Are atheists less civilized than normal members of society? - Page 25 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14997129
SolarCross wrote:Too simple, at the very least you need to include a definition or criteria for what constitutes "good" and "evil".



No I don't, we all know what good is, some people are just evil fucks who use religion to rationalize their depravity. And all religions are abused in that way, not just Islam.
#14997136
SolarCross wrote:Nope, we actually all do have different ideas of what is good and evil


No, we don't. We all have an innate sense of good and evil, some of us choose to ignore it for various reasons, even codifying our rationalizations into religious commandments, but we all know that good is whatever is constructive and benevolent and evil is whatever is destructive and malevolent.
#14997140
Sivad wrote:No, we don't. We all have an innate sense of good and evil, some of us choose to ignore it for various reasons, even codifying our rationalizations into religious commandments, but we all know that good is whatever is constructive and benevolent and evil is whatever is destructive and malevolent.


This assertion is partly circular reasoning because "benevolent" means "good wishing" and malevolent means "bad wishing". You are saying good is good and bad is bad. Circular.

The other part destructive / constructive falls down because everyone recognises some destruction as good and some construction as bad. Hanging serial child killers is recognised by almost everyone as "good" but is obviously a destructive act. Many would recognise making a building that was ugly or non-functional as bad yet is also fairly a constructive act. Also whether something is destructive or constructive is generally a matter of perspective. Writing a poem is a constructive act because it creates a poem but it also destroys a clean white page. Human existence is constructed out of the destruction of innumerable other lifeforms: plants, fungi and animals...
#14997151
SolarCross wrote:Circular.


No, it's not circular, it's just stating that the value of an act is determined by intention as much as outcome.

The other part destructive / constructive falls down because everyone recognises some destruction as good and some construction as bad.


Not really, you're just equivocating on the relative and the absolute. Some acts are relatively destructive but are overall or ultimately or on the whole or by and large or all things considered, constructive. The constructive is whatever ultimately makes us stronger, freer, more robust, expansive, and substantive people.
#14997154
Sivad wrote:No, it's not circular, it's just stating that the value of an act is determined by intention as much as outcome.

It is circular because bad and good remain undefined except by themselves. The "wishing" or intention is irrelevant because it is present in BOTH ends of the dichotomy and so is not serving as a distinguishing criteria here.

Sivad wrote:Not really, you're just equivocating on the relative and the absolute. Some acts are relatively destructive but are overall or ultimately or on the whole or by and large or all things considered, constructive. The constructive is whatever ultimately makes us stronger, freer, more robust, expansive, and substantive people.

I am saying that there is no absolute moral values and the closest one can come to it is by invoking a supreme being and trusting "Him" to be truly objective and also somehow obtaining a credible communication of that objective standard.

Why should the rabbit feel good about his flesh being used to construct healthier wolves?
#14997162
SolarCross wrote:It is circular because bad and good remain undefined except by themselves.


Benevolence is defined as charity, compassion, kindness, generosity, selfless altruism, nothing circular there. Malevolence is intending pain, harm, injury, or destruction for cruel, spiteful, selfish, or depraved ends.


I am saying that there is no absolute moral values



That's just obviously false, some people try to deny it but the overwhelming majority of us recognize that there is definitely an absolute and objective moral law that we are all bound to.

and the closest one can come to it is by invoking a supreme being and trusting "Him" to be truly objective and also somehow obtaining a credible communication of that objective standard.


Morality can be successfully grounded without appealing to a supreme being and moral knowledge doesn't require divine revelation or any sort of supernatural faculty.

Why should the rabbit feel good about his flesh being used to construct healthier wolves?


We are morally obligated to make sacrifices for the greater good and morally prohibited from using others as a means to our own selfish ends.
#14997164
Sivad wrote:Benevolence is defined as charity, compassion, kindness, generosity, selfless altruism, nothing circular there. Malevolence is intending pain, harm, injury, or destruction for selfish ends.

