Questions on atheist morality

[lightgigantic]

Atheist morality is better than religious morality because religious people use thousands of years outdated books to determine what's right and wrong... atheists on the other hand can use their god given reason and con science to understand what is right and wrong.

yes
(god given) reason and con science seem the way to go

 

[Varda]

atheists on the other hand can use their god given reason ...

que?

 

[S.A.M.]

*long quote about other people's opinions of atheism*

why are you quoting other atheists? You're not a group, right?

Rheumatism means a belief in rheuma
Autism means a belief in auta
Nepotism means a belkief in nepo.

Try thinking of ism as a suffix denoting a process.

So its your objective to state that theism is not a belief.

 

[iceaura]

So literal. Must we argue over the grammatical details? Have we nothing better to say?

Depends on the argument. When arguing with typical dogmatic theists, getting stuck on their difficulties with grammatical details - and the great significance they put on begging the questions at hand through assertions of "belief in in the non-existence of God" and so forth - is unavoidable.

If theists made honest arguments, discussions would not revolve around correcting them. In this thread, we are starting out with an assertion of "atheist morality" as contrasted with "theist morality", based on their supposed different sources of derivation. It's going to take a bit of effort to dig out of that, no?

 

[S.A.M.]

Clearly addressing atheist morality should begin with theist morality. I agree. Its become apparent there is no other definition.

And definitions are only a problem when they are used dishonestly to create false paradigms.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

 

[iceaura]

Clearly addressing atheist morality should begin with theist morality. I agree. Its become apparent there is no other definition.

Definition of what ?

btw: The internet is very useful, but one should be a little wary at least. The following is nonsense:

A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

In brief: It is commonly used (including right here, among the people you are arguing with). It is defined that way in most of the better and more reputable dictionaries (at a minimum, "denial of the existence of God or gods" - not only disbelief, but denial for other reasons - will appear in the first or second definitions). What agnostics or babies call themselves is not at issue. And if it doesn't make sense to call someone who does not believe in God atheist, what are you going to call them ?

I mean, if you insist that I am not an atheist, and what I refer to as atheism is something else, what is it ?

And definitions are only a problem when they are used dishonestly to create false paradigms.

Exactly the problem we're having with your definitions.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

As the author pointed out, its the definition from reputed dictionaries.

And snakelord pointed out correct definitions from reputed dictionaries. I've noticed that you seem to want all atheists to be positive believers. Clearly the average atheist identity doesn't conform to that position. Whether you accept that or not, it is what it is.

Uh please, are you telling me that UFOlogists do not include atheists?

What's a UFO-ologist? What I am telling you is that most atheists tend not to accept any paranormal assertions as truth. Something in the sky that a person cannot identify isn't paranormal consequently.

No problem. Stanford University too was established by a Christian couple in memory of their child

Stanford hospital... not university. The university at present also has no religious affiliation.

not any particular assertion; merely atheos

I don't know what you are talking about.

More likely these socalled secular humanists will form a church to get in on the business of evangelism.

As long as they don't lie to their 'congregations' then more power to 'em.

 

[Myles]

SAM, please note,

There is no theist mortality and no atheist morality; only morality as opposed to immorality.

Christians like to talk of Christian charity as if it were in a class of its own and somehow superior to other sorts of charity, which is an example of the same nonsense. THere is simply charity.

 

[SnakeLord]

So literal. Must we argue over the grammatical details? Have we nothing better to say?

Apparently so. Iceaura addressed this earlier so I wont repeat it. However, you will notice that no theist here telling atheists that they are not atheists has actually offered an alternative.

Of course Sam can't do it because if she starts to recognise what an 'atheist' actually is she'll have less excuse to hate them as much.

 

[geeser]

why are you quoting other atheists? You're not a group, right?

Do you have a problem reading!
I said,
"we do have a similar mind set, but we don't follow any doctrine, or beliefs, we are atheists, not a group of people who go to a church to follow atheism, It is the natural state of being, it is just a word to describe us, as you would a herd of cattle a flock of sheep etc... Atheism is not something you are. it's a word coined to mean the opposite to theism, it's that simple. the fact it ends in an ism, is irrelevant, it is just to show it as the yang, to theisms ying."

Does Algorism actually mean a belief in the Arab system of arithmetical notation, or just that it is the Arab system of arithmetical notation.

Does Anachronism actually mean a belief that something or someone are not in their/its correct historical or chronological time, or just that it is something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time.

Does Asterism actually mean a belief that there are three asterisks printed to draw attention to a passage it precedes, or just that it is three asterisks printed to draw attention to a passage it precedes.

 

[S.A.M.]

Do you have a problem reading!
I said,
"we do have a similar mind set, but we don't follow any doctrine, or beliefs, we are atheists, not a group of people who go to a church to follow atheism, It is the natural state of being, it is just a word to describe us, as you would a herd of cattle a flock of sheep etc... Atheism is not something you are. it's a word coined to mean the opposite to theism, it's that simple. the fact it ends in an ism, is irrelevant, it is just to show it as the yang, to theisms ying."

Seems contradictory to me. You have a similar mindset but you're not a group?

Maybe when atheism does something other than rejecting the claims of theists I'll believe in the assertions they make about definitions.

