Atheists: Most deserving of Heaven?

[mustafhakofi]

sorry wrong list my mistake, been rectified.

 

[Light Travelling]

have you actually read athuls opening post.
as they know no better.
of course not, as you know better.
no just because it's nice to be nice, it take less facial muscles to smile, then it does to frown.
exactly, that's the meaning of life, to propagate the species.
yes some of them are decieving, but I have'nt met to many.

drugs
sex
self mutilation
suicide
masturbation
altruism
selfishness
greed
wealth
money
homosexuality

None of these things are immoral. None of these things are evil.

murder
discrimination
malice
destruction
collectivism
domination
rape
stealing

These things are immoral.

The only thing that can be immoral is that which harms another. Anything one does for oneself or to oneself cannot be immoral, unless it harms another as a direct and intentional result.

Furthermore, nothing that one cannot control can be immoral. One cannot be immoral because they are a particular race. One cannot be immoral because other people like them have been immoral. One cannot be immoral because they were brought up in wealth. One cannot be immoral for disliking the taste of asparagus. One cannot be immoral for being homosexual.

Having an ego is moral. Thinking you are good is moral. Being wealthy is moral. Being powerful is moral. It is what you do with these things that is immoral.l

Yes, I have read opening post. It questions moral values, as does my post?

You very neatly define morality for us. What gives you the right to do this?

You only copy parts of religious morality and seek to call it your own.

You tell me we know better than to kill........sorry thousands of killings every day many without remorse....who knows better?

Fuedal Japanese society was very moral, but samurai could kill on a whim. Why do you think your moral values are more corect than anyone elses???

 

[Light Travelling]

The original post questions a religious persons right to morarilty. I question both a religious persons right and an atheists right, as both are equally based on false beliefs.

The original post says athiests are humanists. I say modern athiests are semi-religionists who judge by moral standards which are not implicit in the human condition.

Neither religionists nor athiests have any right to moral high ground, as the basic idea of human morarilty is false, and the morality discussed in the original posts is that of certain modern society only, and is therfore not definitive of all moral values anyway.

 

[mis-t-highs]

You very neatly define morality for us. What gives you the right to do this?

she's not defining your morals, shes generalising, we all do it, it's a debate forum.

You only copy parts of religious morality and seek to call it your own.

no thats back to front, before religion man had morals.

You tell me we know better than to kill........sorry thousands of killings every day many without remorse....who knows better?

it's inherently in us all, not to kill.
but unfortunatly some do it anyway, and there usuelly out of there heads anyway.

Fuedal Japanese society was very moral, but samurai could kill on a whim. Why do you think your moral values are more correct than anyone elses???

a society based on hero worship, honour and morality, whos to say without centurys of indoctrination in to this culture we can only guess. shes generalising as I said earlier.

The original post questions a religious persons right to morarilty. I question both a religious persons right and an atheists right, as both are equally based on false beliefs
.

why?, and how so?.

The original post says athiests are humanists. I say modern athiests are semi-religionists who judge by moral standards which are not implicit in the human condition.

why?, and how so again?, atheism is not a religion.

Neither religionists nor athiests have any right to moral high ground, as the basic idea of human morarilty is false, and the morality discussed in the original posts is that of certain modern society only, and is therfore not definitive of all moral values anyway.

why?, and how so thrice. please supply reference material for these assertions.
thank you.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Ok, interesting post. All the way from heaven to the debate of god. Might I suggest that science always has the upper hand because the debate is does GOD exist? Not which one exists SCIENCE or GOD? Therefore, we all can accept that even those who believe in god accept that science and its laws are true. Now interesting thing said by Atheist is "Prove me god exists." and the theists say "prove me he/she/they doesn't/don't."

See, to prove something, you need proof. To disprove something, there needs be a valid foundation that claims it true. How can we disprove something when you haven't proved it? For something to not exist you do not need any proof. Cause you cannot prove/disprove the non-existant.

