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]

Christians are not bombing Muslim's.

America is fighting terrorism. Muslim terrorism.

Your view on this is not circular it is wrong.

You are right about Christ. He left open no other doors.

But I hope you believe this, I think atheists are far better for the health and safety of Christians (as long as there are set laws), than Christians are with Muslim's and Hindu's opposing them.

I disagree with you on much. But I don't want to hurt you or see you hurt and I believe you hold the same perspective about others. Arguing and debating you is a right and a privilege. I know my head will stay on my body if I anger you.

Not the feelings of Muslim's and Hindu's about Christians insulting them.

You and I ask questions and we refute and respond. That is the best way for a society to run.

No?

[bernee51]

Christians are not bombing Muslim's.

Tell that to the many thousands of 'collateral' damage who have died under American high explosives - most, if no all, who just happended to be Muslim.

America is fighting terrorism. Muslim terrorism.

America purports to be fighting terrorists, some of whom may have been Muslim.

You are right about Christ. He left open no other doors.

Actually the words of the alledged Christ have much to offer....it is christians who have closed the doors.

I have lived in India for more than 2 years. I have met many Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians (as an aside - there are more Christians in India than people in Australia). All of these with the exception of one group attest to the fact that there is but one god for all and many paths to seek that god.

No prizes for guessing who are the intolerant.

As Gandhi said..."I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

You and I ask questions and we refute and respond. That is the best way for a society to run.

No?

It takes honest, enquiring minds for that to be effective. Minds that are able to allow and face up to their ideas and prejudices being challenged and to meet that challenge, not with dogma, but with honesty.

[foshizzle]

Tell that to the many thousands of 'collateral' damage who have died under American high explosives - most, if no all, who just happended to be Muslim.

Yes, people have died. I'm a tad bit confused as to why Christians are to blame.

[bernee51]

Tell that to the many thousands of 'collateral' damage who have died under American high explosives - most, if no all, who just happended to be Muslim.

Yes, people have died. I'm a tad bit confused as to why Christians are to blame.

Confusion often arises when posts are read out of context.

[DanMRaymond]

That little picture you display is not designed to cause fear? Looks a suicide bomber to me. I wish it didn't carry that connotation but it does.

This is a disgusting comment. How can you be so sheltered?

[AlAyeti]

Bernee: It takes honest, enquiring minds for that to be effective. Minds that are able to allow and face up to their ideas and prejudices being challenged and to meet that challenge, not with dogma, but with honesty."

That disqualifies atheism.

It is 100% closed.

Somewhere on another thread it was mentioned that there are "thousands" of different denominations.

Christians are intolerant in India? From what perspective does that statement find qualification? An atheist perspective or Muslim or Hindu?

They are hated for coming "from" Hinduism and Islam and other mindsets. One is not born a Christian.

Dan,

I'll stop watching Al Jeezera clips on American TV News.

[bernee51]

Bernee: It takes honest, enquiring minds for that to be effective. Minds that are able to allow and face up to their ideas and prejudices being challenged and to meet that challenge, not with dogma, but with honesty."

That disqualifies atheism.

Then you know nothing about my atheism. Do you think that I have arrived at my position without introspection, without investigation, without taking into consideration claims and counter claims? Do you think I have arrived at my position without taking the time to get an understanding of alternate philosophies and belief systems? Do you honestly believe that now that I am here my mind is closed?

There is much of value in many (if not all) of the world's philosophies and religions. I take from those what is of value to me and which helps me to live a comapassionate, loving existence - and reject the rest. And that, like evolution, is an on-going process.

I see no reason for there to be any necessity for a god belief in order to do that.

It is 100% closed.

This statement speaks of you not me. How is your belief system not 100% closed. You believe that Jesus is the 'only path'. No alternatives can be considered. You have a closed mind on the subject. Closed 100%.

Somewhere on another thread it was mentioned that there are "thousands" of different denominations.

I'm not sure what this non-sequitor refers to.

Christians are intolerant in India?

Intolerant in that there is a belief among christians that their god is the only one and their path the only path. They are the only group which holds this beleif.

From what perspective does that statement find qualification? An atheist perspective or Muslim or Hindu?

A human perspective.

[Dilettante]

AlAyeti:

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

If History is a trustworthy guide, then it is at least as rational to fear theists.
AlAyeti:

I put my pants on the same way as say, Thomas Jefferson. I see myself as his equal and anyone else.

Just for the record, here's what Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Virginia Baptists:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state", therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Virginia Baptists, 1808).

I'm sure you will agree with Jefferson there.

If you think that atheists cannot be ethical, how do you account for Benedict Spinoza's "Ethics"? I'm not asking whether his position is philosophically convincing to you, but rather how you think he was able to construct a solid ethical theory without reference to a personal god. According to you, this should not have been possible.
[/b]

[Fragallrocks]

Funny really but I think it is not religion that defines ethics but empathy. 'I do not personaly believe in God, therefore I can only act out of self intrest.' If you understand how you actions make others feel then you can have a system of Morals that are equal to that of religion and you are doing it for people not for some highier power to seak the reward of heaven. Lets be honest the reson why most people do not just attack other people to get what they want is because they would not want to be attack for something they own, it is this protection of those you have feelings for that makes a socity work not just the protection of self.

[Dilettante]

There are many religious people (not all) who act out of self-interest: in other words, out of a desire to enter Heaven or at least to avoid Hell. The irony of this is that an excessive preoccupation with one's own salvation could prove counter-productive, as it would ultimately cause one to be motivated only by the desire of an eternal reward or the threat of everlasting punishment. And if I do a good deed only because I covet a prize or only because someone is holding a gun to my chest, I am not being moral.