10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

Given that we know that atheists here consistently demonstrate the least intelligence and/or the incapacity to develop and defend a reasoned argument... All kidding aside...where in the hell does that first part of the sentence come from? "The average atheist is smarter than you"? WTF?

Q: Based on what? A: Conjecture and wishful thinking...once again. Anybody else see the pattern?

 

Oh, and yeah...all those college professors and ACLU lawyers have really been disenfranchised and don't play a large role in government? Right. Oh, my mistake....they want a LAAAAARGER role in government. How large? Stalin-size perhaps?

 

1) One word. Abortion.

Two words. Moral relativism.

And finally,(once again doing my job at exposing the phony) if you say it the way "Sam" did, then this means that an atheist placing any meaning, even a sliver, on life....gets to to say that at least s/he doesn't believe life is meaningless. Hence, another example of moral relativism. Notice also that instead of talking about each individual's worth, which is is the definition of life, duh!, this tool is talking about things you do and/or people you do them with. Living life fully, and having relationships has nothing to do with placing value on individual life.

 

The argument against atheists is: that they do not value individual life...enough(see I can do it too). Go back and read what this guy wrote again...looks like he did a fine job of affirming, rather than dispelling, that argument.

 

This is absolute folly.

 

Communists the world over have justified their murders, rapes, theft and lies, precisely because their world view was based on "reason". Therefore they were justified in these acts, because THEY individually, and not moral principles, became the arbiters of right and wrong. Dogma has nothing to do with it. These individuals have largely been tried and held accountable as individuals. The "dogma" has never been put on trial, because you can't hold an idea accountable. However, you can hold the douchebag leftist who kills children accountable, because his mother taught him better than that, period.

 

It is in fact the absence, or rejection, of moral principle that Communists and Fascists require form those they govern. All religion is based on almost the exact same principles(Don't lie, cheat, kill, steal, etc.). So, QED, you reject the religion, and you can reject the principles it is based on as well. Next thing you know, Stalin kills 6 times as many people as Hitler, and, "it's ok...because at least we aren't being controlled by religion"?

 

Like I said...folly.

 

Right. And the ACLU wasting millions of $$$, theirs, the government's, and the people they sue, for the most inoffensive things like singing Christmas carols, is a fine example of being "non-dogmatic". Is this guy serious? Yeah...nothing dogmatic about suing people because they set up pieces of wood and plastic in the park for 3 weeks out of the year. Perhaps they are "threatening" pieces of wood and plastic?

 

Read: "Sam" has no REAL counter to the charge that, due to a lack of anything else to talk about, yeah, it must all be due to dumb luck. Or...."we know this and we know that, and, we have written an entire paragraph with out defining what exactly we believe the 'thinger' that makes natural selection go is...but remember that we are denying that it all comes down to luck"

 

Who says this? Really? I think this one is simply made up.

 

"Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society"

Where oh where would we ever get the idea that atheists are arrogant? I wonder.

 

And, perhaps somebody needs to explain what ironic means to "Sam" the same way Tom explained a priori. Ironic is this sentence:

"One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility"

 

By definition, you cannot praise yourself, for humility or anything else, and be humble at the same time. So what is "Sam" doing here other than projecting? And then trying to use that projection as a replacement for, and basis of, actual argument? Sam: because I decided that's what religious people do...then it is ironic when they do something else? Retarded. Religious people praise the act of being humble...not themselves, in every faith I am aware of.

 

The "mysteries of the faith". Hmm. Apparently the word "mystery" is lost on good ole Sam. Clearly if we say something is a mystery...then we are admitting that we don't know wtf happened...only God does...which is the exact opposite of "claiming to know". This one is simply retarded. More contradictory evidence for atheists being smarter than others.

 

Yes....so Jesus wearing a beard or not has something to do with, or even crosses your mind, while praying for help when you are being shot at. Right. Each person encounters the spiritual in their own way = the way that is right for them. Attempting to tell others that they aren't allowed to feel what they feel, because you haven't, is again, retarded. We are talking about feelings here right? How the hell are we supposed to quantify...feelings?

 

More importantly, I thought atheists were saying, as was said above, that ALL religion was wrong. Why the sudden change here to only go after Christianity? Apparently there is evidence of spiritual, and therefore, behavioral improvement from all faiths by Sam's own admission. This commonality is an argument FOR religious belief ...and not against it. And tell me please about the last atheist spiritual experience....you can't, because by definition that is a contradiction in terms.

 

So....Sam's speculation about aliens is supposed to serve as better explanation than the Bible or the Koran because...Sam said so? It's just as likely that said aliens have their own version of the Bible or Koran. Hell, since we are speculating, it's just as likely that these Aliens have their own football team whose offense decides to play terribly for no apparent reason.