 

[cole grey]

Ok, interesting post. All the way from heaven to the debate of god.

You are the only person who has switched over to that, everyone else is talking about morals, and whether an atheist would "deserve" heaven. But, generalising on this is futile anyway.

Might I suggest that science always has the upper hand because the debate is does GOD exist? Not which one exists SCIENCE or GOD?

My existence is far more crucial than any scientific theory or advancement. Humans lived for many years without science. We can't say whether or not the concept of God was necessary, except by projecting ourselves into our predecessor's shoes. So someone could say that science is unnecessary, but the idea of God is or was necessary. But apples are not oranges anyway.

Why do you say that science is a better religion than religion, while you also say that science is not a religion?

To disprove something, there needs be a valid foundation that claims it true. How can we disprove something when you haven't proved it? For something to not exist you do not need any proof. Cause you cannot prove/disprove the non-existant.

That is like saying every scientific theory must be proved before it can be disproved. That is crazy-talk. To disprove something you must show it does not exist. When people "disprove" bigfoot, they show that the guy who made the movie was a fraud, and that the guy who had the tracks all over his land had a bunch of wooden feet to make prints with. Nobody had to prove bigfoot existed before they could try to disprove the idea. You have to disprove the claims of theists before you can claim you have proof.

P.S. MIS-T, hi, you have no foundation from which to assert that humanity had morals before they had religion, I think.

 

[Light Travelling]

she's not defining your morals, shes generalising, we all do it, it's a debate forum.
no thats back to front, before religion man had morals.
it's inherently in us all, not to kill.
but unfortunatly some do it anyway, and there usuelly out of there heads anyway.
a society based on hero worship, honour and morality, whos to say without centurys of indoctrination in to this culture we can only guess. shes generalising as I said earlier.


why?, and how so?.
why?, and how so again?, atheism is not a religion.
why?, and how so thrice. please supply reference material for these assertions.
thank you.

No, what you are saying here just simple isn'y true.

Firstly, when is this time "before religion when man had morals" that you talk of? Man has always had religion. You go back before modern religion, you find pagan religions - you have to go back to cavemen to find a time before religion. Are you talking about caveman morals?
All these more ancient peoples had their form of religion, and their own differing moral codes.
Egyption; Viking / Norse; North american indian; Incan; Mayan; Celtic/ druidic; Babylonion; Greek; Roman.
Lack of religion is a relatively modern phenomena.

Moral values have no objective reality, they are subjective and change between persons and societies. A persons moral code is a product of their belief system. Even people who say they have no belief system, believe in a moral code and this becomes their belief system.

All belief systems are exactly that "belief", and are therefore inventions of mind and have no foundation in reality. MORAL VALUES ARE SIMPLY WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN.

Musta is not generalising, these are her particular moral values. The frightening thing is that like most atheists, she will deny they are belief, will deny any possibilty she is wrong, will insist they are a concrete reality and will try to assert her moral values on me and anyone else she can.

I call athiests semi-religionists because to be an athiest is simple to deny god, this is purely a negative statement. To state I am an athiest offers no specific theory on life it simply denies one. As all our modern societies and morals have developed from once religious societies - an athiest cannot avoid "culturally" adopting this some of these values.

"Out there heads that kill"; policemen; soldiers; executioners; abortionists. Do you live in the same world as me?

Last question - why is Musta allowed to generalise because its a debate, but I have to provide evidence. This hardly seems fair?

By the way, although I have no fixed religion - neither am I an athiest.

Answers please............................

 

[mis-t-highs]

cole your wrong.

No, what you are saying here just simple isn'y true.

