The Status of Atheists in America

I'm merely stating a truism here by firsthand accounts. There are countless atheists who become atheists, whether they admit it or not, because they are angry over the prognosis. I'm not saying that in any way reflects how you personally approach it, I'm simply telling you what I have seen during my time on earth.Just know that I understand what you're saying and have no contention with it. Right, which is why it makes it so interesting to see self-avowed atheists do this. Or you can start it if you want to. There is no shortage of sermons on the web concerning him. What is metaphysical naturalism? In an amoral universe, yes, that is exactly right. If there are no moral absolutes, then morality is nothing more than an opinion. Even asking who's opinion is right or wrong will inevitably lead the staunch atheist in to a crux.He is questioning how she deduced her argument. She claimed that God has devalued her, and so God is not worth believing in if that is the case. So Ravi is saying that it is ironic and counter-productive to even further reduce it to the material world which has no care or concern or cognizance in which to assign her value.We do not depend on his imaginary friend for value. That girl has value to me whether there are gods or not, and whatever she believes. Ravi is a very sick man.[/qs]A sick man??? In what way?

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Exactly his point... If morals are not ultimately arbitrated by something higher than the sordid mind of mankind, what then makes anything moral or immoral? If there is no absolutes, then does not everything boil down to one opinion versus another? Morals are then vaccuous and tenuous, serving only utilitarian purposes. For what reason? If we live in an amoral universe, then what reason is there? Invariably any answer given ultimately leads back, as it will beg the question. It will do this because it is circular. It will always lead back to that ultimate question of morality. What is there to figure out? Animals slaughter each other without a care, and there is nothign to keep them accountable for it. What then makes the human being different? What "needs" to be figured out? You invoke a moral law in order to debunk a moral law. It is simply a philosophical inevitability, and not in any way a character flaw on your part. Why is it a must? No, she was rejecting God. But that's okay. That is her prerogative. Sometimes being angry about it is the only way to know that you are still invested in the search.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

I'd speculate that the selective pressure was from the rise in intelligence depending on having morals. Intelligence was selected for and we needed morals to be able to be more intelligent.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

If there are no moral absolutes, then morality is nothing more than an opinion.

---

But nobody is an absolutist. Not even people who claim to be absolutists. Eveybody has their exceptions.So where does that leave us?

quote:

---

Even asking who's opinion is right or wrong will inevitably lead the staunch atheist in to a crux.

---

Except they don't. Unless you are trying to imply that atheists don't have morality....

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

If morals are not ultimately arbitrated by something higher than the sordid mind of mankind, what then makes anything moral or immoral?

---

The same way morality is defined already: By us.Nobody is an absolutist.

quote:

---

If we live in an amoral universe, then what reason is there?

---

The reason that you make for yourself. Why is that not good enough?

quote:

---

Invariably any answer given ultimately leads back, as it will beg the question. It will do this because it is circular. It will always lead back to that ultimate question of morality.

---

Incorrect. You're implying that atheists have no morals and yet, they do.

quote:

---

What is there to figure out?

---

How to get along in the world.

quote:

---

Animals slaughter each other without a care, and there is nothign to keep them accountable for it.

---

What does this have to do with anything? You seem to be implying that only humans have a sense of right and wrong which isn't true.

quote:

---

What then makes the human being different?

---

The difference is only in degree, not in kind.

quote:

---

Why is it a must?

---

What part of "social living styles" escaped you? Humans are social creatures and as such, need to establish rules for how the individuals within the society behave so that the group can function without constant fighting. In organisms that have more freedom of consciousness, those rules are going to be more complex.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Why don't they think they are sinning? Because they see nothing wrong with sex before marriage and think that strong religious views to the contrary are outdated, out of touch and irrelevent to their personal belief in God and their modern day lifestyles. This is broadly the attitude of the theists I know. The same sort of attitude applies to homosexuality, drug use and the other areas you metioned earlier except possibly abortion which does seem much more divisive and emotive in general.Do you really think that all the millions (billions?) of western, largely Christian, theists who are engaging in sex before marriage do so in a state of sinful guilt? A 36 year old might gain a great deal of emotional comfort from a genuine belief in the existence of Santa Claus. This does not stop such a belief being silly by most peoples definition of the word. I agree. That is exactly my point. The theists I know (the sort of non-extreme and uninterested theists that would consider posting here a fairly pointless waste of time) don't consider sex before marriage, homosexuality, drug use etc. etc, any more sinful than the equally apathetic atheists I know.For the vast majority of people their religious belief has no real practical effect on what they consider to be immoral. That is the point I am making and, I thought, the one that you were disagreeing with?

