Questions on atheist morality

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God. Anything else is just cosmetics.

Most Atheists I have come across (myself not included) don't identify with that statement so your definition doesn't do a good job of differentiation.

As a negative belief, it takes away from the individual rather than offering anything to the community.

It contributes a critical thought process to the society. How to distinguish between reality, illusion, delusion, and hallucination for example.

All religions have established societies and social orders, while atheists even today are consistently obsessed with personal rights, taxes and responsibilities.

Atheism isn't intended to do establish societies and social orders. Religion should not be establishing societies consequently.

They do not, as athiests, have anything to offer in terms of ethics or social order to the community. But they play a valuable role as whingers, though one can have too much of a good thing.

They offer quick identification of when a religion is overstepping its bounds . Again, atheism isn't meant to do any of those things you listed.

For any person to travel anywhere in the world and meet a Christian, a Muslim or a Parsi, is to meet the member of a group. To meet an atheist, is to meet an unknown.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the unknown consists of many secular humanists.

 

[S.A.M.]

Most Atheists I have come across (myself not included) don't identify with that statement so your definition doesn't do a good job of differentiation.

Its the dictionary definition.

It contributes a critical thought process to the society. How to distinguish between reality, illusion, delusion, and hallucination for example.

Thats science, which is related to repeated measurable empirical observations, and is clearly defined as a method, not a belief. Atheism is not science, being an atheist does not preclude other ideological beliefs or shortcomings.

Atheism isn't intended to do establish societies and social orders. Religion should not be establishing societies consequently.

Yeah, nor should religion be establishing hospitals and educational institutions. But as a theist based system of social order, it has.

They offer quick identification of when a religion is overstepping its bounds . Again, atheism isn't meant to do any of those things you listed.

Atheism in my opinion is meant to do nothing.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the unknown consists of many secular humanists.

I have a sneakier suspicion that many of these "secular humanists" are self defined.

 

[iceaura]

Compared to the death tolls in officially atheist societies, I would say that without religion, we would be facing extinction instead of overpopulation.

The peacetime excessive death toll in India over the past half century, as estimated by that Indian economist who won a Nobel for the research couple years ago, has been and is higher than China's.

I have a sneakier suspicion that many of these "secular humanists" are self defined.

How else ?

Thats science, which is related to repeated measurable empirical observations, and is clearly defined as a method, not a belief.

The method involves deliberate rejection of the supernatural as explanation, and subjection of hypotheses to experiment and reason.

All explanations answerable to reason and circumstance, no deities. The gift of atheistic thought to the community. And theistic religions have been fighting it since its inception - loss of control and authority.

 

[SnakeLord]

Its the dictionary definition.

Actually most reflect both the strong and weak positions:

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

However, if you have a better word for those that lack a belief in gods then please state it. No, 'agnostic' does not fit.

Regards,

 

[Imperfectionist]

being an atheist does not preclude other ideological beliefs or shortcomings

I will have to remember this when you bring up communism or dictatorships for the 5th time.

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually most reflect both the strong and weak positions:

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

However, if you have a better word for those that lack a belief in gods then please state it. No, 'agnostic' does not fit.

Regards,

Try this for size:

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

All explanations answerable to reason and circumstance, no deities. The gift of atheistic thought to the community. And theistic religions have been fighting it since its inception - loss of control and authority.

I hope you realise you are kidding, right? Without theists there would be no science.

 

[Imperfectionist]

Without theism, science would be much farther progressed by now.

 

[Varda]

I hope you realise you are kidding, right? Without theists there would be no science.

hahah
religious people started it (church, wealth, sponsorship, duh), but that doesnt mean it couldnt have happen without religion

 

[Varda]

Without theism, science would be much farther progressed by now.

it's religious moral that's putting steam cell research through so many difficulties after all

 

[S.A.M.]

hahah
religious people started it (church, wealth, sponsorship, duh), but that doesnt mean it couldnt have happen without religion

Yeah right, we could have waited for the athiests to finally get together for reasons other than attacking theists, yowzah!

Has it happened yet?

 

[Varda]

Yeah right, we could have waited for the athiests to finally get together for reasons other than attacking theists, yowzah!

Has it happened yet?

attack, you say?

 

[S.A.M.]

it's religious moral that's putting steam cell research through so many difficulties after all

They found another way around it rather than harvesting embryos did they not?

