Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Venomfan]

from reading this thread and others like it, does anyone else find these religious horror stories baffling? like it seems like this stuff almost only happens in America. i mean there are wackos everywhere but it seems like there is such a huge concentration there. i've lived in both Canada and England and niether place is anything like i hear about in the States. the religious tend to keep to themselves here

 

[Lpilgrim]

im a christian myself. reformed protestant to be more specific. and i have many friends that would consider themselves skeptics, atheists and the like. these friends are respectful and we actually can engage in good and intelligent discourse regarding our differing viewpoints. i suppose the main problem i've had with certain atheists in the past is the fact that they don't even try and represent my position accurately and then pepper it with ad hominem attacks. of course this can go both ways tho. but its something that really needs to stop on both ends.

a few questions for the atheist: on what basis are morality and evil valid concepts in an atheistic universe? keep in mind, im not asking whether you act morally or not, but rather how you account for it.

i read a few of you say that the burden of proof is on the theist. how so? to me it seems it would go both ways. some of you are trying to pass off that atheism is the "default position". how?

 

[Vile]

Its 2011 and there are still entirely too many people that believe in magic interdimensional Gods.

Religion = Blind Faith + Geography.

 

[bunk]

i read a few of you say that the burden of proof is on the theist. how so? to me it seems it would go both ways. some of you are trying to pass off that atheism is the "default position". how?

Not believing actually is the default position though. Think of how many gods you don't believe in. Now prove to us those gods don't exist. While you're at, prove unicorns don't exist. In your mind, do you find the burden of proof for the existence of Zeus to be the same as it is for the believer in Zeus as it is for you?

 

[Bubonic]

on what basis are morality and evil valid concepts in an atheistic universe? keep in mind, im not asking whether you act morally or not, but rather how you account for it.

You don't need an old book to know that killing, raping and stealing are wrong.

Morality isn't dependent on faith.

Each atheist is an individual unlike the next but the ones I know have a deep love for life and respect for it as well.

Our individual moralities are shaped by accumulated experiences, the laws of the law and our own levels of empathy.

Some people might think that with the absence of God there is no liability therefore someone would be more likely to give into whatever cruel desires they have but that is unfounded.

With the religious it sometimes seems that they can do whatever they want so long as they repent after.

i read a few of you say that the burden of proof is on the theist. how so?

You are the ones that make extraordinary claims and often settle on faith as an answer. Atheist actually have nothing to prove. You are the ones insisting there is a supernatural entity which created all life on this earth, made us in his image and also make many more outlandish claims depending on how deeply you believe and what you do believe.

When someone tells me the earth is no more than 6000 years old and dinosaurs didn't exist they better be prepared to back those claims up logically because I certainly have enough geological and archaeological facts to back up my side of things.

Also check this out in case you missed it.

some of you are trying to pass off that atheism is the "default position". how?

Not sure what you mean by default position, if you mean most likely right compared to opposing theories then yes.

According to this random site http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html there are over 20 major religions which have over 500 thousand adherents each.

Each of these view the world in different ways, make different claims to creation and most can be interpreted in a plethora of ways. Christianity itself has tens of thousands of diverging interpretations.

Also consider the hundred of thousands of religions and belief systems that have come and gone since the dawn of mankind.

As an atheist all I believe that all of these religions and belief systems say something about the times and the cultures that came up with them but in the end are all basically fantasy.

Just because your ancestors happened to be on the winning team doesn't make your belief system any more valid.

So when you have possibly millions of ways of interpreting the world versus one very down to earth proposition then I'd guess I could see why it might be the default for some.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

from reading this thread and others like it, does anyone else find these religious horror stories baffling? like it seems like this stuff almost only happens in America. i mean there are wackos everywhere but it seems like there is such a huge concentration there. i've lived in both Canada and England and niether place is anything like i hear about in the States. the religious tend to keep to themselves here

The Middle East

Ireland

Just two areas off the top of my head that have even worse religious conflict than we do in America.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

im a christian myself. reformed protestant to be more specific. and i have many friends that would consider themselves skeptics, atheists and the like. these friends are respectful and we actually can engage in good and intelligent discourse regarding our differing viewpoints. i suppose the main problem i've had with certain atheists in the past is the fact that they don't even try and represent my position accurately and then pepper it with ad hominem attacks. of course this can go both ways tho. but its something that really needs to stop on both ends.

a few questions for the atheist: on what basis are morality and evil valid concepts in an atheistic universe? keep in mind, im not asking whether you act morally or not, but rather how you account for it.

i read a few of you say that the burden of proof is on the theist. how so? to me it seems it would go both ways. some of you are trying to pass off that atheism is the "default position". how?

