| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 May 2005 09:28:43 PM |
| Object: |
No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is non
existant. Me being a fictional atheist tried to explain to them life is
just a complex chemical reaction, a complex form of combustion if you
will. Since there is no God there is also no source of objective or
universal morals. Morals are therefore subjective. We our selves
determine what is right and wrong. Since there is(are) no God(s) nor
objective morals whereby mankind is judged, there are no eternal
consequences. No heaven or hell (listen to the John Lennons' "Imagine"
for their version of an Atheist Utopia). Since life is now just a
chemical reaction (combustion), and there are no consequences for your
actions, the taking of a life has no more moral gravity than does
blowing out a match. There is no difference between killing six million
Jews with gas and killing six million germs with anti-biotics. Hitler
is no worse off now than Mother Teresa and people have no right to
judge them since they simply followed their own subjective moralities.
Since there are no objective standards by which those moralities can be
judged, they are deemed equally valid. Our own sense of morality may
not like another's morality, but since we are not God(s), who are we to
judge or impose our morals on others? This is the reasoning pro
abortion people use when they say that anti abortion people should not
impose their morals on society. The same could be said to those who
wanted slavery abolished as well. Both are subjective moralities.
Without objective morals, how can anyone say whether slavery is
objectively right or wrong? By ":objective morals", I do not wish to
imply that there is a universally recognized set of morals or that any
particular set can be shown to be objective. The important thing
regarding objective morals, is that those holding them consider them
God(s)'s will which he or she can not violate or change. They feel that
there is a set of things that are universally right and universally
wrong and that they cannot be changed to fit our mood or current
situation. Situational ethics is anathema to devout believers but can
be fully embraced by the Atheist.
This brings me to my next point. Since Atheists believe that morals are
subjective, it is impossible us to pass moral judgments. our philosophy
says that no one, have a right to say anything is right or wrong.
Murder, theft, child abuse, rape, etc... are all fine. There are no
eternal consequences so, "if it feels good, do it!". An Atheist may
agree that society functions best when we all subject ourselves to a
set of agreed to laws as a form of public morality, but they have no
philosophical problem with those who break those laws when it suits
their purposes if they can escape detection and punishment. They may
dislike the consequences that these actions done by others cause, but
they cannot condemn those individuals since they were acting on their
own subjective morality like we all do. There are undoubtedly millions
of Atheists that are fine law abiding citizens, but their morality is
subjective and self imposed and not derived from Atheism itself.
Klag
.
|
|
| User: "Claytons Gone Fishing With Fredo Corleone" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 02:16:18 AM |
|
|
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip *****>
Another ignorant fucking troll who thinks demonstrating his retardation
counts as humour.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
11 May 2005 10:33:49 PM |
|
|
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Since Atheists believe that morals are
subjective, it is impossible us to pass moral judgments. our philosophy
says that no one, have a right to say anything is right or wrong.
Murder, theft, child abuse, rape, etc... are all fine. There are no
eternal consequences so, "if it feels good, do it!".
It's disturbing to me that so many religionists believe this. If they
believe their own morality is subject to their adherence to a religion, what
will happen if they have a crisis of faith, which they often do?
Fortunately, morality is innate in humans, so even if they do have a faith
crisis, most of them will likely continue with pretty much the same morals
as before, at least with regard to the important things like murder, rape,
theft, etc. This is because even when people don't believe in eternal
consequences, they still believe in consequences in the here and now: they
have to live with themselves and with their decisions and actions.
For most atheists, eternity IS now. There is no afterlife, so all that we
have is now, this life, this is the one chance we get. If I murder someone,
I have to live with that for the rest of my life, which for me IS eternity.
I don't need to imagine that my morality is imposed from without, I don't
need to imagine the spectre of externally imposed eternal punishment to make
me behave morally.
Religionists don't need this either, they just don't know that they don't
need it. Their imagining of external eternal punishment is just a mechanism
to help themselves remember to impose their own innate morality upon
themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 01:02:03 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:x8Age.1028$sb5.51@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
It's disturbing to me that so many religionists believe this. If they
believe their own morality is subject to their adherence to a religion,
what
will happen if they have a crisis of faith, which they often do?
