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.

[McCulloch]

The uneducated or slow of wit say "I don't know."

As usual AlAyeti, has missed many subtleties. Is it that the weak agnostics are uneducated and the strong agnostics are slow of wit or is it the other way around?
How is it that an agnostic may have great intelligence or have graduated from respected schools?
Would you like to over-write the commonly held definitions of educated? It appears that by educated you mean something other than what anyone else means. How about these:

• Educated: Knowledgable only about those subjects which AlAyeti and his God have deemed to be useful fields of study.?

• Slow of wit: not in agreement with AlAyeti, especially when the word empirical is used.

I prefer to think that even those with opinions different from my own have reasons for their opinions.

So as otseng often reminds us, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD".

[AlAyeti]

Bernee,

I am not angry.

Please relax. You're scaring me.

The Crusades were in reponse to being attacked.

Muslims started the war, responed to by the Crusades. That is a fact.

I have much experience with what the sex education known as Pedophilia and what it has done to many people. My empirical data is absolute. Now the sexual agenda-ization wants to include "Questioning Youth," to children wanting to be "accessed."

An Atheist declares something can come from nothing. I am only believing what they say they really mean. How and where does morality come from in this perspective? That is not a fair question? Empiricism is what we can see, hear and test. I have heard you, see your posts and have put it to the test!

My assertion as to the basis of atheist morality is my right as a "Freethinker" to hold. Too bad if it causes you discomfort. Believe that I don't exist. Hmm, doesn't take away facts does it.


Any time you want to add up the amounts of people killed in the name of religion to those killed by Atheism in Russia alone by Lenin and Stalin, my calculator is waiting!

The Inquisition my history lacking fellow-poster was an in-house tragedy between Christians and political power mongers. Jews were lucky, they got exiled out of Spain circa 1492, while non-Catholics went to the rack!

Christians are the shining example for the world as to how to handle lying and misrepresentation of beliefs. Ever heard of Denominations? As in peacefully co-existing in America.

The ends justify the means far better in an Atheists mind, than a person who believes God is at work in all that we can readily observe.

NOW BERNEE,

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

You know exactly what I mean . . .

I, at least see you as bright. Also, angry and frustrated that someone is challenging your beliefs, but I do respect your being here.

Now, answer the question.

The answer is very telling of empirical truth!!!

[LillSnopp]

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.

*coughing alot*.. What?

I have not taken any of my opinions regarding how to act in a society from any religion whatsoever. So you are wrong, plain and simple.

All my views, opinions and actions are based on what I think about it. I do not take any of my views from what is considered decent or honest by the society, but what I think is decent and honest.

So being Christian is not a learned behaviour?


PS: "The answer is very telling of empirical truth!!!", You really got stuck on this "empirical truth"...

[AlAyeti]

McCulloch,

"I prefer to think that even those with opinions different from my own have reasons for their opinions."

You fail to see that I do not want to use subtleties. I see science as the impassionate place where my position is lauded as non-emotional. You went off!

Knowledgeable about subjects? Let's look at the current science books and what is being taught in places of higher learning.

Sperm is not absolutely for ovum? Somehow same-sex sexaual activities is OK? And not only OK but "natural." Uh, in what science book do we find sexuality defined any way but one? Anatomy, Biology, Physiology, Zoology?

Well you do find inter-gender sex acts being attempted in animals but sexual intercourse by defintion cannot occur between same genders. Only futility towards the physiological makeup of the animal in question either being validated or violated. Sorry but God can sit this debate out. The proof is undeniable. Like gravity, we can put the issue of what sex is for on the shelf of facts!

I do not need God telling me what goes where. . . but it seems the most educated among us can't tell that simple empirical fact. Why would I find an educated numbskull any different than the pervert at the porno store?

That's not religious intolerance, that is "empiricism" at its best.

Just becuase a PhD says that things are OK still needs to be wieghed out by observable proof. Yet we see that less and less in "Academia" these days!

Remember it was "scientists" that thought the worlds was flat until science prooved them wrong.

Still got the question of origins nagging away at us. Something cannot come from nothing. Sorry but that is scientific.

How we "apemen" even care is also very telling. Last time I looked at the grimey cousins of the debaters in the opposition to my positions, they didn't seem to care much.

Huxley was not being noble when he coined the word "Agnostic," he was trying to insult Christians. His worshippers are still carrying on then tradition.

That I am insulting anyone is not a correct view of my positions. That I think I'm right and others wrong, puts me in the position of philosopher and not evangelist.

I would care little for my fellow man or their souls if I purposfully ignore observable facts.