Yes. It was useful, therefore it was selected. For the reason that I explained. Humans are social and social groups tend to show morality towards like members of the group. This isn't circular reasoning, this is simple observation. Slaughter? Ok, if you want to give it that harsh of a name fine, but I would simply say that animals hunt,(or slaughter), other animals for food. Nothing imoral about that. We on the other hand harm one another with full understanding that we are doing it to cause harm. This is imoral, and a society that accepts this type of act will not exist for very long, therefore the members of these societies dictate laws to assure themselves a safe living environment.So like I said before, we figure it out. If something within our society is causing harm to others of the same society,(i.e. segregation, discrimination towards someones gender or sexual preference etc etc..), then a shift is take within the society to remove that harmful cause. We make ourselves accountable to ourselves, that is the difference. It isn't a MUST as in we have to have it, but it is a must if we plan on continuing as a social species and would like to survive as such.Example: There is even moral codes in jail. Why? Because it is benefitial to ALL of the inmates survival. And guess who writes the moral codes within a jail system? The inmates. Like I said, humans police themselves because they want to be able to live in social harmony...or as close to it as possible.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Granny Magda writes, I watched a youtube debate between Michael Shermer and some other guy(creationist), and that was the question Michael repeated over and over; 'What is it in humans that allows us the ability to decifer good moral lessons from bad moral lessons?'Whether you read the Bible, Shakespear, or Mark Twain, you will find examples for good morality and bad morality. How do we now which is which?The best answer I found was given by Dawkins when he said that 'we wouldn't want to live in a society that is imoral and therefore we act morally'. It is the origin of 'do un to others',or 'help and ye shall be helped'...something like that.But then again, in a religious sense, if one is only doing good to be rewarded by God then the good deed is reduced to a selfish act of greed. Does God really appreciate this type of good deed? Those done for the reward rather than for the act of doing good alone?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

Neo-Nazi's are generally emphatically atheist.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Surely you realize you have that completely backwards, yes? Neo-Nazis are generally emphatically Christian.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

It's not that. The thing is that you brought up the idea of the word "atheist" meaning "an immoral person", as part of your defence of George Bush's comments about atheists, arguing that this definition made his comments more acceptable. If you are going to say that this definition is based on bullshit, it means that your defence of Bush's comments is based upon that same BS. It just leaves us back at square one, with Daddy Bush making some unacceptable and offensive comments.I'm not really sure what your percentage is here. It seems pretty clear to me that Bush was talking out of his arse. The irony is that if Bush had made similar comments about Catholics, every atheist here would be just as quick to denounce him for it. Now that I agree with

---

Mutate and Survive

After 100 posts I wonder:What business is it of believers what atheists think or do?Perhaps they should keep their noses on their own side of the street and stop sniffing for sin amongst their neighbors.As Heinlein said:

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid).

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

​

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

What business is it of believers what atheists think or do?

---

The existence of atheists is a constant reminder that the rational support for their religion is not what they would like it to be. For instance their moral claims are at least as open to challenge as those of atheists. And that is a threat to their beliefs and power.Read between the lines of NJ's posts. This is about the control of society. They must invent hostile ideas about what atheists think and believe to neutralise the threats.

