Atheists are the moral ones

[Harry Dresden]

hmmmm...has hawking been off the planet? Didn't think so.....has he been out of the solar system? Didn't think so....

so really....he doesn't really know all that much in the face of the knowledge of the universe......

He has been to the other side of a black hole. Majestically and beautifully and he showed all of humanity that it is a singularity.

So saying where he has not been is really silly.

Regards from Rosie

Hawkings has?.....

 

[Synthaholic]

yeah...you have no idea either....

Who is more foolish....you...who claims to actually know the unknowable, or those who simply have faith?

who really sounds more stupid.....

Don't atheists have faith that there is no god?

 

[2aguy]

the atheists I read here don't have faith that there is no God....they tell us without a doubt there is no God....ask them...

 

[Steinlight]

There are communities that have different definitions of torture and where torture is permitted, and not thought immoral.

So is torture thought immoral in the US?

Thus, to say torture is objectively immoral is categorically false from a purely secular perspective.

Pure puffery. Morality has already been defined as community norms.

You contend it is immoral, another person disagrees on you with what torture is, and some would contend the torture you think is immoral isn't immoral. Thus you one preference of many.

I contend torture is not a community norm in the US, therefore immoral in the US. Do you contend torture is a community norm in the US, therefore moral in the US?

I contend that absent an objective deity, there exists no objective morality. And you prove my point, by admitting to my prior point, that definitions of torture vary from society to society, and what may be considered immoral among some in the US might not be elsewhere.

Furthermore, I probably have a different definition of torture than you.

Your issue is glazing over the term 'objective morality.' The fact is that you are correct in the core of your statement: objective morality DOES NOT EXIST. The problem is that you are taking that much further than that single statement. The following DOES NOT follow from that statement:

That isn't an argument. And you conceding that norms vary from community to community proves my point. Absent a universal and eternal arbiter of justice, there is no right or wrong, no good or evil, and all is permitted.

There is good and bad, right and wrong and it is defined by society. Those that have a rather shitty form of morality die off and those that don't tend to not only live on but also affect the morality and ethics of societies that follow. That is why our morality has, overall, improved over the centuries.

Objective morality would essentially call 99.9 percent of everyone that has ever lived evil bastards. The ONLY people that could be defined as somewhat moralistic would be those that lived in the last century or so. Are you really that arrogant to believe all people before us were truly evil? After all, even in this nation, slavery was permissible. Torture has been a societal norm - not immoral at all - for almost the entirety of human history. It was sanctioned by the very source of your 'objective morality' several times through burning people at the stake and on massive scales like the French Inquisition. The atrocities that man has inflicted upon one another throughout history have been legion. I do not think that is because the majority of people were evil or immoral - it was because society had not evolved to the point it has today.

And here is the kicker - unless you think that the people today are somehow special and different than ALL the societies that have already fallen - WE will be viewed as a rather immoral and backward society in the future. We will be viewed as doing truly evil to one another.

Your problem is you view society as a monolith, and ironically, your western morality is informed by judeo-christian ethics. So ironically, you ignore the basis for much of your own morality, and then appropriate it to other societies, assuming they just agree with your coddled liberal view and that it is for certain right just because of "reason and logic" or something. The problem is, your world view is obsolete in the face of an objective world view, you just view morality as a preference for your society. You talk about dying views. It is secular societies that are dying off. It is religious societies that are growing.

It is ironic you bring up slavery as though it's existence somehow discredits the foundation of Christian moral teachings or something. The Abolition Movement was inspired by Christians, particularly British Quakers, such as William Wilberforce.

Ironically, we as Whites and Christians are condemned for chattel slavery, as though it is exclusive to us and a blight on our civilization. When in fact, it was White Christians that gave birth to the abolition and fought for abolition throughout the world(ie. the British Empire's fight against the slave trade on the west and east coast of Africa).

 

[Steinlight]

Goodnite, guys. See you again soon.

Regards from Rosie

You clearly aren't having a good night, and are a depressed and dark person. Very sad.

I hope you one day find happiness in your life. And escape the black hole of nihilism, hate, and depression.

Such an inference is just as unfounded as the affirmative claim there is no god made by Rosie. Both are rather silly. God cannot, by its very nature, be 'proven' to not exist. The decision to have faith and is highly personal. It deals with internal 'evidence' that varies by each and every person. Just because you find no solace (and appear to need that solace) in atheism does not mean the next person is similar to you or your needs. Some of us are just fine with a godless universe and are at peace with that reality while others are not and know there is something more than this life so they have faith.

Why does she have to be dark and depressed? The answer is, of course, that you have no idea if she is depressed or very happy as a person and with her existence.

I never claimed that God for sure exists. I just haven't heard a convincing argument against the cosmological argument though. And no one has yet to debunk this argument.

I think the evidence from studies show non-believers cannot mentally cope as well as believers. This is not that non-believers are bad people, but it makes sense since the conclusions of atheism are nihilistic.
Religious and Spiritual Factors in Depression Review and Integration of the Research

 

[Darkwind]

hmmm...has Steven hawking died and come back from whatever is on the other side? didn't think so......he doesn't know either...he is a human, and therefore limited....