Fortunately, morality is innate in humans, so even if they do have a faith
crisis, most of them will likely continue with pretty much the same morals
as before, at least with regard to the important things like murder, rape,
theft, etc. This is because even when people don't believe in eternal
consequences, they still believe in consequences in the here and now: they
have to live with themselves and with their decisions and actions.
For most atheists, eternity IS now. There is no afterlife, so all that we
have is now, this life, this is the one chance we get. If I murder
someone,
I have to live with that for the rest of my life, which for me IS
eternity.
I don't need to imagine that my morality is imposed from without, I don't
need to imagine the spectre of externally imposed eternal punishment to
make
me behave morally.
Religionists don't need this either, they just don't know that they don't
need it. Their imagining of external eternal punishment is just a
mechanism
to help themselves remember to impose their own innate morality upon
themselves.
==========================
This is one of the most sensible posts I've read on the subject in a long,
long time. :-)
--
CR.....
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DE" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 02:45:59 AM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Since Atheists believe that morals are
subjective, it is impossible us to pass moral judgments. our philosophy
says that no one, have a right to say anything is right or wrong.
Murder, theft, child abuse, rape, etc... are all fine. There are no
eternal consequences so, "if it feels good, do it!".
It's disturbing to me that so many religionists believe this. If they
believe their own morality is subject to their adherence to a religion, what
will happen if they have a crisis of faith, which they often do?
Fortunately, morality is innate in humans, so even if they do have a faith
crisis, most of them will likely continue with pretty much the same morals
as before, at least with regard to the important things like murder, rape,
theft, etc. This is because even when people don't believe in eternal
consequences, they still believe in consequences in the here and now: they
have to live with themselves and with their decisions and actions.
For most atheists, eternity IS now. There is no afterlife, so all that we
have is now, this life, this is the one chance we get. If I murder someone,
I have to live with that for the rest of my life, which for me IS eternity.
I don't need to imagine that my morality is imposed from without, I don't
need to imagine the spectre of externally imposed eternal punishment to make
me behave morally.
Religionists don't need this either, they just don't know that they don't
need it. Their imagining of external eternal punishment is just a mechanism
to help themselves remember to impose their own innate morality upon
themselves.
Dale,
It appears that you might actually have a brain and an ability to think.
Please use that ability, and some consideration for others, to snip
the cross-posts to inappropriate groups (afn and rec.ponds, at least)
if you must reply to Jabriol, whose sole purpose is to cause
disruption in inappropriate groups.
Thanks.
FU's set.
-- DE
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gantz" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
19 May 2005 12:33:58 PM |
|
|
DE wrote:
Dale,
It appears that you might actually have a brain and an ability to
think.
Please use that ability, and some consideration for others, to snip
the cross-posts to inappropriate groups (afn and rec.ponds, at least)
if you must reply to Jabriol, whose sole purpose is to cause
disruption in inappropriate groups.
Jabriol? Where? Not on this thread.
Thanks.
FU's set.
-- DE
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
11 May 2005 09:54:54 PM |
|
|
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
There are undoubtedly millions
of Atheists that are fine law abiding citizens, but their morality is
subjective and self imposed and not derived from Atheism itself.
If this is true of atheism, then the same is true of theism. God-belief
alone does not entail belief in any particular moral code. Your choice of a
particular subset of a particular religion is an expression of your innate
morality as a human being, it's not the other way around. To put it another
way, religion is a codification of morality which already exists, and then
people choose a codification which suits them. You can't escape subjectivity
merely by positing the existence of God.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 04:07:00 AM |
|
|
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is non
existant. Me being a fictional atheist tried to explain to them life is
just a complex chemical reaction, a complex form of combustion if you
will. Since there is no God there is also no source of objective or
universal morals. Morals are therefore subjective. We our selves
determine what is right and wrong. Since there is(are) no God(s) nor
objective morals whereby mankind is judged, there are no eternal
consequences. No heaven or hell (listen to the John Lennons' "Imagine"
for their version of an Atheist Utopia). Since life is now just a
chemical reaction (combustion), and there are no consequences for your
actions, the taking of a life has no more moral gravity than does
blowing out a match. There is no difference between killing six million
Jews with gas and killing six million germs with anti-biotics. Hitler
is no worse off now than Mother Teresa and people have no right to
judge them since they simply followed their own subjective moralities.