Right because the (Christian) authors of the words presuppose certain things are "good" and "bad" respectively. However even here they are very contextual and consequently relative. Christians would eat meat but not consider it malevolence despite it causing death and destruction for selfish ends... You may of course imitate Christian conceptions of "good" or "evil" but it is only fair to make that plain and realise that those conceptions are relative too because not everyone or everybeing is a Christian or even human.

Sivad wrote:That's just obviously false, some people try to deny it but the overwhelming majority of us recognize that there is definitely an absolute and objective moral law that we are all bound to.

Except there actually isn't, if morality is just a popularity contest then currently Christians still win hands down and even they only total about 33% of the human population (straight away we are flat out ignoring non-humans as if they don't exist!) so now you are anthropocentrically stuck having to accept that Christian morals are closest there is to an absolute and objective moral law. But it gets worse because while Christians share certain identifiable characteristics they differ on quite a lot too after 2000 years of one schism after another. A minority of Christians (mormons) accept polygamy as moral, the rest don't, very many Christians firmly hold abortion to be a profound sin and there are many other points of difference.

Sivad wrote:Morality can be successfully grounded without appealing to a supreme being and moral knowledge doesn't require divine revelation or any sort of supernatural faculty.

Yet no one has done it.

Sivad wrote: We are morally obligated to make sacrifices for the greater good and morally prohibited from using others as a means to our own selfish ends.

So the rabbit should sacrifice himself to the wolf but the wolf must not eat and so starve? :lol:
#14998543
Sivad wrote:No I don't, we all know what good is, some people are just evil fucks who use religion to rationalize their depravity. And all religions are abused in that way, not just Islam.

True, but the rationalizations are especially easy and persuasive in the case of Islam because Muslims are instructed in their Qu'ran to emulate the example of Mohammed, a particularly depraved individual by civilized standards, as a religious duty.
#15005702
Mercenary wrote:@Scheherazade idea of civilized is my idea of savagery.


Indeed, walk into almost any Christian church in the U.S. and see the "savagery". They will welcome you, and shake your hand. They will wish you well, pray for you, give you hope and smiles.
Men whose lives have been devastated and end up in prison don't convert to atheism. They don't leave with new attitudes and hope, proclaiming "I've seen the light! Nothing has saved me." They proclaim their faith in Christ.

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

"Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany." - Adolph Hitler, April 7, 1933

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains. ... The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. ... We commence hostilities against the so-called Ten Commandments; the tablets from Sinai are no longer in force." --Adolf Hitler


In the nineteenth century, Charles Bradlaugh, a prominent atheist, challenged a Christian man to debate the validity of the claims of Christianity. The Christian, Hugh Price Hughes, was an active soul-winner who worked among the poor in the slums of London. Hughes told Bradlaugh he would agree on one condition.

Hughes said, “I propose to you that we each bring some concrete evidences of the validity of our beliefs in the form of men and women who have been redeemed from the lives of sin and shame by the influences of our teaching. I will bring 100 such men and women, and I challenge you to do the same.”

Hughes then said that if Bradlaugh couldn’t bring 100, then he could bring 50; if he couldn’t bring 50 then he could bring 20. He finally whittled the number down to one. All Bradlaugh had to do was find one person whose life was improved by atheism and Hughes - who would bring 100 people improved by Christ - would agree to debate him.
Bradlaugh withdrew! (The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, page 156)
#15006204
Dear @Scheherazade
I happen to be biased by knowing 2 of the most respected
leaders in the local peace and justice community who
happen to identify as atheist.

What has made them outstanding in their fields is
the level of FORGIVENESS and compassion for ALL humanity.
Always kind and promoting HUMANIZING situations
and relations, including opposing views and groups,
always seeking to treat others with equal RESPECT.

This respect for human dignity "unconditionally"
is not limited to just theists or Christians or any
one group, nor does it leave out nontheists or atheists.

It depends on the person.

The one area that I find nontheists may lack in
is the belief and knowledge of spiritual healing
actually curing mental and criminal illness
as well as physical disease and social ills as well.