Firstly, when is this time "before religion when man had morals" that you talk of? Man has always had religion. You go back before modern religion, you find pagan religions - you have to go back to cavemen to find a time before religion. Are you talking about caveman morals?
All these more ancient peoples had their form of religion, and their own differing moral codes.
Egyption; Viking / Norse; North american indian; Incan; Mayan; Celtic/ druidic; Babylonion; Greek; Roman.
Lack of religion is a relatively modern phenomena.

when man became a social animal, was religion instantly created no, man had to set physical and ethical bounderys with is fellow man, Ie common moral decencies, these are essential to the survival of any human community. religion, came about through not knowing and fear, a vocano ( mother earth is angry) lightening strike ( the sky god is angry) man had no religion, before he became social, he traded with is neighbour (Enlightened Self-Interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. For the treatment will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the person's happiness. and self-defense. Because man does not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to treat there fellow man the same way.) then they became a group and then a community, and then societies spreading ethical religion through morality.

Religious morality is usually premised upon a revealed "will" of a deity, either in the form of a Scripture (Bible; Koran; Vedas; Book of Mormon) or in the form of a living prophet or spokesperson (the Pope; the Mormon President; an Imam; a swami; a medicine man) or in the form of personal inspiration (that still, small voice; the Pentecostal "gift of knowledge"). However, since I cannot verify any of the past or current claims for the existence of a god, I have no business basing my sense of morality upon any revelation (unless the revelation has been established as the law of the land, in which case I am going up against the State, not a god).

If no gods exist, then all alleged revelations are all human contrivances. In other words, I cannot distinguish between the so-called will of a god and human invention, so I default to seeing all claims of revelation as human inventions -- or at least acting as if this were the case. So, if, for all practical purposes, all morality is the invention of humans, then I would think that we do best to treat all public discussions of morality as one would a scientific claim. In science, all claims to knowledge are subject to revision, and all ideas are put before the public with the specific aim of encouraging the public to scrutinize those ideas. If an idea of mine should be shown to have serious flaws, I agree to follow the results of that scrutiny and reassess or even abandon my idea.


"Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."
Thomas Jefferson

no need for religion.

Moral values have no objective reality, they are subjective and change between persons and societies. A persons moral code is a product of their belief system. Even people who say they have no belief system, believe in a moral code and this becomes their belief system.

no there believe system is a produce of there moral code.

All belief systems are exactly that "belief", and are therefore inventions of mind and have no foundation in reality. MORAL VALUES ARE SIMPLY WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN.

no, your forgeting, Common moral decency( no need for religion) Enlightened Self-Interest.( no need for religion) self-defense.(no need for religion)

Musta is not generalising, these are her particular moral values. The frightening thing is that like most atheists, she will deny they are belief, will deny any possibilty she is wrong, will insist they are a concrete reality and will try to assert her moral values on me and anyone else she can.

we all generalise, no you have that back to front only the religious preach.

I call athiests semi-religionists because to be an athiest is simple to deny god,

you can not deny the which does not exist, that would be moronic.

this is purely a negative statement. To state I am an athiest offers no specific theory on life it simply denies one.

no, it's more enlightened, it's to know your possition in the way of things(to propagate the species, to make a heaven here on earth.)

As all our modern societies and morals have developed from once religious societies - an athiest cannot avoid "culturally" adopting this some of these values.

back to front again.

"Out there heads that kill"; policemen; soldiers; executioners; Do you live in the same world as me?

policeman, solders, executioners, come under judicial morality and yes the kill, but are given this right by the respective goverments, it does not mean that killing is not wrong.it's the socipath the psychopath etc that kills, who are Out there heads.

Last question - why is Musta allowed to generalise because its a debate, but I have to provide evidence. This hardly seems fair?

you generalise I generalise we all do, if asked to back up her assertion musta would, lets put it another way, most would not make an assertion without first having some kind of backup.

By the way, although I have no fixed religion - neither am I an athiest.

Answers please............................

good for you.

 

[Light Travelling]

cole your wrong. when man became a social animal, was religion instantly created no, man had to set physical and ethical bounderys with is fellow man, Ie common moral decencies, these are essential to the survival of any human community. religion, came about through not knowing and fear, a vocano ( mother earth is angry) lightening strike ( the sky god is angry) man had no religion, before he became social, he traded with is neighbour (Enlightened Self-Interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. For the treatment will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the person's happiness. and self-defense. Because man does not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to treat there fellow man the same way.) then they became a group and then a community, and then societies spreading ethical religion through morality.