Since there are no objective standards by which those moralities can be
judged, they are deemed equally valid. Our own sense of morality may
not like another's morality, but since we are not God(s), who are we to
judge or impose our morals on others? This is the reasoning pro
abortion people use when they say that anti abortion people should not
impose their morals on society. The same could be said to those who
wanted slavery abolished as well. Both are subjective moralities.
Without objective morals, how can anyone say whether slavery is
objectively right or wrong? By ":objective morals", I do not wish to
imply that there is a universally recognized set of morals or that any
particular set can be shown to be objective. The important thing
regarding objective morals, is that those holding them consider them
God(s)'s will which he or she can not violate or change. They feel that
there is a set of things that are universally right and universally
wrong and that they cannot be changed to fit our mood or current
situation. Situational ethics is anathema to devout believers but can
be fully embraced by the Atheist.
This brings me to my next point. Since Atheists believe that morals are
subjective, it is impossible us to pass moral judgments. our philosophy
says that no one, have a right to say anything is right or wrong.
Murder, theft, child abuse, rape, etc... are all fine. There are no
eternal consequences so, "if it feels good, do it!". An Atheist may
agree that society functions best when we all subject ourselves to a
set of agreed to laws as a form of public morality, but they have no
philosophical problem with those who break those laws when it suits
their purposes if they can escape detection and punishment. They may
dislike the consequences that these actions done by others cause, but
they cannot condemn those individuals since they were acting on their
own subjective morality like we all do. There are undoubtedly millions
of Atheists that are fine law abiding citizens, but their morality is
subjective and self imposed and not derived from Atheism itself.
Klag
Just because you can pretend to be an atheist doesn't mean you understand
atheism. Try actually being one. Then you will have to work on those issues
to avoid the moral depravity which you seem so obsessed with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 04:12:21 PM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:U0Fge.5448$r7.3320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is non
Klag
Just because you can pretend to be an atheist doesn't mean you understand
atheism. Try actually being one. Then you will have to work on those
issues
to avoid the moral depravity which you seem so obsessed with.
===========================
iksgorkon@gmail.com is none other than JABRIOL from ARJ-W, a Jehovah's
Witness and CREATIONIST! He changed his name to bypass everyone's killfile.
Please remove rec.ponds and AFNs as we are not interested in JABRIOL'S
evolution/creation BS posts!
Thanks a lot! ;-)
CR...........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
15 May 2005 11:06:14 PM |
|
|
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:4283c0d1$0$24280$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:U0Fge.5448$r7.3320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is non
Klag
Just because you can pretend to be an atheist doesn't mean you understand
atheism. Try actually being one. Then you will have to work on those
issues
to avoid the moral depravity which you seem so obsessed with.
===========================
iksgorkon@gmail.com is none other than JABRIOL from ARJ-W, a Jehovah's
Witness and CREATIONIST! He changed his name to bypass everyone's
killfile.
Please remove rec.ponds and AFNs as we are not interested in JABRIOL'S
evolution/creation BS posts!
Thanks a lot! ;-)
CR...........
SHUT UP!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
11 May 2005 11:23:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group,
<snip>
Not that you're interested in the answer, Jabriol, but you've got
atheism confused with cultural relativism.
--
James B, defeating birth control since 2000
aa #944
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 07:06:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is non
existant.
You seem to be an idiot.
Stop huffing paint thinner.