Here's the way I look at it.

Do whatever the hell you want, until your actions begin to impact someone else. If your actions have a negative impact on that person, then you lose your right to that action.

Morally, I don't find things like prostitution wrong. It is 2 consenting individuals who choose to engage in such activities.

Morally, murder is wrong, because it has a negative effect on another person.

Morally, homosexuality is not wrong, because a homosexual couple is consenting to be in such a relationship.

Morally, rape is wrong because you are physically forcing someone to commit an act they do not want to do, and your actions are bringing harm upon them.

* = obviously, this is my own morality.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

a few questions for the atheist: on what basis are morality and evil valid concepts in an atheistic universe? keep in mind, im not asking whether you act morally or not, but rather how you account for it.

I kinda wanted to add to this from a Christian apologist perspective. It reminds of the whole "true for me but not for me" kinda thing, which Paul Copan has written about. I've read Is God a Moral Monster?, which I'd recommend. Anyway, I'm wondering: what do you think of moral relativism? And is that what your concern is addressing? I kinda see that in Nell's answer, but I could be wrong. If it's OK to respond, I see how prostitution is wrong because it'd be a form of fornication and perhaps lead to abortion. I'm not sure how you'd argue that with an atheist, though, but prostitution is a crime in most -- if not all -- states, so there is that to take into consideration. The following is a secular argument against homosexuality: http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm

 

[Bill]

I kinda wanted to add to this from a Christian apologist perspective. It reminds of the whole "true for me but not for me" kinda thing, which Paul Copan has written about. I've read Is God a Moral Monster?, which I'd recommend. Anyway, I'm wondering: what do you think of moral relativism? And is that what your concern is addressing? I kinda see that in Nell's answer, but I could be wrong. If it's OK to respond, I see how prostitution is wrong because it'd be a form of fornication and perhaps lead to abortion. I'm not sure how you'd argue that with an atheist, though, but prostitution is a crime in most -- if not all -- states, so there is that to take into consideration. The following is a secular argument against homosexuality: http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm

That has to be the worst "secular" argument against homosexuality that I have ever seen.(not that I've seen many)

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Prostitution may be illegal, but that doesn't make it inherently morally wrong.

Why is it wrong for 2 people to consensually have sex with each other, just because money is exchanged? The 2 people have chosen to engage in the act. There is no victim. Nobody is being harmed. Nobody is being forced to do anything against their will. And if someone is being harmed, then the issue becomes a whole other issue altogether, not the act of prostitution.

And in the grand scheme of things, I really don't care if people are gay. The fact that I am around gay people on a regular basis does not impact me at all. It's not going to make me gay. I am sexually attracted to women, and that is not going to change because I accept homosexuals and their behavior. NOTE: tolerating and accepting their behavior doesn't mean I like or agree with it. However, I have no right to tell another person what they can or cannot do when it does not affect me.

Marriage? Family values? I don't know about you, but my family value system is strong enough, and won't crumble at the thought of having gay neighbors. Marriage? My marriage is going to succeed or fail based on it's own merits, not because 2 dudes that have nothing to do with myself or my marriage are boinking each other's bums on their honeymoon.

Marriage is a religious institution? Tell that to all the people who get married in a courthouse, in front of a judge, with no religious ceremonies to be found.

There is no argument against homosexuality that I find acceptable. None. I am not homosexual. I do not agree with homosexual behavior. I'd go as far as to say I find it disgusting. But I have no right to tell a homosexual what they can or cannot do. They are happy with it. It is their personal life that has absolutely no impact on me. I don't care if they want to marry each other. How is that going to hurt me? The idea that somehow homosexuality is going to destroy civilization is nothing but hate and fear mongering.

 

[redhawk23]

There's a question I've always wanted to ask a group of rational atheists: How do you feel about the organized atheists who are (ironically) just as zealous as some nutty Christian groups? Because I swear, seeing atheist billboards and fliers on the street make my eyes roll just as hard as the Christian ones.

