By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Atheism and morality

pizzahut451 said:
Badassbab said:

Yes but atheism isn't a belief like religion. It's more a non belief. And like it's been pointed out those killed by Stalin etc wern't killed because of a religious belief and it had nothing to due with them being an atheist. If you want to play that game than I could list every single dictator, King, Queen, President etc throughout history who professed to a religious belief and put the number of deaths they were responsible for next to their name. It would be a VERY long list. Furthermore don't forget the relationship between the Catholic Church and Hitler and Mussolini. Hitlers religious belief is still up for debate.


Oh but they were. If not killed, then most likely set to prison or to working plan. And i said 1 000 000 times before, he killed for communisam which is also atheistic regime. It doesnt matter if its a religious belief or not. An atheist killed people for being religious to promote his atheistic regime..PERIOD Why you wanna twist that so badly?

Stalin was a paranoid monster who killed his own citizens in their millions. It could be down to religion, different opinions, political opponents, paranoia etc but not just religion. I'm certain Stalin killed many atheists too. It strikes me how you can't comprehend that Stalins atheism had nothing to do with him being responsible for 20 million deaths, he could have been an Orthodox Christian (a belief he was born into) and still killed millions. You haven't even proved Stalins athesim was responsible for 20 million dead. And yet you ask us to ignore the religious aspect of religious based wars. Pure hypocrisy. As mentioned before I could list any tyrant throughout history and put the number of deaths next to their name and the likelyhood is they would have professed to a religion even though the religion had nothing to do with whether they killed millions or not. Exactly the same concept with Stalin and athesim. Same goes with all the other tyrants you listed.



Around the Network
MrBubbles said:

the concept of the moon being made of cheese and the concept of god are not comparable ideas.


Belief in the face of evidence against your belief makes them very comparable.  Also, note I was very specific to note current religions.  There may be a creator, but it is evident that all the "Gods" we consider are merely creations of men, and their writings the work of men.  I will be polite, but, rather like Richard Dawkins I will not be overly polite in being clear that if you believe in God as defined by Christianity, or Judaism - or indeed any reliigion we know - you are wrong.

They are just one of many religions invented by our own imagination and desires and will almost certainly become dead religions over time just like the Greek Gods of yesteryear.

I understand people want belief - selling the idea you're going to wake up in a nice garden after you die vs saying we have no idea but probably your concious self is simply going to end is a lot easier after all - but I refuse to play any games vs the evidence nor see an imagined "God" as somehow requiring me to tiptoe around some people.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Homer_Simpson said:
MrBubbles said:

the concept of the moon being made of cheese and the concept of god are not comparable ideas.


our moon? sure, we know it isnt I think, other moons however? we have as much evidence that they arent made of cheese as we do that god or religion are factual (i.e None Whatsoever)

Actually, an understanding of physics, gravity and cheese (amongst other things) gives us plenty of understanding that cheese moons anywhere are likely to be very, very rare.  Certainly the Solar System plus the general composition of stellar bodies argues against it.

But, if you know of any cheese moon's or evidence as to their liklihood please feel free to post it.  Otherise, I'll go right on being pretty sure based on observed facts and knowledge that there almost certainly aren't any.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

MARCUSDJACKSON said:
sapphi_snake said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
sapphi_snake said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:

be fruitful and multiply(quote from the bible), so sex before marriage is not a sin.

Actually that quote is generally used against contraception. Sex for non-reproductive reasons is a sin (according to that quote).



i dissagree. iiii? a snake lol!

Yeah. I'm a Sssnake. I'm gonna tempt you. Don't have sssex before marriage!


should have told that to adam and eve lol? to late! snakes always tell you the wrong thing.

My bad reputation isss unfounded! I never told Adam and Eve they should have sssex before marriage. Thossse horndogsss were doing it anyway. I gave Adam and Sssteve the green light though .



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
sapphi_snake said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
sapphi_snake said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:

be fruitful and multiply(quote from the bible), so sex before marriage is not a sin.

Actually that quote is generally used against contraception. Sex for non-reproductive reasons is a sin (according to that quote).



i dissagree. iiii? a snake lol!

Yeah. I'm a Sssnake. I'm gonna tempt you. Don't have sssex before marriage!


should have told that to adam and eve lol? to late! snakes always tell you the wrong thing.

My bad reputation isss unfounded! I never told Adam and Eve they should have sssex before marriage. Thossse horndogsss were doing it anyway. I gave Adam and Sssteve the green light though .

funny funny snake.

i guse god should've told them then?