Me being a fictional atheist tried to explain to them life is
just a complex chemical reaction, a complex form of combustion if you
will. Since there is no God there is also no source of objective or
universal morals. Morals are therefore subjective. We our selves
determine what is right and wrong. Since there is(are) no God(s) nor
objective morals whereby mankind is judged, there are no eternal
consequences. No heaven or hell (listen to the John Lennons' "Imagine"
for their version of an Atheist Utopia). Since life is now just a
chemical reaction (combustion), and there are no consequences for your
actions, the taking of a life has no more moral gravity than does
blowing out a match. There is no difference between killing six million
Jews with gas and killing six million germs with anti-biotics. Hitler
is no worse off now than Mother Teresa and people have no right to
judge them since they simply followed their own subjective moralities.
Since there are no objective standards by which those moralities can be
judged, they are deemed equally valid. Our own sense of morality may
not like another's morality, but since we are not God(s), who are we to
judge or impose our morals on others? This is the reasoning pro
abortion people use when they say that anti abortion people should not
impose their morals on society. The same could be said to those who
wanted slavery abolished as well. Both are subjective moralities.
Without objective morals, how can anyone say whether slavery is
objectively right or wrong? By ":objective morals", I do not wish to
imply that there is a universally recognized set of morals or that any
particular set can be shown to be objective. The important thing
regarding objective morals, is that those holding them consider them
God(s)'s will which he or she can not violate or change. They feel that
there is a set of things that are universally right and universally
wrong and that they cannot be changed to fit our mood or current
situation. Situational ethics is anathema to devout believers but can
be fully embraced by the Atheist.
This brings me to my next point. Since Atheists believe that morals are
subjective, it is impossible us to pass moral judgments. our philosophy
says that no one, have a right to say anything is right or wrong.
Murder, theft, child abuse, rape, etc... are all fine. There are no
eternal consequences so, "if it feels good, do it!". An Atheist may
agree that society functions best when we all subject ourselves to a
set of agreed to laws as a form of public morality, but they have no
philosophical problem with those who break those laws when it suits
their purposes if they can escape detection and punishment. They may
dislike the consequences that these actions done by others cause, but
they cannot condemn those individuals since they were acting on their
own subjective morality like we all do. There are undoubtedly millions
of Atheists that are fine law abiding citizens, but their morality is
subjective and self imposed and not derived from Atheism itself.
Klag
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 04:02:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote:
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is non
existant. Me being a fictional atheist tried to explain to them life is
just a complex chemical reaction, a complex form of combustion if you
will. Since there is no God there is also no source of objective or
universal morals. Morals are therefore subjective. We our selves
determine what is right and wrong.
That right there should give you a clue, lambchop.
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Simon Gardner" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 03:03:16 AM |
|
|
In article <1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
iksgorkon@gmail.com wrote:
I happen to be part of a thread
Then learn some fucking grammar. "Moral's" - sheesh.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 02:01:22 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1115864923.073565.234310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, iksgorkon
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Me being a fictional atheist
But not being very good at it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorhed" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 04:21:49 AM |
|
|
In the great debate about "No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins
think there is." in alt.atheism, Jabriol < iksgorkon@gmail.com>
catapaulted the following boulder:
<snip confession of trolldom followed by a great screed of trollery>
So, you're a nasty piece of work, and you still have the Microsoft
account.
Jabbertroll, please try to comprehend what is meant by the term 'news
group' and tell us something we don't know already.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 08:26:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:21:49 +0100, Sorhed <Sorhed@fordor.gov> wrote:
In the great debate about "No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins
think there is." in alt.atheism, Jabriol < iksgorkon@gmail.com>
catapaulted the following boulder:
<snip confession of trolldom followed by a great screed of trollery>
So, you're a nasty piece of work, and you still have the Microsoft
account.
Jabbertroll, please try to comprehend what is meant by the term 'news
group' and tell us something we don't know already.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
*****. I replied to it - and it was Jabriol?
That explains the combination of stupidity and sheer nastiness.
Time to <plonk> his latest nym.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 01:20:01 PM |
|
|
It has been said you are Jabriol and that would be sufficient reason to
discard your post. Nevertheless, I feel need to addres it.
I did exlude the NG's that didn't include the word atheism though.
iksgor...@gmail.com schreef:
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is
non
existant.
Of course not!
If I remember correctly Talk.Origin is about evolution, and therefor
the inhabitants og that group will assume morality had evolved.
They will not suppose it is individual, but that it is passed on to the
next generation, just like other characteristics of man.
Me being a fictional atheist tried to explain to them life is
just a complex chemical reaction
You tried to explain to them that there is no evolution in life?
They surely won't believe you!
Since there is no God there is also no source of objective or
universal morals.
Morals are therefore subjective.
Totally wrong at Talk.Origins!
Only survival of the fittest is the source of morals.
Those moral survive that enhance survival
There is nothing subjecive about that.
Since there is(are) no God(s) nor
objective morals whereby mankind is judged, there are no eternal
consequences.
Anoter mistake
Becoming extinct is an eternal consequence.
There is no difference between killing six million
Jews with gas and killing six million germs with anti-biotics.
Sorry there is
Killing three time that number will not make the germ extinct,
it might however make the Jews become extinct.
This is in fact what Hitler tried to accomplish.
Hitler
is no worse off now than Mother Teresa and people have no right to
judge them since they simply followed their own subjective
moralities.
Why would people not have the right to impose their "subjective"
morals?
espacially whereas about 99,9% of the people would agree with me,
that Hitler should have received the heaviest penalty,
whereas about nobody would have wanted to punish mother Teresa?
And why would a single God have that right?
There are undoubtedly millions
of Atheists that are fine law abiding citizens, but their morality is
subjective and self imposed and not derived from Atheism itself.
Klag
It is true you cannot derive morality from Atheism,
but you can derive Atheism from morality
It is simply immoral to present you subjective morality
as if it came from an allmighty enforcer, when it is not.
Our morality - as explained above - is a result of evolution.
It may evolve further, as to produce better chances of survival.
Peter van Velzen
May 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands.
I believe the spiritual to be solely within the realm of the human
mind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 09:28:24 PM |
|
|
On 11 May 2005 19:28:43 -0700, thought hard and
wrote:
Since Atheists believe that morals are
subjective,
All of us?
Doing wrong is wrong, no matter what the person doing it
thinks.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Hall" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
11 May 2005 09:37:05 PM |
|
|
On 11 May 2005 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
I hap<SLAP>
[kookscreed flushed]
Jabriol sock, you are off topic.
--
No need to put up with a newsgroup full of incorrect information by
self-appointed know it alls, with unbearable arrogance. No need to fight
through virus and worm laden posts. No need to fight through personal
vendettas, and obscenity laden posts.
Bill Frank, cellular spankard, leaves alt.cellular.sprintpcs forever on Aug 4, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
12 May 2005 08:24:31 AM |
|
|
On 11 May 2005 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is non
existant.
What's a "true atheist"?
It's only non-existent in the imagination of bigoted theists. Or
trolls.
Morals are a social construct that varies from society to society,
culture to culture, etc.
Overlaid with the effect of our actions on others. We are a social
species. Those societies with certain behavious survive. Those with
others don't. We pass on that which makes the society survive, without
even realising it. A mixture of hereditary biological factors and the
rapidly evolving software that turns a rabble into a civilisation.
Me being a fictional atheist tried to explain to them life is
You being an ignorant troll.
just a complex chemical reaction, a complex form of combustion if you
will. Since there is no God there is also no source of objective or
Drooling nastiness that gets it bass-ackwards.
You morons can't grasp that you haven't yet demonstrated that "God" is
anything more than your pretend friend. Or that there is any
connection with morals.
You imagine that there is an objective morality (your religion's). But
that doesn't prevent you being sanctimonious hypocrites.
You're quick enough to impose it on others where it is inappropriate,
but ignore it yourselves when convenient.
Demonstrate the existence of your deity in the real world outside your
religion.
Demonstrate that it is a requirement for morals.