Zealots are zealots. Thats my thing, I have no problem with people being religious, choosing how to interpret the world. What I have a problem with is the attitude that comes with it, judgmental attitudes, the needs to shove it down peoples throats, to disrespect those that don't agree with you. There are certain behaviors that are simply annoying regardless of who's doing it.

 

[Rocketman]

 

[redhawk23]

^ I would once again argue that the whole Santa/Jesus comparison is quite unfair.

While some I may find annoying, and on certain topics I fundamentally disagree with, there are things taught in Christianity that I'm sure even the most ardent atheists would agree with. There are moral teachings that are not exclusive to Christianity, certain understandings of the world and peoples character, that may not originate with Christianity, and yet, it is through Christ that Christians recieve and understand these teachings.

They may come to these teachings, these morals, these socially held values through a different means than non-christians, but who cares when it comes to things that we agree on?


The Santa comparison assumes that Christians are like naive children, unquestioning in their belief. This is untrue and unfair. There have been a great many people who despite their utmost faith, have devoted their lives to reexamining the teachings of Christ and scripture in general. Through study and inquiry they attempt to find meaning. Far more insightful, intelligent and productive people than anyone on this board were also resolute in their faith. To think otherwise is not just arrogant, its stupid.

 

[Bat-Mite]

The following is a secular argument against homosexuality: http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm

This actually isn't a secular argument against it at all, but rather a "how to" guide for fundamentalist Christians to dishonestly present their attacks against gays as having a secular motivation. I guess having gay sex is an abomination, but bearing false witness (thus breaking one of the ten commandments) is a-okay if you're doing it to attack people that God supposedly hates. Gotta love how it makes use of stereotypes and junk science and doesn't back any of it up with unbiased or secular literature, instead referencing gems like The Bible and Homosexual Practice and "Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture: Part II: Science."

It's also always amusing whenever a Christian says, "OMG, gay marriage will lead to polygamy!!!" because the Bible itself actually has no problems with polygamy (so long as it is a man with many wives and not a wife with many husbands, of course). Indeed, according to Exodus 21:10, a man can have as many wives as he jolly well pleases, so long as he's able to treat them all equally. Mind you, I'm not in support of polygamy, but it's always funny to see someone who is supposedly a Bible following Christian attacking the kind of relationships had by Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

Prostitution may be illegal, but that doesn't make it inherently morally wrong.

Why is it wrong for 2 people to consensually have sex with each other, just because money is exchanged? The 2 people have chosen to engage in the act. There is no victim. Nobody is being harmed. Nobody is being forced to do anything against their will. And if someone is being harmed, then the issue becomes a whole other issue altogether, not the act of prostitution.


There is no argument against homosexuality that I find acceptable. None. I am not homosexual. I do not agree with homosexual behavior. I'd go as far as to say I find it disgusting. But I have no right to tell a homosexual what they can or cannot do. They are happy with it. It is their personal life that has absolutely no impact on me. I don't care if they want to marry each other. How is that going to hurt me? The idea that somehow homosexuality is going to destroy civilization is nothing but hate and fear mongering.

I'm not saying homosexuals can't be in relationships nor am I saying that I'm OK with their behavior. I remember that when I took an oral communications class, someone presented an argument regarding homosexuality in response to those who say, "It doesn't affect me." Even though I voted against it, whether or not it affected me had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, what about the fact that prostitution tries to make sex for fun and for money be more acceptable? And that by doing that, don't you think it makes it less a meaningful thing if nobody has to build relationships first? Another thing to take into consideration would be the demeaning of women, which I don't see how you could be OK with.

As for homosexuality and it's impact on you -- or rather on society as a whole -- what about being taxed for alternative methods of birth? Like if a gay couple has a chile via a sperm donor? Oh, and in case you bring up adoption: http://family.findlaw.com/adoption/same-sex-adoption/same-sex-parent-rights.html and http://family.findlaw.com/adoption/same-sex-adoption/same-sex-post-adoption.html

And if gay marriage was allowed in all 50 states, don't you think it would get to the point where gays would want gay divorce as well, since it's about "equal rights?" There have been cases of gays divorcing, but I'm not sure if it's ruling. Just because some states allow gay marriage doesn't mean those who have decided to take advantage of it are living happy lives.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

It's also always amusing whenever a Christian says, "OMG, gay marriage will lead to polygamy!!!" because the Bible itself actually has no problems with polygamy (so long as it is a man with many wives and not a wife with many husbands, of course). Indeed, according to Exodus 21:10, a man can have as many wives as he jolly well pleases, so long as he's able to treat them all equally. Mind you, I'm not in support of polygamy, but it's always funny to see someone who is supposedly a Bible following Christian attacking the kind of relationships had by Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.