Religious morality is usually premised upon a revealed "will" of a deity, either in the form of a Scripture (Bible; Koran; Vedas; Book of Mormon) or in the form of a living prophet or spokesperson (the Pope; the Mormon President; an Imam; a swami; a medicine man) or in the form of personal inspiration (that still, small voice; the Pentecostal "gift of knowledge"). However, since I cannot verify any of the past or current claims for the existence of a god, I have no business basing my sense of morality upon any revelation (unless the revelation has been established as the law of the land, in which case I am going up against the State, not a god).

If no gods exist, then all alleged revelations are all human contrivances. In other words, I cannot distinguish between the so-called will of a god and human invention, so I default to seeing all claims of revelation as human inventions -- or at least acting as if this were the case. So, if, for all practical purposes, all morality is the invention of humans, then I would think that we do best to treat all public discussions of morality as one would a scientific claim. In science, all claims to knowledge are subject to revision, and all ideas are put before the public with the specific aim of encouraging the public to scrutinize those ideas. If an idea of mine should be shown to have serious flaws, I agree to follow the results of that scrutiny and reassess or even abandon my idea.


"Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."
Thomas Jefferson

no need for religion.



no there believe system is a produce of there moral code.
no, your forgeting, Common moral decency( no need for religion) Enlightened Self-Interest.( no need for religion) self-defense.(no need for religion)
we all generalise, no you have that back to front only the religious preach.
you can not deny the which does not exist, that would be moronic.no, it's more enlightened, it's to know your possition in the way of things(to propagate the species, to make a heaven here on earth.)back to front again.
policeman, solders, executioners, come under judicial morality and yes the kill, but are given this right by the respective goverments, it does not mean that killing is not wrong.it's the socipath the psychopath etc that kills, who are Out there heads.
you generalise I generalise we all do, if asked to back up her assertion musta would, lets put it another way, most would not make an assertion without first having some kind of backup.
good for you.

Well, I see we both fully agree that there is no need for religion, that is good. What I am saying is that we are all unavoidably influenced by the ideas of religion

We both agree that morals vary between people and sytems (you seem to think judicial morality is different from other morality?) - that is good. It also proves that morals are subjective!

"Only the religious preach" - yes it is true the religious are the worst preachers, but not the only - you are preaching your point of view to me.

"Common moral decency" - is your perception of what common moral decency is. Or do you believe that if the majority of people believe something this becomes common morality and therefore must be correct - sorry this is 'mob rules' mentality.

You say if we cant prove god exists we should assume there is no god. This is very intelligent of you and very logical. I fully agree with your analysis. ALL I am asking you to do is apply the same logic to morals. You cant prove they exist. We can measure thoughts and feeling by electrical and chemical signals in the brain and nervous system - they can be proved. But where are your morals can I touch them - no - they dont exist. They are a fabrication of your mind.

And this stuff about "man becoming social before religious" is fascinating. You should publish , I'm sure the anthropological community would be greatful to have this UNPROVED conundrum solved for them.
From the very earlist record of man there is evidence of burial with tools / ceremony and evidence for very rudimentary religion. You have absolutely NO evidence to support your claims of an evolved social structure prior to the first rudimentary pagan religious concepts.

 

[Light Travelling]

cole

you can not deny the which does not exist, that would be moronic.

By the way, when I said an athiest denies god. It is obvious that I mean denies the existence of god.

To say "I am an athiest" is a negative definition of self. I can say I am not a doctor, this is a true statement. But I do not define myself as "I am not a doctor". Why define yourself as what you are not - define yourself as what you are .

 

[mis-t-highs]

Well, I see we both fully agree that there is no need for religion, that is good. What I am saying is that we are all unavoidably influenced by the ideas of religion

religion has as lot to answer for. it's a negative influence we had for millienia.