Until then you are just being stupid. As well as droolingly nasty by
telling ordinary decent people
universal morals. Morals are therefore subjective. We our selves
determine what is right and wrong.
You morons forget the part of being human that includes feeling for
others. Which in most of us is nurtured from birth.
But which all too often brainwashed religionists like you lose when
they replace previous morality, ethics etc with what their religion
tells them.
It was 2000 years of Christians treating Jews as Christ-killers
encouraged by their church fathers, that culminated in the holocaust.
Hint: it's not atheists who called them Christ-killers.
It is church doctrine that makes the Pope campaign against condoms
leading to millions of deaths from AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.
Since there is(are) no God(s) nor
objective morals whereby mankind is judged, there are no eternal
consequences.
If you morons need the threat of eternal punishment by an imaginary
superbeing then I hope you never lose that belief.
You can't grasp that you are telling ordinary decent people who know
just how fragile that belief is, that without it you would be eating
our relatives, raping our kids etc.
I hope you live a long way from me may my loved ones.
No heaven or hell (listen to the John Lennons' "Imagine"
for their version of an Atheist Utopia). Since life is now just a
chemical reaction (combustion), and there are no consequences for your
Idiot. There are consequences. For example one consequence of your
drooling stupidity is that you get treated like an idiot.
A consequence of you murdering your neighbour's family would be a
needle in the arm, strapped to a gurney.
Is that honestly the only thing stopping you?
actions, the taking of a life has no more moral gravity than does
blowing out a match. There is no difference between killing six million
Jews with gas and killing six million germs with anti-biotics. Hitler
Isn't there, projecting troll?
Would you honestly do this without the threat of punishment for all
eternity?
is no worse off now than Mother Teresa and people have no right to
Mother Theresa - who imposed the Vatican line on Bangladeshi rape
victims after their war of independence from Pakistan. After
volunteering to help out, she refused them what they needed causing
deaths from suicide and botched abortions. All because she imposed the
Vatican's absolute morality on them - and they weren't even Christian.
judge them since they simply followed their own subjective moralities.
They were CHRISTIANS following their own subjective moralities.
Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill"?
Sociopathic morons like you without any humanity forget the humanity
component of morals only focusing on the religious bits.
Since there are no objective standards by which those moralities can be
judged, they are deemed equally valid. Our own sense of morality may
not like another's morality, but since we are not God(s), who are we to
More of the same question-begging stupidity, moron.
judge or impose our morals on others? This is the reasoning pro
abortion people use when they say that anti abortion people should not
There are no "pro-abortion people", liar. The only people who want to
impose their version of morality are the dishonestly named "pro-life".
If you don't want an abortion don't have one.
But don't lie about those who have them.
Why do you liars pretend that there isn't a nine-month spectrum and
that it is only towards the end that the fetus has become viable BY
WHICH TIME THE ONLY ABORTIONS ARE FOR MEDICAL REASONS, and that
elective abortions happen long before that stage?
impose their morals on society. The same could be said to those who
wanted slavery abolished as well. Both are subjective moralities.
Are you honestly incapable of differentiating between a human being
and something with the potential to become one?
Please try to be less dishonest next time.
Without objective morals, how can anyone say whether slavery is
objectively right or wrong? By ":objective morals", I do not wish to
BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, WITH NATURAL BEHAVIOUR, FEELINGS ETC
TOWARDS OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
Something you don't have, otherwise you wouldn't even need to ask this
question which projects your own sociopathy on to the rest of us.
imply that there is a universally recognized set of morals or that any
particular set can be shown to be objective. The important thing
regarding objective morals, is that those holding them consider them
God(s)'s will which he or she can not violate or change. They feel that
Until you demonstrate its existence outside your deluded imagination
you are telling us you get them from a myth.
But then brainwashed god-bots like you have never been able to think
outside the box.
