Questions on atheist morality

By all means, add as many complex explanations for things as you want to invent, but the most parsimonious explanation necessary to explain the thing will probably be the correct one.

Only if all facts are in evidence.

What's the difference ?

You assume that if theists hadn't come up with science long ago, there wouldn't be science today.

The point is that science could have come into play at any other moment in history, by whoever. You don't know.

coulda, shoulda, woulda.

The fact is that education has been an assertively theist enterprise that even athiests have benefited from. Even the oh-so-grand Dawhkinz sits in a university established by theologians and presumes to judge theists as opposing knowledge.
 
I'm still wondering: Did we decide if there was a difference in morals from Atheists and Theists?

Also, Scientologists are Alienologists not Theists. Do they not possess morals?

Muslims are Theists not Alienologists. Do they not possess morals? Are these morals "good"?

what I got from sam a couple of pages ago is that religion is pretty bad, but so what, non-religious are worse
 
SAM said:
Since science is the study of the emprirical world (with its own reductionist pitfalls and their not so pleasant outcomes) I fail to see how a belief in God or a belief in godlessness, neither of which are a purview of empirical observation have anything to do with it.
My, this is a stubborn confusion to deal with.

Belief in God, in general, lack of belief in God generally, or the completely irrelevant belief in Godlessness, in general, are not at issue.

What is at issue is the scientist's deliberate, firm, exclusion of any supernatural interference with the matter being investigated - whether they believe in such influences or not. This is necessary. And it is nothing like as ordinary or taken for granted as you claim - its establishment as a norm is yet in progress, being partially unacceptable in, for example, much of the Islamic world (evolution, origins of the Koran, etc). And it is the contribution of atheist thought to human knowledge of the world - people died for it, at the hands of theists.
SAM said:
Logically speaking, there are three positions for a belief in God.

Yes, No, Don't know.
Dawkins, who is worth reading in such matters, posits a seven point scale of uncertainty as way of making better sense.
 
The fact is that education has been an assertively theist enterprise that even athiests have benefited from.

Bold-faced lie.

Even the oh-so-grand Dawhkinz sits in a university established by theologians and presumes to judge theists as opposing knowledge.

Another lie.
 
Only if all facts are in evidence.



coulda, shoulda, woulda.

The fact is that education has been an assertively theist enterprise that even athiests have benefited from. Even the oh-so-grand Dawhkinz sits in a university established by theologians and presumes to judge theists as opposing knowledge.

So what ? :confused:
Do you honestly think atheists are incapable of doing exactly that ??
You do know that atheism was punishable by death back in the day and that the church had all the power, right ?
It proves fuck and you know it.
 
My, this is a stubborn confusion to deal with.

Belief in God, in general, lack of belief in God generally, or the completely irrelevant belief in Godlessness, in general, are not at issue.

What is at issue is the scientist's deliberate, firm, exclusion of any supernatural interference with the matter being investigated - whether they believe in such influences or not. This is necessary. And it is nothing like as ordinary or taken for granted as you claim - its establishment as a norm is yet in progress, being partially unacceptable in, for example, much of the Islamic world (evolution, origins of the Koran, etc). And it is the contribution of atheist thought to human knowledge of the world - people died for it, at the hands of theists.

That issue is not debated by real scientists only by those presuming to test the supernatural using scientific tools.

Dawkins, who is worth reading in such matters, posits a seven point scale of uncertainty as way of making better sense.

Sure he does, if nothing, he is very imaginative with his illogic.
 
So what ? :confused:
Do you honestly think atheists are incapable of doing exactly that ??
You do know that atheism was punishable by death back in the day and that the church had all the power, right ?
It proves fuck and you know it.

Do you know being religious is punishable TODAY in athiest societies?
 
Bold-faced lie.

Look at the origins of schools and universities. The study of religion was the primary step in establishing education.


Another lie.
Oxford was set up by theologians and monks, its not a secret.:rolleyes:

The truth is that it is quite impossible to asign even an approximate date to the development of the schools which in Saxon times were grouped round the monastic foundation of St. Frideswide (on the site of what is now Christ Church) into the corporate institution later known as Oxford University. Well-known scholars were, we know, lecturing in Oxford on theology and canon law before the middle of the twelfth century, but these were probably private teachers attached to St. Frideswide's monastery. It is not until the end of Henry II's reign, that is about 1180, that we know, chiefly on the authority of Giraldus Cambrensis, that a large body of scholars was in residence at Oxford, though not probably yet living under any organized constitution.

Half a century later Oxford was famous throughout Europe as a home of science and learning; popes and kings were among its patrons and benefactors; the students are said to have been numbered by thousands; and the climax of its reputation was reached when, during the fifty years between 1220 and 1270, the newly-founded orders of friars -- Dominican, Franciscan, Carmelite, and Austin -- successively settled at Oxford, and threw all their enthusiasm into the work of teaching. Kindled by their zeal, the older monastic orders, encouraged by a decree of the Lateran Council of 1215, began to found conventual schools at Oxford for their own members. The colleges of Worcester, Trinity, Christ Church, and St. John's are all the immediate successors of these Benedictine or Cistercian houses of study.
 
Look at the origins of schools and universities. The study of religion was the primary step in establishing education.



Oxford was set up by theologians and monks, its not a secret.:rolleyes:

So atheists could never have set up schools and universities ?
Why ?
 
Some obscure Asian country I presume ?
That would never go in the west.

Nice avoidance btw.

Ah so Asian atheists are not good enough for you now?

Smells like racism to me.

So atheists could never have set up schools and universities ?
Why ?

Because athiesm does not proscribe to social order. All religions on the other hand, demand the study of scriptures, which necessitate both teaching and learning.
 
this is crap
at another time and place, they all would have burned as heretics

heretics? Is that another word for dangerous to a power base?

That would explain the execution of Christians by atheists in Soviet Russia, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists in Peoples Republic (haha) of China and the Self Reliant Democracy of North Korea.

ja
as long as it jived with dogma

Like Darwins Origin of Species, Mendels genetics and Copernicus' heliocentrism.

All fine upstanding Christians eh?
 
Ah so Asian atheists are not good enough for you now?

Smells like racism to me.



Because athiesm does not proscribe to social order. All religions on the other hand, demand the study of scriptures, which necessitate both teaching and learning.

I have better things to do than listen to this crap.
Auf Wiedersehen.
 
Look at the origins of schools and universities. The study of religion was the primary step in establishing education.

Oxford was set up by theologians and monks, its not a secret.:rolleyes:

No one is really interested in your bullshit, Sam, except to identify it as such.
 
Yeah right, atheists who lacked belief (hehe) in God and dismissed scriptures as unworthy of attention swarmed to Oxford when it was run by friars and monks for ejukashun.
 
heretics? Is that another word for dangerous to a power base?

That would explain the execution of Christians by atheists in Soviet Russia, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists in Peoples Republic (haha) of China and the Self Reliant Democracy of North Korea.



Like Darwins Origin of Species, Mendels genetics and Copernicus' heliocentrism.

All fine upstanding Christians eh?


sam, it doesnt matter

whatever side people are, religious or not
people kill eachother
people rob eachother
people favor their kind and destroy other kinds

religion has nothing to do with morals
religion doesn't fix human nature, it doesnt want a violent person not be violent
 
Back
Top