Right now, thats not happening.

atheism = belief that there is no God.

hehe natural state of being? like the atheist sheep I suppose, though none of them have had anything to say to me.

As for the church, ever meet the humanist chaplain of the Harvard church for atheists and agnostics?

And thats not the only one

Rejecting God is apparently a lifestyle

 

[Varda]

Seems contradictory to me. You have a similar mindset but you're not a group?

Maybe when atheism does something other than rejecting the claims of theists I'll believe in the assertions they make about definitions.

Right now, thats not happening.

what about the Médecins Sans Frontières?

 

[S.A.M.]

what about the Médecins Sans Frontières?

What about them?

As early as 4000 BC religions identified certain of their deities with healing. The temples of Saturn, and later of Asclepius in Asia Minor, were recognized as healing centres. Brahmanic hospitals were established in Sri Lanka as early as 431 BC, and King Asoka established a chain of hospitals in Hindustan about 230 BC. Around 100 BC the Romans established hospitals (valetudinaria) for the treatment of their sick and injured soldiers; their care was important because it was upon the integrity of the legions that the power of Rome was based.

It can be said, however, that the modern concept of a hospital dates from AD 331 when Constantine , having been converted to Christianity , abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to his fellow man, upon whom rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church.

Religion continued to be the dominant influence in the establishment of hospitals during the Middle Ages . The growth of hospitals accelerated during the Crusades , which began at the end of the 11th century. Pestilence and disease were more potent enemies than the Saracens in defeating the crusaders. Military hospitals came into being along the traveled routes; the Knights Hospitalers of the Order of St. John in 1099 established in the Holy Land a hospital that could care for some 2,000 patients. It is said to have been especially concerned with eye disease, and may have been the first of the specialized hospitals. This order has survived through the centuries as the St. John's Ambulance Corps.

Throughout the Middle Ages, but notably in the 12th century, the number of hospitals grew rapidly in Europe. The Arabs established hospitals in Baghdad and Damascus and in Córdoba in Spain. Arab hospitals were notable for the fact that they admitted patients regardless of religious belief, race, or social order. The Hospital of the Holy Ghost, founded in 1145 at Montpellier in France, established a high reputation and later became one of the most important centres in Europe for the training of doctors. By far the greater number of hospitals established during the Middle Ages, however, were monastic institutions under the Benedictines, who are credited with having founded more than 2,000.

 

[Myles]

Seems contradictory to me. You have a similar mindset but you're not a group?

Maybe when atheism does something other than rejecting the claims of theists I'll believe in the assertions they make about definitions.

Right now, thats not happening.

atheism = belief that there is no God.

hehe natural state of being? like the atheist sheep I suppose, though none of them have had anything to say to me.

As for the church, ever meet the humanist chaplain of the Harvard church for atheists and agnostics?

And thats not the only one

Rejecting God is apparently a lifestyle

I see no contradiction. I would define a group as a number of people wha ASSOCIATE together for a common purpose. Atheists belong to no such groups.

Further, rejecting God means no more than a refusal to believe what cannot be supported by evidence. It has nothing to do with lifestle.

 

[S.A.M.]

I see no contradiction. I would define a group as a number of people wha ASSOCIATE together for a common purpose. Atheists belong to no such groups.

So what are you doing here posting in this forum?

 

[Bells]

Seems contradictory to me. You have a similar mindset but you're not a group?

Maybe when atheism does something other than rejecting the claims of theists I'll believe in the assertions they make about definitions.

Right now, thats not happening.

atheism = belief that there is no God.

hehe natural state of being? like the atheist sheep I suppose, though none of them have had anything to say to me.

As for the church, ever meet the humanist chaplain of the Harvard church for atheists and agnostics?

And thats not the only one

Rejecting God is apparently a lifestyle

How can an atheist reject God if the atheist does not believe in God in the first place? How exactly do you reject something you don't even think exists?

And yes, natural state of being. You are not born believing in God. You are taught to, told stories about God, taken to Church, Temple, Mosque, etc.. You are born an atheist, because you know nothing about belief or deities.

 

[(Q)]

atheism = belief that there is no God.

Sometimes I wickedly provoke them to see how stubbornly they are willing to cling to clearly meaningless details.

That's the intellectual dishonesty shining through from you.

Rejecting God is apparently a lifestyle

Rejecting the claims of theists isn't a lifestyle, it's a huge nuisance. Theists should simply get an education and we can all avoid the nuisance.

 

[Varda]

What about them?

it's an example of charity among many in which atheists massively partipate. The thing is, they are not in this because they are atheists or because they feel the need to shout to the world that atheism is the motivation for the work that they do, the way theists do.... they do it simply because it needs doing

 

[S.A.M.]

it's an example of charity among many in which atheists massively partipate. The thing is, they are not in this because they are atheists or because they feel the need to shout to the world that atheism is the motivation for the work that they do, the way theists do.... they do it simply because it needs doing

About time they participated don't you think? Although I don't think atheists "massively" participate in it. They hire doctors from over 80 countries and do not disclose religious affiliations.

 

[Varda]

anyway.... what is being discussed here?

sam, aren't these your premisses for this thread?

- atheists have no basis for morality
- social organization depends on religion
- atheists don't organize themselves to help those in need

haven't we offered enough arguments to rule these affirmations out?