 

The point is that Sam has no point here, just conjecture. The Pope has openly stated that there may in fact be other life on other planets...but that nobody knows for certain. Therefore, the religious, even the Catholics, ARE in fact able to freely entertain such possibilities as well.

 

In all cases, life on other planets '= God doesn't exist. And of course, Sam can't help himself = the aliens are brilliant too! Hysterical. What if the aliens are idiots? Does that mean God doesn't exist too? And, how does religion trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe again? Oh, that's right, because Sam said so...

 

HAHA! Reading this article defines "wishful thinking" and "self-deception" to a tee. It also defines "speculation passing for reason" and "hypocrisy" as well.

 

So instead of addressing the point: overall faith-based religion has produced better behavior, he dances around it and then talks about why good deeds are done, instead of focusing on the only thing that matters = the good deeds being done.

 

And nothing about the fact that COMMUNISM, an atheist ethos, not religion, has killed far and away more people than any other ethos in history combined. Hmmm. Oh that's right, because nobody is fool enough to argue for how much benefit we have gained from Marx's retarded theory.

 

Yes....we got to the store, but let's not give credit to the car that got us there. The car is just a car after all and even though that is the tool that has been used to accomplish the goal, now that we are at the store, let's just forget about the car. What an idiot.

 

I am so sure that the moral progress that has been made would have happened on its own without the spiritual texts that have been the basis for all of it. Yes...if only we had stuck with Aesop's fables or the Grimm brothers. Hell even social scientists use the concept of a "case study" to illustrate larger points. If we look at the Bible as a series of case studies, then you will find no better document to use as a moral instruction manual. Its a simple concept: the Bible is largely there to say "don't learn this the hard way. Take this story and learn from it".

 

 

Now...having said all of that, please understand I couldn't care less about religion, or religious activity

 

I just hate it when a phony a-hole makes a series of terrible arguments, and then gets praised for it by other phony a-holes. This screed above has no place in any debate, because as I have clearly demonstrated, it is nothing if not a poorly veiled attempt to "explain atheism" by taking shots at religion. In fact, I learned NOTHING about atheists due to this article. IF this was an attempt at promoting understanding of atheism, then the atheists have been severely under-served.

 

 

is that u sean hannity.... are u really that frustrated...??

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

do u enjoy just making up things...

[OGTEleven]

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

 

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

 

Here he protests that other people misrepresent how atheists feel about life. His main argument is to misrepresent how religious people feel about life and its meaning.

 

I'm sure there are people both atheist and religious that feel life is meaningless. I have not personally met either. I can't remember ever reading or hearing a religious person say that atheists believe life is meaningless. Maybe I missed all the prejudice on this one.

 

 

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

 

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

 

Again I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone say that atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. But again he turns the argument 180 degrees. He seems to be trying to say is that horrible acts that were committed by atheists were committed because those atheists got too religious. How would future atheists avoids this fate?

 

He says that there is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. He fails to give an example of any human society that was ever reasonable. He doesn't even try to show that human nature will allow it. I contend, but cannot prove, that if all religion were forgotten tomorrow that other reasons would quickly pop up to justify cruel acts. This is not meant to pin it on atheism at all, but no one should pretend that atheism could solve these woes.

 

 

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

 

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

 

The bolded part is a misrepresentation and he has to know it. If he used the word "some" he could get away with it. If he is so adept with logic, why would he need to resort to wild generalizations like that?

 

Is he really saying all atheists have given complete thought to their position? All atheists have read the Koran and the Bible? Really?

 

As for Roberts, his observation dismisses the many similarities in the world's great religions (by great I mean large, not terrific). If some scientists believe Mars has water and some believe it does not, I would not conclude that scientists are actually skeptical regarding the existence of Mars. To agree on a topic do we have to agree on every single component?

 

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

 

I don't have any argument with him here but I'm not sure the point he wants to prove.

 

 

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

 

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

 

Did he really end a sentence with "is"?

 

I have never heard anyone make the claim that atheism is incompatible with science. I would have to ask what he means by connection to decide whether or not I agree.

 

 

6) Atheists are arrogant.

 

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it.Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

 

The bolded part is absolutely absurd. I believe in God. I am fully and completely aware that I do not know that he exists. 100%. Personally, I am glad that I do not know and hope to never know (until I die). Some people claim to know but not all religious people make that claim. If his arguments are so strong, why must he make false claims about others?

 

As for humility and arrogance, I think all people claiming to be humble are arrogant. That goes for atheists and religious people.

 

I have heard people claim that atheists are arrogant and have probably made that claim myself. For me it is derived from the definition of atheism which has a connotation of certainty. With certainty (on any topic) comes arrogance.