Which makes CHRISTIANS slaughter millions of Jews. Which makes
CHRISTIANS exacerbate the spread of AIDS because they campaign
against condoms. Which makes CHRISTIANS like you into droolingly
nasty, stupid, in-your-face jerks.
there is a set of things that are universally right and universally
wrong and that they cannot be changed to fit our mood or current
situation. Situational ethics is anathema to devout believers but can
be fully embraced by the Atheist.
It's not anathema to devout believers. Why do you imagine that US
prison system demographics show that atheists who form maybe 10% of
the general population, form less than a tenth of a percent of prison
population?
This brings me to my next point. Since Atheists believe that morals are
Strawman, liar.
They never thing about it unless droolingly nasty, stupid morons like
you attack them with nothing more than your own bigoted ignorance
about the real world, to back you up.
subjective, it is impossible us to pass moral judgments. our philosophy
Non sequitur, liar.
says that no one, have a right to say anything is right or wrong.
Non sequitur, liar.
Murder, theft, child abuse, rape, etc... are all fine. There are no
Perhaps they are to you, psychopath.
eternal consequences so, "if it feels good, do it!". An Atheist may
agree that society functions best when we all subject ourselves to a
set of agreed to laws as a form of public morality, but they have no
philosophical problem with those who break those laws when it suits
It's only sociopaths who need a philosophy to tell you how to behave
towards others.
A one-size-fits all rule which you apply inappropriately, all because
you have no empathy or consideration for anybody else.
Those who have don't need this rule. But you do because your religion
destroyed whatever consideration for others you might once have had.
their purposes if they can escape detection and punishment. They may
A Christian projecting their own need for detection and punishment to
keep them in line because their religion has destroyed in them the
actual reasons the rest of us don't do bad things.
dislike the consequences that these actions done by others cause, but
they cannot condemn those individuals since they were acting on their
own subjective morality like we all do. There are undoubtedly millions
Yet another droolingly nasty lie from the sociopath who cannot grasp
what it means to be a normal functioning human being.
So he projects what he would do without that threat, onto the rest of
us and nastily says we have no reason not to do those things
ourselves.
You need to be locked up for everybody's protection - including yours
- because you are too stupid to grasp that people react to what you do
to them.
You break into my house and you get hit over the head to knock you out
while I call the police.
You try to kill me and I fight back.
Neither are punishment but reaction.
And is this reaction all that stops you, psychopath?
It must be because you have no sense of humanity towards your fellow
man. After all, you've told us you need the treat of punishment to
keep you in line.
of Atheists that are fine law abiding citizens, but their morality is
subjective and self imposed and not derived from Atheism itself.
ONLY PARTLY SUBJECTIVE, lying moron.
Being a normal, functioning human being I find the idea of killing
somebody else unthinkable. However you need to be told not to do it.
Klag
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "Morals" Talk.Origins goonies; think That there is. |
12 May 2005 04:32:05 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 11 May 2005 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is
non
existant.
What's a "true atheist"?
I'm guessing it wouldn't be this guy.....a former Champion of
Atheism....
Quote:
NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading
champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind.
He now believes in God - more or less - based on scientific
evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew
has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have
created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation
for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a
telephone interview from England.
Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God
was not actively involved in people's lives.
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and
far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as
omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It
could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a
purpose, I suppose."
Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and
Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford
religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.
Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while
teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in
Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books,
articles, lectures and debates.
There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent
months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.
Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost
unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce
(life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the
new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"
The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author
Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in
Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist
Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John
Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.
The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September
issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately
difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic
theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.
The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God"
and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic
layman.
This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new
outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and
Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.
Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets
people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been
guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence,
wherever it leads."
Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate
student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the
atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew
accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.
Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about
atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to
Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big
deal."
Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity
with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a
guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian
evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.
A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.
Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could
constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to
wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all. Another
landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the
presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God
must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those
arguing that God exists.
So what do you think?
Klag
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "Morals" Talk.Origins goonies; think That thereis. |
13 May 2005 12:50:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 11 May 2005 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is
non
existant.
What's a "true atheist"?
I'm guessing it wouldn't be this guy.....a former Champion of
Atheism....
Antony who? Antony Flew! Antony who? Antony Flew!
90% of the atheists in here "deconverted" from Christianity. What's
your point?
--
James B, defeating birth control since 2000
aa #944
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reel McKoi" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing - please remove RP and AFN from thread |
13 May 2005 01:09:25 AM |
|
|
"James" <spamblock@com.com> wrote in message
news:1188g4fn99jiodf@corp.supernews.com...
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 11 May 2005 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
=========================
Can everyone please remove the NGs that are totally irrelevant to the topic
of atheism and creationism in your replies?
Please remove rec.ponds and alt.free.newsservers. Thanks. :-)
RM........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorhed" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: No such thing - please remove RP and AFN from thread |
13 May 2005 06:31:56 AM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: No such thing - please remove RP and
AFN from thread" in alt.atheism, "Reel McKoi"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> catapaulted the following boulder:
"James" <spamblock@com.com> wrote in message
news:1188g4fn99jiodf@corp.supernews.com...
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 11 May 2005 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
=========================
Can everyone please remove the NGs that are totally irrelevant to the topic
of atheism and creationism in your replies?
Please remove rec.ponds and alt.free.newsservers. Thanks. :-)
RM........
But Jabbertroll *is* pond life.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "Morals" Talk.Origins goonies; think That there is. |
13 May 2005 04:30:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1115933525.331413.195360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
iksgorkon@gmail.com says...
I'm guessing it wouldn't be this guy.....a former Champion of
Atheism....
Quote:
<snip quote>
So what do you think?
I think it's irrelevant. So what is some guy switched from atheism to
theism? It doesn't affect my atheistic views, especially since some of
the arguments he is putting forward are complete crap.
How do you theists feel when a once famous theist comes out and
deconverts?
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "Morals" Talk.Origins goonies; think That there is. |
15 May 2005 01:32:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 May 2005 07:30:55 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <1115933525.331413.195360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
iksgorkon@gmail.com says...
I'm guessing it wouldn't be this guy.....a former Champion of
Atheism....
Quote:
<snip quote>
So what do you think?
I think it's irrelevant. So what is some guy switched from atheism to
theism? It doesn't affect my atheistic views, especially since some of
the arguments he is putting forward are complete crap.
How do you theists feel when a once famous theist comes out and
deconverts?
He wasn't a <queue bagpipes> "A Proper Theist".
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "Morals" Talk.Origins goonies; think That there is. |
15 May 2005 04:43:16 PM |
|
|
In article <d75f81l33392e9n4gkac3ivfr5f6hei1dp@4ax.com>,
puck@pooks.hill.fey says...
He wasn't a <queue bagpipes> "A Proper Theist".
Get that sugar off ma porridge!!
;)
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch, YWN 321teerts@emases" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
13 May 2005 01:42:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:24:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 11 May 2005 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
I happen to be part of a thread in the Talk.Origin News group, I was
surprised that they had no concept that moral for a true atheist is non
existant.
What's a "true atheist"?
The true atheist is accompanied by a valet and a string quartet,
rather than the bagpipes accompanying the "true Christian."
Ein Prosit der GemŸtlichkeit --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
13 May 2005 04:26:14 PM |
|
|
In article <v3t981hhslrno82gfq51ase1mc1i00ldht@4ax.com>,
321teerts@emases says...
The true atheist is accompanied by a valet and a string quartet,
rather than the bagpipes accompanying the "true Christian."
Valet! Bring my golf cart around, I feel like 18 holes this morning!
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as "moral's" Talk.Origins think there is. |
15 May 2005 08:23:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 May 2005 07:26:14 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <v3t981hhslrno82gfq51ase1mc1i00ldht@4ax.com>,
321teerts@emases says...
The true atheist is accompanied by a valet and a string quartet,
rather than the bagpipes accompanying the "true Christian."
Valet! Bring my golf cart around, I feel like 18 holes this morning!
....And the wife says, "Speaking of 18 holes; When are you going to repair the
drive".
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