And there are many people I do care about and many I do not. That is called "Free will."

Common ground between all on this website or not?

[McCulloch]

AlAyeti, just to keep things simple and easy for me to follow (after all I am descended from Chimp-like hominids ), let me summarize what I think your reasoning is.

• Other mammals do not engage in homosexual acts.

• Therefore, homosexuality is evil.

• Atheists support the rights of homosexuals.

• Therefore, atheists have no sense of morality.

But what could we expect, because:

• Some communists have killed very many people.

• All communists are atheists.

• Therefore, all atheists are dangerous.

And

• The existence of God and God's laws are blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever honestly and seriously looked at them.

• Therefore, anyone who doubts God must be ignorant, stupid, dishonest or evil.

These conclusions are based on empirical evidence and are completely beyond debate.

[bigmrpig]

Sperm is not absolutely for ovum? Somehow same-sex sexaual activities is OK? And not only OK but "natural." Uh, in what science book do we find sexuality defined any way but one? Anatomy, Biology, Physiology, Zoology?

Whoa, slow down there. Let me see if I'm getting this right. Same-sex sexual activities are wrong because that's not what we're designed for?

Trees are not designed to be turned into furniture, but I see no moral problem in doing so. Gasoline was not created for the purpose of fueling cars, but I don't find that morally wrong either. Sand isn't formed so that it can be turned into glass and then a variety of products from there.

You're saying that because it's not natural, it's wrong? Even if it's enjoyable, and the harms involved are accepted by everyone involved?

... Tell me something, do you happen to be wearing socks?

I don't think socks are natural.

[LillSnopp]

Other mammals do not engage in homosexual acts.

Perhaps i missed something earlier here, but i just wanted to comment on this.

McCulloch, this is incorrect, several different animals openly show/consume in what we would define as homosexuality. So how do you mean ?

[LillSnopp]

You're saying that because it's not natural, it's wrong? Even if it's enjoyable, and the harms involved are accepted by everyone involved?

... Tell me something, do you happen to be wearing socks?

I don't think socks are natural.

This is actually a very interesting thing. When people start talking about "natural" and "unnatural", i get this twitching feeling in my neck.

The truth is, the horrific truth, which people saying this dont want to hear, is that everything we do is natural, else we would still be slime in the sea, if even that.

We can take cars for example, you may claim that cars are not natural, but unfortunate, something you have not thought about, we (humans) created cars, and now they are part of our society, daily lives, and so forth. Cars, have become natural for human lives.

If you start saying whats natural and not natural, you would end up in a very hard stool to sit in. As everything, could then be marked as "unnatural". Its not natural to have clothes, its not natural to live in houses, its not natural to have church weddings.. and so forth.


So to you people saying this, mentioning this, and all that, think about it, ok.

[bigmrpig]

You're saying that because it's not natural, it's wrong? Even if it's enjoyable, and the harms involved are accepted by everyone involved?

... Tell me something, do you happen to be wearing socks?

I don't think socks are natural.

This is actually a very interesting thing. When people start talking about "natural" and "unnatural", i get this twitching feeling in my neck.

The truth is, the horrific truth, which people saying this dont want to hear, is that everything we do is natural, else we would still be slime in the sea, if even that.

We can take cars for example, you may claim that cars are not natural, but unfortunate, something you have not thought about, we (humans) created cars, and now they are part of our society, daily lives, and so forth. Cars, have become natural for human lives.

If you start saying whats natural and not natural, you would end up in a very hard stool to sit in. As everything, could then be marked as "unnatural". Its not natural to have clothes, its not natural to live in houses, its not natural to have church weddings.. and so forth.


So to you people saying this, mentioning this, and all that, think about it, ok.

Either way my point is valid. Homosexuality is no more unnatural than anything as simple as wearing socks.

I don't see how homosexuality can, by anyone's standards, be considered unnatural, unless they consider almost everything we do to be unnatural. Consequently, saying homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural makes absolutely no sense.

[LillSnopp]

I don't see how homosexuality can, by anyone's standards, be considered unnatural, unless they consider almost everything we do to be unnatural. Consequently, saying homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural makes absolutely no sense.

You can not, in any way, claim homosexuality to be "unnatural", as this would force you to define natural. And this would, as said earlier, put you in a predicament.

Saying its wrong would be one step further, which would force you to define what is meant by right and wrong. And would also force you to explain where you derive your absolute from.


But to make this easy, Animals have homosexual tendencies to, so i presume they are "in the wrong" too? (to whomever stated it).