Ah, but according to Leviticus 18:18, Mosaic Law prohibited polygamy. Furthermore, Exodus 21:10 is part of the law concerning slaves, not the general public, so you should probably read verses 1-11 instead of cherrypicking verses. Perhaps you took the verse out of context? Atheists have been known to do that, ya know. And in regards to David's polygamy: http://www.theblazingcenter.com/2011/01/just-because-its-in-the-bible-doesnt-mean-its-good.html

 

[Bill]

Ah, but according to Leviticus 18:18, Mosaic Law prohibited polygamy. Furthermore, Exodus 21:10 is part of the law concerning slaves, not the general public, so you should probably read verses 1-11 instead of cherrypicking verses. Perhaps you took the verse out of context? Atheists have been known to do that, ya know. And in regards to David's polygamy: http://www.theblazingcenter.com/2011/01/just-because-its-in-the-bible-doesnt-mean-its-good.html

Actually, according to Leviticus 18:18, you should not take another wife who is related to a wife you have. The entire section is covering incestuous relationship dynamics. It doesn't prohibit polygamy amongst unrelated women at all. Perhaps you took the verse out of context?

 

[~fox~]

Religion = Blind Faith + Geography.

Doesn't atheism depend a great deal on blind faith, as well? Faith that there is no God, which can't be proven or disproven?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Just a random interjection - how do you view Buddhists?

Do you see them as atheists too or do you lump them in with the religious?

I was recently having a conversation with my estranged dad, who is a buddhist monk (his buddhist name is Jayanatha), and I told him I was an atheist or humanist, and he said that he was a Buddhist atheist who felt the more irrational sides of Buddhism where actually added in later in accordance with brahman beliefs and not with the Buddha's teachings.

He does not believe in reincarnation, he does not believe in an afterlife or even a soul. He simply believes in the search for happiness, peace and understanding and the purpose of life. He is very rationally minded, scientific etc.

But he meditates, and he makes sure to take time to reflect and engage with life.

I mean, i'm not sure what else it entails, but it did at least sound like a spiritual way of living I could get on board with. There is nothing there in a lot of the Buddha's teachings that I do not agree with.

Here's one that kind of highlights my point:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it' - Buddha

 

[JAK®]

Doesn't atheism depend a great deal on blind faith, as well? Faith that there is no God, which can't be proven or disproven?

I have an invisible, intangible unicorn in my back garden. You can't disprove it, so I guess that means you are basing your opinion on blind faith.

 

[Bill]

Doesn't atheism depend a great deal on blind faith, as well? Faith that there is no God, which can't be proven or disproven?

Atheism itself doesn't make a positive assertion that God doesn't exist. It simply states a lack of belief. The lack of belief can come from insufficient evidence, knowledge, or a reasoned, logical argument based on empirical data.

There is nothing to take on faith because no assertion is being made. It is up to the one making a positive assertion to provide evidence that substantiates their position.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Lack of belief is an assertion. Negative assertion is not free from the need of evidence. That's like saying a person being sued does not require any evidence or need to take any action to prove their innocence; that they just need to smugly sit in the court room without lawyers, witnesses or cross examinations.

 

[JAK®]

Lack of belief is an assertion. Negative assertion is not free from the need of evidence. That's like saying a person being sued does not require any evidence or need to take any action to prove their innocence; that they just need to smugly sit in the court room without lawyers, witnesses or cross examinations.

You can do that if the people sueing you have no evidence to do so.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Haha, touche, jak. But my point is that regardless of what your claim is, one must have reason to hold that claim. Saying "I don't believe in God" is just as much of a claim/assertion as saying "I do believe in God". And therefore, regardless of where you stand, you better be willing to back up your claim. Pointing to the other side and screaming "NO! I don't have to prove anything!" is not an argument in the slightest. The burden of proof, falls on whomever is making a claim, which in this case, is both parties, since both are making a claim about the existence of a supernatural being.

 

[Bubonic]

One is making the claim that it exist while the other party is simply saying it doesn't.
Seems to me there is a lot more plausibility to the nonexistence of a god, especially when you get as specific as claiming the existence of the Judeo-Christian god.