We both agree that morals vary between people and sytems (you seem to think judicial morality is different from other morality?) - that is good. It also proves that morals are subjective!

thats because it is.
I could not kill even if I was in the army but they would expect me to.

"Only the religious preach" - yes it is true the religious are the worst preachers, but not the only - you are preaching your point of view to me.

no I am offering my slant on things, it for you to decide to accept or not, to tell you how I act or feel is ok, but to tell you how you all should act or feel is preaching, understand.

"Common moral decency" - is your perception of what common moral decency is. Or do you believe that if the majority of people believe something this becomes common morality and therefore must be correct - sorry this is 'mob rules' mentality.

wtf are you talking about"mob rule " what crap. Common moral decency is just that, common to everyone.

And this stuff about "man becoming social before religious" is fascinating. You should publish , I'm sure the anthropological community would be greatful to have this UNPROVED conundrum solved for them.
From the very earlist record of man there is evidence of burial with tools / ceremony and evidence for very rudimentary religion. You have absolutely NO evidence to support your claims of an evolved social structure prior to the first rudimentary pagan religious concepts.

so your saying without religion man could not of become social.
so two cavemen meet waving there spears at each other, and one says to the other did you here about religion, whats that, says the other, why thats the stuff that make you become friends,
cant we be friends anyway no says the other not without religion(sarcasm) .

dont talk out of your arse .

 

[cole grey]

Mis-t,

I was just saying that there seems to be no historical basis for your assumption that humans had morals before religion. You re-create the human mind in modern man's image so you can parallel the idea of modern people not needing religion for morality with pre-historic moral ideology. This is not a given, for those pre-historic people, by any means.
I would be interested in anything that supports your idea other than this type of assumption.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

having read down this thread, I cant believe the stupidity, coming out of some peoples heads.
we don't need a bible, or even religion, to delve into the field of metaphysics - which is the profound extension of our self-awareness as a species. and with self awareness brings morality.
once man was able to communicate where food is located and make friends he had morals.
it is deftly stupid to assume man had no morals before religion, that is an very arrogant but totally irrational statement.
I'm surprised at the low intellect of the recently new members, unbelieveable.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

pavlos you beat me to it, well said.

 

[cole grey]

First of all, I pointed out the fact that nobody has any evidence of how pre-historic man thought regarding religion and morality (at least in terms of which was first). It doesn't matter whether you would like to say morality arose with religion, or that it preceded it, you are just guessing. I may join your speculations, if I formulate a theory, but I was just pointing out the weak footing this argument has.

once man was able to communicate where food is located and make friends he had morals.

Animals do both of these things. Are you advocating animal morality? Or would you say that was "stupid"?

it is deftly stupid to assume man had no morals before religion, that is an very arrogant but totally irrational statement.
I'm surprised at the low intellect of the recently new members, unbelieveable.

No. It is not "stupid" at all. It is one possibility for how to describe the creation of responsibility. You would be "stupid" to say that it is not possible that man's sense of morality arose with the sense of a metaphysical reality, as expressed by their ideas of religion at that time. Obviously, one would have to be a complete idiot to assert that mankind had to have some organized religion before morality.

You are deftly ignoring many of the questions brought up by this discussion, so you see it as simple:

Please explain to me when animal morality (as if there could be such a thing), turned into human morality, before religion.
Also, explain how early man's ideas of of metaphysics were not religious.
Also, I would appreciate some good evidence before you assert that all other ideas are stupid. You sound like Lamarck, describing one of his theories as having no possibility of being incorrect. That is arrogant... or ignorant.


Also, MIS-t, man didn't become a social animal, he evolved from a social animal. What is the point at which a "man" becomes responsible? When did his predecessors have the responsibility we give to animals, i.e., none?