His mind is one of the most unlimited ones on the planet.

*I* have had 2 NDEs and been brought back.

Lemme tell ya, there ain't no Jesus waiting.

If there were, I would have better reason than most to be Christian.

Been there, ain't that.

Sorry.

Regards from Rosie

No. You are full of shit.

show Me the other threads where you have discussed your NDE's prior to this thread.

Because, quite frankly, I don't believe you.

 

[theHawk]

obviously you came back...you didn't completely die...so you don't know....like walking up to a door but not entering the building.....

I did not come back. I was well on the way out and YANKED back. At least the second time I knew the resuscitation was working as they were doing it in the ER.

I went well beyond the thin dark veil between here and there. Twice.

Regards from Rosie

No offense but just because you didn't experience something doesn't mean others won't. If you are a non-believer then why would you experience something?

 

[cnm]

No. But many on the Left would disagree, as they contend what the CIA did following 9/11 with enhanced interrogation was torture.

So torture in the US is immoral.

The President has admitted you 'tortured some folks'. The 'left' is upset because community norms have been overthrown. If that was not the case there would be no controversy.

Anecdotally, most Christian Americans I correspond with are right behind the idea of torture, only one atheist American is for torture. The graphic in the OP seems pretty close to observed reality to me.

 

[cnm]

Without religion there would be no long-standing and widely-held standards of ethical behavior, communicated from one generation to the next.

Assertion is easy.

 

[FA_Q2]

There are communities that have different definitions of torture and where torture is permitted, and not thought immoral.

So is torture thought immoral in the US?

Thus, to say torture is objectively immoral is categorically false from a purely secular perspective.

Pure puffery. Morality has already been defined as community norms.

You contend it is immoral, another person disagrees on you with what torture is, and some would contend the torture you think is immoral isn't immoral. Thus you one preference of many.

I contend torture is not a community norm in the US, therefore immoral in the US. Do you contend torture is a community norm in the US, therefore moral in the US?

I contend that absent an objective deity, there exists no objective morality. And you prove my point, by admitting to my prior point, that definitions of torture vary from society to society, and what may be considered immoral among some in the US might not be elsewhere.

Furthermore, I probably have a different definition of torture than you.

Your issue is glazing over the term 'objective morality.' The fact is that you are correct in the core of your statement: objective morality DOES NOT EXIST. The problem is that you are taking that much further than that single statement. The following DOES NOT follow from that statement:

That isn't an argument. And you conceding that norms vary from community to community proves my point. Absent a universal and eternal arbiter of justice, there is no right or wrong, no good or evil, and all is permitted.

There is good and bad, right and wrong and it is defined by society. Those that have a rather shitty form of morality die off and those that don't tend to not only live on but also affect the morality and ethics of societies that follow. That is why our morality has, overall, improved over the centuries.

Objective morality would essentially call 99.9 percent of everyone that has ever lived evil bastards. The ONLY people that could be defined as somewhat moralistic would be those that lived in the last century or so. Are you really that arrogant to believe all people before us were truly evil? After all, even in this nation, slavery was permissible. Torture has been a societal norm - not immoral at all - for almost the entirety of human history. It was sanctioned by the very source of your 'objective morality' several times through burning people at the stake and on massive scales like the French Inquisition. The atrocities that man has inflicted upon one another throughout history have been legion. I do not think that is because the majority of people were evil or immoral - it was because society had not evolved to the point it has today.

And here is the kicker - unless you think that the people today are somehow special and different than ALL the societies that have already fallen - WE will be viewed as a rather immoral and backward society in the future. We will be viewed as doing truly evil to one another.

Your problem is you view society as a monolith, and ironically, your western morality is informed by judeo-christian ethics. So ironically, you ignore the basis for much of your own morality, and then appropriate it to other societies, assuming they just agree with your coddled liberal view and that it is for certain right just because of "reason and logic" or something. The problem is, your world view is obsolete in the face of an objective world view, you just view morality as a preference for your society. You talk about dying views. It is secular societies that are dying off. It is religious societies that are growing.

It is ironic you bring up slavery as though it's existence somehow discredits the foundation of Christian moral teachings or something. The Abolition Movement was inspired by Christians, particularly British Quakers, such as William Wilberforce.

Ironically, we as Whites and Christians are condemned for chattel slavery, as though it is exclusive to us and a blight on our civilization. When in fact, it was White Christians that gave birth to the abolition and fought for abolition throughout the world(ie. the British Empire's fight against the slave trade on the west and east coast of Africa).

?
This entire response is filled with a horde of straw men.

Where did I deny that my current western culture was based on Christian morals? How did I ignore that reality? Then you called me a liberal (that is rather funny). Then you ramble on about slavery when not addressing anything I pointed out with it.

Then you claim secular societies are dying off. That is an interesting claim without an ounce of fact to back it up. no, secular societies are not dying off at all - they are and wioll continue to be on the rise. That is not to state religion is going anywhere. It is not BUT the most sucsessful and powerful societies that exist today have recognized the corrupting influence the government has on religion and have, rightfully, seperated the two. The United States that you like to point out as based on Christian morality (which is true) is such a society.

