By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 19 September 2010


Around the Network
richardhutnik on 19 September 2010

Looks like my message didn't click here.  I would say several things:

* Upon what basis does Dawkins have a basis to make a moral argument against anything, because his personal preferences, wrapped around by intellect, gives him the ability to show moral outrage?  Would he of also gone off against the ancient Greeks in regards to their practice of men and boys?  And would he of done it in their day?  To cry hypocrisy as the basis of your moral argument is to not bring anything of your own to the debate.

* In regards to Hitler being a Christian or not, I would ask people to look it up themselves, but also ask people in what way Aryianism is compatible with Christianity.

Please show how this is compatible with the Christian message:

http://aryanism.net/religion/christianity/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS_Vwzsd854

 

If that is not compatible with Christianity, then how can one say that Hitler was anything remotely resembling a disciple of Jesus?



sapphi_snake on 20 September 2010

@richardhutnik

An ethics system of an eternal being who created the universe would naturally be superior.

Faulty logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

If you were to get rid of all external religious systems, and purge them, would you end up with the forum not needing moderators to keep out troubled individuals?

No.



"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)

elvenearth on 20 September 2010

The traditional Christian claim is that God has imbued humans with a moral sense. If one were to take this claim as true then clearly each and every human - no matter their particular beliefs - would have the capacity for some sense of morality. Christian thought also claims that the very source of what we define as good - our sense of good - is what we call God (i.e. that which is ultimate and the source of all things). Otherwise - so the reasoning goes - how do we explain having the concept of good or that some things/acts/ideas are what we call good? If there is no source of good then claiming morality can seem arbitary.

It was this kind of reasoning that did lead some certain types of atheists (historically speaking) to claim that if "God is dead, then everything is permissible". Some of these atheists attempted to construct a new type of morality. One where individual morality was less important than the direction of society as a whole. The culmination of this type of atheistic thought (in the sense of a negative way) was found in Soviet Communism (particularly under Stalin) and such people as Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot. These particular atheists and the systems they represented saw the individual as unimportant. It was the dialectic or the societal construction that mattered. Individuals that threatened or challenged this system were to be cast aside. Often, large swathes of people who stood in the way of progress were to be cast aside as well. As many of you may be aware this thinking led to the deaths of many millions of people in the 20th century. It represents one particular strand of atheistic thought and had some terrible consequences.

Of course I don't want to suggest that this means that all atheism (or even most) leads to this type of behaviour or thinking. The Thomas Paine, Spinoza inspired strand of atheist morality is an enviable, cultured and entirely agreeable system of thought with the rights and responsibilities of individuals bound right up into the system. A lot of the very good secular systems of government we have today have been influenced by the writings of such prominent atheists, agnostics, deists and other free thinkers. It is true to say that atheistic or agnostic leaning ethicists today do believe in a form of relative morality. But this a relative morality formed by reason, consideration and cause and affect. It is formed by looking at the effects of certain actions and the type of result that this causes within societies or towards individuals.

There is more one could say of course. These are complicated issues. Hope these thoughts are useful at the least.



JLR

pizzahut451 on 20 September 2010
WessleWoggle said:
pizzahut451 said:
Reasonable said:
MrBubbles said:
im_sneaky said:
MrBubbles said:
dib8rman said:
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.


What? So your saying because he was Atheist and commited murder that Atheists have morals in line with mass murder or genocide?

Dude, Stalins morals were fine, if the Russians had won that is. I remember a bit of the cold war, I remember how much the Russians hated England and the US anything not Russian, the US hated the Russians almost as much.  This hate came from Nationalism, a conflict of values.

Here's a touch of history without any bias.

1. Stalin replaced Lenin and was much more brutal than Lenin.

2. Stalin wanted to keep USSR as one country and saw the Ukraine as a place of potential issues in that agenda.

3. Stalin Captured and or killed Scholars, Artists, Culturalists and Religous members (Around 6000 of them) The reason he did this was to null media and begin his propoganda machine. This had nothing to do with morals, this was about defence, his nationalistic pride. It's the equivilent of a burglar getting into your house and you using deadly force. Maybe this burglar had no intent of harming anything at all who knows. The morals of that situation isn't up for arguement, it's the same thing except USSR was the house and Stalin used deadly force on a new value system.