 

[Raithere]

Ethics must come before religion. Otherwise there would be no reason to take up religion. Without a value system there is no good or bad, beneficial or detrimental, right or wrong... one thing is equal to another. Like Adam and Eve in the garden, without a knowledge of good and evil how could they know it was wrong to disobey God?

~Raithere

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Define Right or Wrong.
Society as a whole defines right as actions that are beneficial to it.
Wrong as actions detrimental to society.
That is the generalization ethics has brought upon us. Why should fighting for a bunch of people called the right thing? Why is fighting for yourself called selfish? Rights and wrongs are just excuses for society to control advantage of individuals. This issue was debated under my thread called "What is Right or Wrong?"

 

[Raithere]

Define Right or Wrong.

Right is what is in agreement with a principle, standard, or fact. Wrong is in disagreement or conflict with a principle, standard, or fact.

Ethics is the study of those principles and standards.

Other than that I'm not sure what you're on about. Is it that you disagree with society determining what the principles and standards are?

~Raithere

 

[mis-t-highs]

I believe this is how this arguement started
"

Firstly, when is this time "before religion when man had morals"that you talk of? Man has always had religion. You go back before modern religion, you find pagan religions - you have to go back to cavemen to find a time before religion. Are you talking about caveman morals?
All these more ancient peoples had their form of religion, and their own differing moral codes.
Egyption; Viking / Norse; North american indian; Incan; Mayan; Celtic/ druidic; Babylonion; Greek; Roman.
Lack of religion is a relatively modern phenomena.

P.S. MIS-T, hi, you have no foundation from which to assert that humanity had morals before they had religion, I think.

and then I said
"when man became a social animal, was religion instantly created no, man had to set physical and ethical bounderys with is fellow man, Ie common moral decencies, these are essential to the survival of any human community. religion, came about through not knowing and fear, a vocano ( mother earth is angry) lightening strike ( the sky god is angry) man had no religion, before he became social, he traded with is neighbour (Enlightened Self-Interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. For the treatment will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the person's happiness. and self-defense. Because man does not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to treat there fellow man the same way.) then they became a group and then a community, and then societies spreading ethical religion through morality."

then this

"Common moral decency" - is your perception of what common moral decency is. Or do you believe that if the majority of people believe something this becomes common morality and therefore must be correct - sorry this is 'mob rules' mentality.
And this stuff about "man becoming social before religious" is fascinating. You should publish , I'm sure the anthropological community would be greatful to have this UNPROVED conundrum solved for them.
From the very earlist record of man there is evidence of burial with tools / ceremony and evidence for very rudimentary religion. You have absolutely NO evidence to support your claims of an evolved social structure prior to the first rudimentary pagan religious concepts.

everytime I say man had morality before religion, I mean, I ask you, common moral decency=mob rule in his book, a bit moronic dont you think.

all along this man has stated that organised religion came first,

it is deftly stupid to assume man had no morals before religion, that is an very arrogant but totally irrational statement.

Obviously, one would have to be a complete idiot to assert that mankind had to have some organized religion before morality.

this is what I feel I've been saying, others seem to agree, but not this light fellow. so thank you for that statement.

and yes I agree man did evolve from a social animal, to become an even more social animal.

ps thank you also pavlos.

 

[Light Travelling]

No 'mob rule' is not moronic.

I'll give you a simple and overused example. Nazi Germany. Under Hitler thousands, if not millions of people signed up to a radically new set of "common moral values" (although they all denied it after - obviously) and a new code of "common moral decency" came into being.

The common moral decency of Germany was then different to that which exsisted in say England. This is different from a democratic process which takes into acoount the morals of majority and minority alike.

We can also see a shift in the "common moral decency" of the USA, as they sign up to morals that now allow torture.

If morals are inherent in us - how is this possible?

I am willing to explore some different ideas and concepts here. Does this mean that I lack intelligence? If I simply agree or disagree with existing views, does that make me more or less intelligent. If your only argument is to insult the intelligence of new members (pavlosmarcos) then I suggest you examine your self proclaimed intelligence.