You please tell me what motivation is there for a person who has adopted the non-theistic world view to have any morals at all?

As I see it, with no value assigned to consciousness, any person who adhere's to some sort of morality is the real hypocrite. You are then the one who falls for your emotions time and time again even though such a person believes them as nothing more than electro-chemical impulses.

'' why not eliminate the part of the equation that assumes an invisivle man in the sky brought down rules from the heavens? ''

We had an interesting discussion in class today. The topic was a the future of nuclear reactors (just hang in there for a minute)... Anyway, he's from Germany where the government has recently put a complete halt on the nuclear industry. Problem is ,the people making those decisions are incredibly short-sighted and simply following the whims of the social demands presented by the public. So he made the statement:

''Once people have made up their mind about a certain belief then it's nigh-on impossible to get them to even consider an alternative''

Clearly you fall into this category. Now this doesn't mean you are wrong, BUT it does mean that there is no point for you to go into these discussions (with this attitude) since neither you nor the other party will gain anything from them.

Not to mention that you haven't studied any philosophies beyond the (admittedly limited) presentation of theism presented in the Bible.

So if you want to go along and assume yourself so great that you can deny the beliefs that many adhere to (where many of these people are certainly more intelligent than you), even though you have a very limited understanding of modern science then what's your motivation for coming in here and acting so self-righteous?

Science itself is a disappointment if one is looking for a coherent explanation of the universe and life. It's quite simply not a proper explanation.

i'm going to give you more credit for this post then anyone else posting in this thread, but the only way to stop wars is for man kind to be programed.

i'm also glad you said temporary peace, and likely less wars. i hate to think no matter what: someone somewhere in the world would be left out nothing will ever be equal and this has nothing to do with religion.

You please tell me what motivation is there for a person who has adopted the non-theistic world view to have any morals at all?

As I see it, with no value assigned to consciousness, any person who adhere's to some sort of morality is the real hypocrite. You are then the one who falls for your emotions time and time again even though such a person believes them as nothing more than electro-chemical impulses.

'' why not eliminate the part of the equation that assumes an invisivle man in the sky brought down rules from the heavens? ''

We had an interesting discussion in class today. The topic was a the future of nuclear reactors (just hang in there for a minute)... Anyway, he's from Germany where the government has recently put a complete halt on the nuclear industry. Problem is ,the people making those decisions are incredibly short-sighted and simply following the whims of the social demands presented by the public. So he made the statement:

''Once people have made up their mind about a certain belief then it's nigh-on impossible to get them to even consider an alternative''

Clearly you fall into this category. Now this doesn't mean you are wrong, BUT it does mean that there is no point for you to go into these discussions (with this attitude) since neither you nor the other party will gain anything from them.

Not to mention that you haven't studied any philosophies beyond the (admittedly limited) presentation of theism presented in the Bible.

So if you want to go along and assume yourself so great that you can deny the beliefs that many adhere to (where many of these people are certainly more intelligent than you), even though you have a very limited understanding of modern science then what's your motivation for coming in here and acting so self-righteous?

Science itself is a disappointment if one is looking for a coherent explanation of the universe and life. It's quite simply not a proper explanation.

Strawman argument.

Your only argument is that atheism is equal to being an automaton. People follow the rules because of conscience and understanding. The world outside of religion is not some anarchic, senseless, blob. Everyone is human afterall. It's just that you think your conscience is an immortal bearded sky man whispering in your ear, and we think it's just human nature.

(I don't mean you as in you personally)

As an atheist, I do have value assigned to consciousness as I think life is rare and this is the only life I have, I need to make the most of it. Which is also another source of my morals, wanting to make the most out of life, and I know treating other people like shit will make me feel like shit, it's called empathy. The best way to live is to work together in my opinion, and this means treating others the way you want to be treated. 

Just because I don't believe in the supernatural and believe that my brain is solely causing my emotions doesn't mean I don't feel those emotions. Whether you like or not, I feel love, empathy, joy and awe just as much as you do. 

You're absolutely right, with what we know scientifically at the moment we can't give a full explanation of the universe and life (although we do know a lot about life). So shouldn't the conclusion we come to be we don't fully know, so let's keep looking for the answer with the best possible method we have, science? 


BTW I know this wasn't to me, but I thought I'd chime in.

You need to tell me where I'm attacking a straw man before you can throw terms like that around.

Otherwise you are the one making a straw man argument.

Very true.  Jealousy and misunderstanding and fear are what drive wars.  Religion now, and in the past has contributed to much of those three things, but even without religion, man's desire for control will always cause wars.  What we need is a great unifier, and the only thing that can do that now is space travel, but we haven't really done much as far as technological advancement with space travel since the moon missions.  We still can't put a man on Mars yet, and the moons of the gas giants are out of reach for us outside of little probes.  It won't be in our lifetime that mankind comes together.

You know what my problem is Rol, I'm bundling all areligious in one big melting pot and that's the wrong thing to do. I associate that group with the current trends I see in media and most modern maneurisms and social behaviors. It's the wrong thing to do.

But at least I see my faults. You get the sense in this thread that the only ones who are right are the ones with the loudest voice, but it rarely is ever true...

I have made my effort in life  to get out of my comfort zone, out of my closed circle and open up to the world. I just ask the same of the others here, including OP. You put religion and religious people in one big melting pot, and you (the posters here Rol, not you) are making a big mistake too. The wall needs to be torn down otherwise the madness will only get worse. Religious people will become more fanatical as they are suffocated in a stagnant air-space. Areligious will become bigger bigots because they also fail to understand those on the other side.

A little image you might be somewhat familiar with being near Germany: