in a child that is grown up because of the inevitable bad behavior (empirical). I choose to treat atheism like a truancy. As soon as you get the ignorant to learn, than they can "see the light."

And according to Jesus they can choose what they want to believe, even if it's not in Him. That's the opposite of discrimination.

[bernee51]

Two non-godians agreeing with each other?

Due to my empirical experience, no surprise there. NAMBLA comes to mind as do pedohiles with a white collar.

Empirical - you love that word don't you - I am still not cetrain you are fully cognisant of its meaning.

You have 'empirical experience with "pedohiles with a white collar" As subject or object? Either way counselling may be of assistance.

Bernee,

An Atheist can only borrow from established religious empiricism to find application of any decency to atheism.

Why? Because you say so? The only thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s) - so you argument is nonsense at best..

And there's that word again - empiricism.

Since an atheist can have no conscience either good or bad

what abject rubbish - it doesn't even deserve a response.

Please back this 'claim' up with some 'empirical' evidence.

If we use a calculator or the scale of justice to see which is valuable and what is the most dangerous to mankind throughout history, in terms of slaughtered humans, athiesm doesn't hold up well at all.

I wouldn't go down that path if I were you - the JCI god is the greatest mass murderer in human history.

The Killing fields, the Soviet Empire, China, littered with countless numbers of disposed of human animals. Not really countless, millions and million and millions of valuable people should not be so lightly thought of.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, genocide by religious imperialists. These all done in the name of christendom. The atrocites you refer to were done for political reasons - not to spread atheism as a doctrine.

Religoius deaths? There is a counter balance to the atrocities commited by Muslim's and other religious intolrents or other conquerers in the name of religion. It is religion.

So the ends justify the means - even though the means are immoral.

Is a traitor a member of that which he is betraying?

I have no idea what you mean by this..do you?

[bernee51]

Bernee: "It takes courage to say "I don't know". Only logical cowards cry 'goddidit"

Then most Christians are the most courageous people the world has ever known.

So 'most' christians are agnostic i.e. they believe but do not 'know' that god exists?

But no Christian can be a Christian and not "really know" what they believe and why. It is a contradiction of term.

Actually you have just contradicted yourself. That is not surprising.

When you use the term christian - what exactly do you mean? Are you referring to the fabled "True Christian" (TM)

The New Testament from the Gospels to Revelation goes into great depth to teach Christians all they need to know about Jesus the Messiah and what it's all about.

The 'Jesus' story as a mythology makes interesting if not plagiaristic reading. As fact it means SFA.

Cowardice not courage is found in the the person who can't think things out.

A gem of truth amongst the dross. A veritable rose amongst the thorns.

This contradicts the stated belief of an Atheist. An Atheist declares as fact "There is no god."

Before you make claims on behalf of atheists I suggest you detemine what an atheist is. By definition an atheist does not necessarily claim "There is no god"

Funny that you would instantly jump on any weakness of the statement coming from a Christian, but find it admirable in non-godians. That is the definition of discrimination.

Show me where I have done any such thing. If you are going to confabulate there is no point in discussion.

I have the highest respect for those who believe and have the strength of character to admit it is 'belief' not 'knowledge'

Though atheism is wrong, some Atheist truly shake their hand against observable facts

Wrong? How so? Observable facts? Which facts?

And according to Jesus they can choose what they want to believe, even if it's not in Him. That's the opposite of discrimination.

If you choose to believe in a myth that is your choice...I care not one way or the other.

I do, however, react to the discrimination inherent in those who wish to force their lifestyle choices on others.