 

[FA_Q2]

Goodnite, guys. See you again soon.

Regards from Rosie

You clearly aren't having a good night, and are a depressed and dark person. Very sad.

I hope you one day find happiness in your life. And escape the black hole of nihilism, hate, and depression.

Such an inference is just as unfounded as the affirmative claim there is no god made by Rosie. Both are rather silly. God cannot, by its very nature, be 'proven' to not exist. The decision to have faith and is highly personal. It deals with internal 'evidence' that varies by each and every person. Just because you find no solace (and appear to need that solace) in atheism does not mean the next person is similar to you or your needs. Some of us are just fine with a godless universe and are at peace with that reality while others are not and know there is something more than this life so they have faith.

Why does she have to be dark and depressed? The answer is, of course, that you have no idea if she is depressed or very happy as a person and with her existence.

I never claimed that God for sure exists. I just haven't heard a convincing argument against the cosmological argument though. And no one has yet to debunk this argument.

I think the evidence from studies show non-believers cannot mentally cope as well as believers. This is not that non-believers are bad people, but it makes sense since the conclusions of atheism are nihilistic.
Religious and Spiritual Factors in Depression Review and Integration of the Research

And, again, you seem to be missing the entire point of my post. I never claimed you said god certainly exists. That had nothing to do with my post at all.

 

[cnm]

That isn't an argument. And you conceding that norms vary from community to community proves my point. Absent a universal and eternal arbiter of justice, there is no right or wrong, no good or evil, and all is permitted.

Complete puffery. Communities decide their norms.

 

[FA_Q2]

the atheists I read here don't have faith that there is no God....they tell us without a doubt there is no God....ask them...

Your assertion is false then.

Of course, you failed to actually ask anyone that I have seen. Instead, you answered the question without bothering to ask in the first place.

There is no, and never will be, certainty that god does not exist. The very concept is, quite frankly, impossible.

 

[cnm]

from case to case, there exist different opinions. So my point still stands.

There is no victory like self declared victory, congratulations.

 

[asaratis]

Why is torture in of itself immoral?

Because it is against community norms. Morals are community norms. Valid morals contribute to the survival and prosperity of a community.

What is a community norm? Is it that which a majority of the community support or practice? What percentage of a community has to support an issue before it becomes a 'norm'?

If a community supports 'torture', does 'torture' become a community norm?

It seems to me the OP is self-defeating. The poll "community" consists of "Americans". The bar graphs clearly indicate that the majority of the community supports 'torture'.

Taken out of context, the support of 'torture' can be understandably reprehensible. To 'torture' someone for pleasure is immoral. To 'torture' a sworn enemy of the community in an effort to obtain information that could save the lives of community members is not only moral but essential to the survival of the community.

 

[Steinlight]

So, is torture a community norm in the US?

That must be easy enough to answer, shirley?

No. But many on the Left would disagree, as they contend what the CIA did following 9/11 with enhanced interrogation was torture.

So torture in the US is immoral.

The President has admitted you 'tortured some folks'. The 'left' is upset because community norms have been overthrown. If that was not the case there would be no controversy.

Anecdotally, most Christian Americans I correspond with are right behind the idea of torture, only one atheist American is for torture. The graphic in the OP seems pretty close to observed reality to me.

There isn't even a coherent definition of torture is agreed upon in the United States, not in this thread, not in Washington, not in the press. So no, I don't think what you or the President view as torture is immoral, or is torture.The Left, given there other less than salient views, certainly isn't an objective arbiter of morality.

The Left's political position here doesn't represent America's moral conscience, in fact, most Americans support enhanced interrogation

 

[cnm]

Outside of such an arbiter, there only exists individual preference on "moral and ethical behavior", and what one can and can't get away with in our life on earth.

No, community norms.

 

[cnm]

What is a community norm?

I guess a norm is where behaviour is commonplace.

If a community supports 'torture', does 'torture' become a community norm?

When torture is commonplace.

It seems to me the OP is self-defeating. The poll "community" consists of "Americans". The bar graphs clearly indicate that the majority of the community supports 'torture'.

Taken out of context, the support of 'torture' is understandably reprehensible. To 'torture' someone for pleasure is immoral. To 'torture' a sworn enemy of the community in an effort to obtain information that could save the lives of community members is not only moral but essential to the survival of the community.

Torture is done both for pleasure and to extract confessions. It is effective in those areas. When it becomes commonplace it will be a community norm.

 

[cnm]

The Left's political position here doesn't represent America's moral conscience, in fact, most Americans support enhanced interrogation

Jesus loves him some waterboarding. When it is commonplace we can say most Americans support waterboarding. At the momment all that is demonstrated is most Americans are not very moral.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I don't think there is one single thing any more special about atheists than any other group.
I do think however, that atheists on average are more arrogant than other groups.

I think agnostics like myself are the ones that are the most open, since they don't pretend to have all the answers.