I might, but it's you who brings him into the EvC threads, and you seem to be an admirer, so I thought it might be more appropriate if you did. He's not well known here on the isle of infidels, and it may have been due to you bringing up his views on Hume last year that I first heard of him.Anyway, if you do it instead of me, your hero won't have his first EvC thread titled something like "who is this bullshitter for God?" Only non-atheists can become atheists.Prognosis??!! Are you coming around to the view that your God might be the symptom of a disease? Metaphysical naturalism is the philosophical view that there is no supernatural.Atheists don't believe in Gods, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in other supernatural concepts, like the soul, or anything else you care to mention. Animism doesn't require Gods. The universe is the same with or without Ravi's imaginary friend or yours. It doesn't change its moral status in relation to your Faith, it is just your view of it that is changed. We can identify anti-social behaviour in our community of naturally social animals and describe it as "wrong" or undesirable on practical grounds without using the word "moral". Hers is not a rational argument for atheism, but for the reasons I've been giving you, not Ravi's. He sells his god on the irrational basis that without it, we have no value, but that view is not only built on blind faith, it contradicts observation and overwhelming evidence that human beings do value each other.People give people value (including to themselves) and we were doing so before Christianity existed and we will be doing so when it joins the large pile of dead religions. It is our nature to do so. He thinks that human morality depends on and derives from his superstitions, a fairly common delusion, but he's very aggressive about promoting this view, to a point that is certainly obsessive, and borders on madness. I don't know what the prognosis is, though.Watch him carefully, Nemesis, and you'll find that he assumes the veracity of his religion in order to present the case for it. It is his blind faith based axiom that "value" doesn't exist without his god. It is no more rational than believing that "value" does not exist without fairies.Edited by bluegenes, : typo

I brought up the idea of the word "atheist" meaning "an immoral person", as part of my defense of George Bush's comments about atheists, arguing that this definition made his comments not necessarily talking about every atheist in the loosest definition of the word. I don't think he was talking about the more agnostic type of atheist who simply lacks a belief in god(s). I think he was referring to the more militant type of atheists who want to rid the world of spiritual beliefs.This makes it less offensive, or more acceptable, because he is offending a smaller group of people. He isn't making such the sweeping generalization that Rhavin claimed he was. I think that saying that he thinks that its un-patriotic to want to rid the world of spiritual beliefs is more acceptable than saying there should be a religious test for citizenship.Being less wrong or more acceptable doesn't mean that its right. The explanation could be both accurate and unacceptable.... I agreed that his statement was unacceptable and offensive (i might have said 'stupid'). I was just arguing that Bush was not saying all that Rhavin thinks that he was.

---

ABEIn Message 103 blugenes writes:

quote:

---

Atheists don't believe in Gods, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in other supernatural concepts, like the soul, or anything else you care to mention. Animism doesn't require Gods.

---

Technically, an animist is an atheist by definition because they lack belief in god(s). But when someone refers to atheists, in general, they are not necessarily including the animists in the group they are describing.I don't think Bush's quote included the animists either. If an animist came in and said the Bush said that animists shouldn't be citizens because they are technically atheists and he said that atheists shouldn't be, then I'd be making the same argument to them as I made to Rhavin in that Bush wasn't necessarily referring the them when he used the word "atheist".People use that word to mean more than just "lacking a belief in god(s)".Now, that isn't saying that Bush's statement was acceptable, nor that it wasn't stupid.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

You're thinking of antitheists, and they tend to want to rid the world of theism, rather than all spiritual beliefs.All antitheists are atheists, but atheists aren't necessarily antitheists. Think "Texans" in relation to "Americans," and you've got it.Some atheists are indifferent to the religious practices of others, and some think that theism does more good than harm in the world. Still others will be against some forms of theism, but neutral on others (like those here who condemn "creationism" but not the types of theism that accept science).Which all adds to the point that we atheists are only united by a lack of belief in gods. We have no mutual politics, in the broad sense of "politics". The lack of belief isn't really so much of a philosophy as a fact.As for Bush senior, we can only speculate, but my guess is that he would privately regard Christians as much better and more desirable Americans than people of any other beliefs.He (famously) wanted every American family to be like the Waltons, not the Simpsons, which made me laugh. I don't think you could realistically be like either even if you tried.