Around the Network
MrBubbles said:

the point didnt seem to be that stalin was killing people because he was atheist.  just that he was an atheist and did that.   which is the topic.  atheism and morality.   stalin being an atheist and showing a lack of morals is a perfectly fine argument for him to make.

I think that likely sums up atheism.  People do NOTHING because they are atheists, just they happen to be atheists who do things.  I would say that trying to find a pattern in people being atheists and their conduct, would be like trying to look at a cross-sampling of those who don't believe in Santa Claus or any other thing that lacks belief.  Because of this, one likely can't find any evidence an atheist is more moral than a theist.



Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
Kasz216 said:
pearljammer said:

I'm unsure how any of this talk about horrid people who had commited atrocious crimes, either being religious or atheist,  is relevent or even representative of either group of people.

It's ridiculous. Really, really ridiculous.


It's just general strawmanism to avoid the general research on hand.

What research I have not seen any research presented in the original post it was just a mans ideas that he based on what he had been hearing in the media lately.


http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf

For one.  There is a lot of research on it though.  That generally finds that the biggest indicator on if you are going to give to charity or not is if you practice religion.

The book, "Who Really Cares?" (I have it, but didn't get to read it much) is an interesting work.  To go off track here a bit, I find the premise of the book ends up taking the issues of helping the poor and takes the focus off those in need, on those who do the giving.  I think the focus needs to be on those in need personally.



Kantor said:

How many wars have been started in the name of atheism, again?

Name a single activity that has been done in the name of atheism.  I haven't seen any activities done in the name of something that is a lack of belief in anything.



sapphi_snake said:
richardhutnik said:

Good morals calls upon more than just the personal opinion of someone as to right and wrong.  So, the question is where an atheist gets morals and ethics from, besides themselves?  People who get off morally justify their own morals being off by their own rationalization.  I see it now with my father, who I had personally confronted with his use of language where he is going to kill people who don't do what he says... but he doesn't mean it.  I call him on it by saying he is either a psychopath (if he does it) or a liar (if he doesn't).  It doesn't resonate and he got worse with it.  His moral system justifies it because he apparently does things around the house, so he can talk like it.  His moral system doesn't have him see what he is doing is wrong in its own right.

So, answer me this, besides one's own set of reasoning, where do atheists get their morals from?  Atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of a belief in something.  Because it is a lack of belief, it doesn't lend to people being able to figure a positive on how to live.  It also doesn't lay out the shoulds in life, or give a moral imperative.

 A person can have good morals if he/she thinks critically and objectively and takes into consideration other people's interests other than his/her own. I assume you believe that people are so different that it's impossible for to come up with similar morals by themselves. Ration is a better basis for morals than blindly following someone else's morals even if they're attributed to a deity (regardless of wheteher the deity exists or not, one does not need to follow it).

The reality is this: A sound ethical system doesn't come out of a single person reasoning on something.  It comes from people coming together and reasoning out things, developing a concensus, and formulating opinions on things.  Even then, it isn't a guarantee of something being ideal, because there have been bad systems developed by groups to.  Eugenics and neoconservatism come out of moral imperatives argued from a certain set of ideals.  Key here is to look at the fruits hovering around belief systems, good and bad, to see if they affect change in any way and what kind of change.

I do believe that, people left to their own devices, without a common set of shared values, will produce interactions that are in conflict with one another.  People do get off track in life.  To say not is presumptive.  If you want evidence of this, I suggest you check the nature of forums like this and how people act on them.  If people happened to be all reasonable, good natured, and rational, then you wouldn't have people banned on forums on this.  Also, do you think that there isn't a need for moderators? 

In your case, do you presume it is all these vile and disgusting religious system that we just purged, we would no longer have a need for moderators on forums like this? 



Reasonable said:
Homer_Simpson said:
MrBubbles said:

the concept of the moon being made of cheese and the concept of god are not comparable ideas.


our moon? sure, we know it isnt I think, other moons however? we have as much evidence that they arent made of cheese as we do that god or religion are factual (i.e None Whatsoever)

Actually, an understanding of physics, gravity and cheese (amongst other things) gives us plenty of understanding that cheese moons anywhere are likely to be very, very rare.  Certainly the Solar System plus the general composition of stellar bodies argues against it.

But, if you know of any cheese moon's or evidence as to their liklihood please feel free to post it.  Otherise, I'll go right on being pretty sure based on observed facts and knowledge that there almost certainly aren't any.

I was making a joke...I know moons arent made of cheese, I was pointing out that believing that a moon is made of cheese is in a way, comparable to believing that god/religion are facts