The church was also responsible for opposing the sterilisation of the "genetically inferior" in the 1930s.

Not always a bad thing to inject some humanity into science. Keeps things like a Nobel Prize for lobotomy in perspective.

 

[Varda]

They found another way around it rather than harvesting embryos did they not?

there's always a way
meanwhile we could be saving lives

The church was also responsible for opposing the sterilisation of the "genetically inferior" in the 1930s.

that's a good thing?
it' not like many of them are gettng laid anyway

Not always a bad thing to inject some humanity into science. Keeps things like a Nobel Prize for lobotomy in perspective.

...meanwhile we could be saving lives

 

[S.A.M.]

there's always a way
meanwhile we could be saving lives

that's a good thing?
it' not like many of them are gettng laid anyway

...meanwhile we could be saving lives

Saving lives sure, but we could save lives by harvesting organs from unproductive members of society too. One hobo could save a lot of lives.

 

[Varda]

Saving lives sure, but we could save lives by harvesting organs from unproductive members of society too. One hobo could save a lot of lives.

some of them are willing to sell these organs for crack!

 

[S.A.M.]

some of them are willing to sell these organs for crack!

The way I see it, everyone has a right to their opinions. People who think a week old embryo is not alive should ask a week old pregnant woman if she'd donate her kid to save lives. Or get pregnant themselves to provide the "raw material".

 

[Varda]

The way I see it, everyone has a right to their opinions. People who think a week old embryo is not alive should ask a week old pregnant woman if she'd donate her kid to save lives. Or get pregnant themselves to provide the "raw material".

you dont think that women would be willing to get pregnant to provide the raw material? week old embryos?

your dad is a terminal patient and you are given the option of generating an embrio and then saving your dad?

sign me up

 

[SnakeLord]

Try this for size

The site pasted is questionable for various reasons: a complete lack of understanding of 'agnostic' for starters and an argument that centers entirely on personal abuse as opposed to anything of any real substance. It claims no "reputable" dictionary labels atheism in such terms but then quotes such dictionaries labelling atheists in such terms -and seems to have to use almost ancient versions of these reputable dictionaries. Why do you think he chose the 1913 version of Webster? I use a 2006 dictionary and he uses a 1913 dictionary lol..

Frankly I personally don't care. Someone can label me any way they see fit - but the link author uses methods that in any debate would lead to serious question.

- outdated sources

- 4 pages of abuse to get his point across

- dishonesty, ([pp]"these people change the term atheist to make it look like there's loads of them")

Once again though, I am willing to be labelled a different word if you think it will save you some confusion. Would someone calling himself an atheist that believes gods don't exist cause more debate or insult vs someone that doesn't have belief in their existence?

When you come up with a word let me know.

 

[S.A.M.]

The site pasted is questionable for various reasons: a complete lack of understanding of 'agnostic' for starters and an argument that centers entirely on personal abuse as opposed to anything of any real substance. It claims no "reputable" dictionary labels atheism in such terms but then quotes such dictionaries labelling atheists in such terms -and seems to have to use almost ancient versions of these reputable dictionaries. Why do you think he chose the 1913 version of Webster? I use a 2006 dictionary and he uses a 1913 dictionary lol..

Frankly I personally don't care. Someone can label me any way they see fit - but the link author uses methods that in any debate would lead to serious question.

- outdated sources

- 4 pages of abuse to get his point across

- dishonesty, ([pp]"these people change the term atheist to make it look like there's loads of them")

Once again though, I am willing to be labelled a different word if you think it will save you some confusion. Would someone calling himself an atheist that believes gods don't exist cause more debate or insult vs someone that doesn't have belief in their existence?

When you come up with a word let me know.

As far as I know, atheism from atheos means godless. "ism" is belief. The rest is as the site says, just so much BS.

 

[iceaura]

I hope you realise you are kidding, right? Without theists there would be no science.

And maybe no hydrogen bomb.

No, the point was that the atheistic approach was the key contribution, and is still a defining feature. Theists can do science, but they make the atheistic assumption when they do it. And that assumption was hard won - it had to be fought for. The ruling theists didn't like it at all. They killed people to curb it.

The way I see it, everyone has a right to their opinions.

The ones that answer to reason are better recommended to others, though.

Right?