4. Stalin starved about 6 million people (I think, can't really remember) Then said you kill 1 man it's a tragedy but kill a million and it becomes statistic. Out of context that sounds immoral but in context morals have little to do with that.

Judging his actions from an arm chair just seems like a waste though, what he did was atrocious to the average person but to the people carrying it out, he did it for the betterment of the USSR the Russians carried this sentiment even to the 80's.

Now it's easy to point the finger at one guy but he had a whole population that agreed with what he was doing to the Ukraine, this is the source of the answer to "why" the answer is Nationalism. Not morals and definetly not Atheism.


my position is that there are not many atheists that can be held up as examples of good morals(even two that someone brought up appear to be only agnostics that atheists seem to be essentially hijacking).  So if people can only name "bad" atheists then people will assume that atheists arent moral.  With more prominent clearly upstanding atheists then people wouldnt generalize atheists as having no morals or being immoral.

the other person brought up high profile atheists who do not have a good morals.  i would probably argue that those individuals are amoral.  Someone mentioned that atheists actually have a better moral code, so i guess he believes those people are immoral and essentially evil(since they know right and wrong but are willfully choosing to act wrongly).  I couldnt tell you whether or not either feel it reflects poorly on atheists as a whole.

In my personal experience, most of the atheists ive known (and no im not saying all atheists are this way) tend to be bitter and hate god, rather than reaching the decision that god doesnt exist through a logical thought process.  It doesnt even seem a rational position to me.  I can understand an agnostic "god probably doesnt exist" point of view... but to be so absolutely positive about something unknowable...(even religious people can claim personal experience that affirms their belief,  but what situation would someone have to prove that He doesnt exist)

I hope this answers your question.

Interesting. What do you mean that most atheists hate God? It seems irrational for anyone to hate the source of all good in the universe. Did you actually mean that or were you trying to say something else?


Their belief that "god does not exist" isnt actually about god not existing.   (its not something they would admit to but it comes through in discussions).  Obviously they wouldnt feel that god is a source of all good.  Perhaps, for example, they have had a rough life and therefore feel abandoned by god...or perhaps a bad experience within their religious structure.  They developed an animosity towards their perception of god which results in "god doesnt exist" 

Err... I don't believe in God (being polite and putting capitals and all) becuase the evidence clearly shows that God - at least as defined in any of our current religions - doesn't exist.  No hate, no annimosity.  I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe the moon is made of cheese.

may i ask what is that evidence?


There's no omnipotent man with a beard that lives in the clouds? Except the great god El of course, who set me on the path to become the Buddha Maitreya.


ok, who the hell ever said that God lives in the clouds and has beard??? God's physical apperence (if he even has one) is nothing like in humans.



Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 20 September 2010

WTF??? Where the fuck did my post go???  I spent 20 minutes writing it, VGC 3 is the worst VGC version EVER



sapphi_snake on 20 September 2010
pizzahut451 said:

WTF??? Where the fuck did my post go???  I spent 20 minutes writing it, VGC 3 is the worst VGC version EVER

You should see how bad VG 11 offline is.



"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)

pizzahut451 on 20 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:

WTF??? Where the fuck did my post go???  I spent 20 minutes writing it, VGC 3 is the worst VGC version EVER

You should see how bad VG 11 offline is.


oh dear god, i just re-wrote my post and it went missing again !!!!!!!!



pizzahut451 on 20 September 2010

screw this, i'll just send him a message later



richardhutnik on 20 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:

@richardhutnik

An ethics system of an eternal being who created the universe would naturally be superior.

Faulty logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

If you were to get rid of all external religious systems, and purge them, would you end up with the forum not needing moderators to keep out troubled individuals?

No.

If the authority is an expert in an area relevant to the subject at hand, you can then reference what the authority says.  In this case, the presumption here is that an eternal being, who has a monster set of knowledge, creates the universe.  This entity is said to know about the universe s/he created.  This entity then would be of said to explains the do's and don'ts regarding the universe at hand.  Thus, in this case, the entity would be superior with a set of ethics proposed than individuals in the system, who have an incomplete set of information.