The people who have this knowledge tend to appreciate
Christianity more and what it offers that no other system can.

Other than that, the degree of FORGIVENESS and inclusion of
others is what determines the degree of civility and ability
to cooperate with others. And this affects both theists and
nontheists, Christians and nonchristians alike. There are always
limits to what we as humans are able to forgive, so we are all
in the same boat in that respect. The Christians who use spiritual
healing are able to forgive to deeper and deeper degrees, but
anyone can access this not just Christians.
#15006219
Well, Emily, that is two people out of a few million. Don't forget that atheists are always eager to point out how EVIL many Christians are. Not the group as a whole, mind you, but SOME of them. That is supposed to make the entire Christian category evil, but a small number of atheists being what you consider to be good whitewashes all of them? This does not remotely follow. They are generally arrogant, vulgar, condescending, and rude. Why not. They have absolutely no basis for morality. None.
#15006224
Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

How is it that the most Atheist/secularcountries, are also the most civilized, and moral,@MrWonderful?

Educate yourself about secular morality.Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies
If religion withers, does society rot? Clearly not.

The Save the Children Foundation publishes an annual “Mother’s Index,” wherein they rank the best and worst places on earth in which to be a mother. And the best are almost always among the most secular nations on earth, while the worst are among the most devout. The non-profit organization called Vision of Humanity publishes an annual “Global Peace Index.” And according to their rankings, the most peaceful nations on earth are almost all among the most secular, while the least peaceful are almost all among the most religious. According to the United Nations 2011 Global Study on Homicide, of the top-10 nations with the highest intentional homicide rates, all are very religious/theistic nations, but of those at bottom of the list – the nations on earth with the lowest homicide rates -- nearly all are very secular nations.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -societies

https://quillette.com/2019/05/11/secula ... -on-faith/
http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/0 ... ctive.html
#15006271
MrWonderful wrote:Well, Emily, that is two people out of a few million. Don't forget that atheists are always eager to point out how EVIL many Christians are. Not the group as a whole, mind you, but SOME of them. That is supposed to make the entire Christian category evil, but a small number of atheists being what you consider to be good whitewashes all of them? This does not remotely follow. They are generally arrogant, vulgar, condescending, and rude. Why not. They have absolutely no basis for morality. None.


Dear @MrWonderful

And of the Christians I know, I can also name 2 who followed what Jesus said in the Bible
and gave away or sold everything they had, picked up the Cross and went with God.

MW if you are going to nitpick then as the Bible warns us
WE ALL FALL SHORT and all have our faults and sins.
There is NONE perfectly righteous but Jesus Christ who represents the embodiment of Divine Justice
and PERFECT Laws of God made incarnate.

So MW what you describe about Atheists is true of ALL human beings.
ALL selfish.
ALL biased by our material preferences.
NONE of us is perfect in love, truth or justice as God/Jesus represent.


Whatever you say of Atheists is true of everyone!
Christians included.
#15006286
No difference, @MrWonderful, except that atheists don't need a threat of eternal damnation looming over them in order to help someone who isn't as fortunate as themselves.

I never mocked Jesus. He was a great person, who taught many wise things that his followers twist to say what they want. Even an Atheist can follow the Golden Rule, as it turns out to be pretty much a reality.

Jesus never scorned unbelievers. That's why he was so kind when Thomas doubted him. He never scorned sinners, either.
#15006293
:roll: So you're just going to make asinine quotes when anyone tries to debate or argue a point with you? That's a pretty childish thing to do on a discussion forum. Try harder.

Is it that you cannot argue the point? I seem to see your whole argument falling apart before your eyes, and so you choose not to engage in debate, and would rather cower and hide behind puerile quotes.

Here's one:
“Fear of ridicule begets the worst cowardice.”
― André Gide
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
Syrian war thread

So every citizen causality [ sic ] is ok. If you[…]

Trump and Russiagate

At the expense of how many other jobs? You're igno[…]

What seems to have escaped you is that the Presid[…]

The dependence of the world economy on energy reco[…]