 

 

 

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

 

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

 

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

 

I don't think atheists are closed to things like love, awe, etc; but I wonder what they think about it. I think the concept of free will is incompatible with atheism. If atheism is correct then everything can be explained by science, even if we don't understand all the aspects of science at present. We may perceive free will, love, joy and other emotions but they cannot be real. This goes especially for free will. These things would merely be the results of chemical and molecular reactions that are predicatable and unstoppable. I believe that atheists can experience love, but I'm not sure how an atheist can believe this.

 

I watched a few of the videos in the other thread and although Harris did not address free will in the ones I watched, he did appear to start at one point. He said something along the lines of "if you believe in free will" and sort of smirked. I don't know his opinion here.

 

 

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

 

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

 

From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

 

I don't think he really understands religion. He certainly does not understand all religious people. Of course there is immense beauty in the universe as a whole. There is also immense beauty in every individual being or thing in the universe. Is the beauty of the immense universe more or less than the beauty of a person thinking or a microbe clinging to life in adverse conditions or a rock? How can you quantify such things?

 

I don't believe this market is cornered by the religious or the atheist.

 

 

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

 

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

 

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

 

How are atheists going to convince people to help the poor? If we all become atheists will we all be magically wonderful?

 

Religion has had a role in shaping society as has atheism (smaller). Human nature as a whole has a far greater role than either IMO.

 

 

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

 

If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

 

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

 

 

by Sam Harris

 

 

To refute the claim that atheism provides no basis for morality he attempts to demonstrate that religion does not provide a basis for morality. That can be argued, but even if you say religion provides no basis whatsoever for morality and has not at any time in history, he has still done nothing to say that atheism does. He does not even appear to be trying to refute the original claim (which he made up to begin with ). I'm supposed to respect this guy's use of logic? Really?

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

Here he protests that other people misrepresent how atheists feel about life. His main argument is to misrepresent how religious people feel about life and its meaning.

 

I'm sure there are people both atheist and religious that feel life is meaningless. I have not personally met either. I can't remember ever reading or hearing a religious person say that atheists believe life is meaningless. Maybe I missed all the prejudice on this one.

 

 

 

 

Again I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone say that atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. But again he turns the argument 180 degrees. He seems to be trying to say is that horrible acts that were committed by atheists were committed because those atheists got too religious. How would future atheists avoids this fate?

 

He says that there is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. He fails to give an example of any human society that was ever reasonable. He doesn't even try to show that human nature will allow it. I contend, but cannot prove, that if all religion were forgotten tomorrow that other reasons would quickly pop up to justify cruel acts. This is not meant to pin it on atheism at all, but no one should pretend that atheism could solve these woes.

 

hes simply saying that lack of belief in god played no role in communism, nazism. other ideas were prevalent... dogmatism is the problem..

 

 

The bolded part is a misrepresentation and he has to know it. If he used the word "some" he could get away with it. If he is so adept with logic, why would he need to resort to wild generalizations like that?

 

Is he really saying all atheists have given complete thought to their position? All atheists have read the Koran and the Bible? Really?

 

As for Roberts, his observation dismisses the many similarities in the world's great religions (by great I mean large, not terrific). If some scientists believe Mars has water and some believe it does not, I would not conclude that scientists are actually skeptical regarding the existence of Mars. To agree on a topic do we have to agree on every single component?

 

 

 

I don't have any argument with him here but I'm not sure the point he wants to prove.

 

 

 

 

Did he really end a sentence with "is"?

 

I have never heard anyone make the claim that atheism is incompatible with science. I would have to ask what he means by connection to decide whether or not I agree.

 

 

 

 

The bolded part is absolutely absurd. I believe in God. I am fully and completely aware that I do not know that he exists. 100%. Personally, I am glad that I do not know and hope to never know (until I die). Some people claim to know but not all religious people make that claim. If his arguments are so strong, why must he make false claims about others?

 

As for humility and arrogance, I think all people claiming to be humble are arrogant. That goes for atheists and religious people.

 

I have heard people claim that atheists are arrogant and have probably made that claim myself. For me it is derived from the definition of atheism which has a connotation of certainty. With certainty (on any topic) comes arrogance.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think atheists are closed to things like love, awe, etc; but I wonder what they think about it. I think the concept of free will is incompatible with atheism. If atheism is correct then everything can be explained by science, even if we don't understand all the aspects of science at present. We may perceive free will, love, joy and other emotions but they cannot be real. This goes especially for free will. These things would merely be the results of chemical and molecular reactions that are predicatable and unstoppable. I believe that atheists can experience love, but I'm not sure how an atheist can believe this.

 

I watched a few of the videos in the other thread and although Harris did not address free will in the ones I watched, he did appear to start at one point. He said something along the lines of "if you believe in free will" and sort of smirked. I don't know his opinion here.

 

 

 

 

I don't think he really understands religion. He certainly does not understand all religious people. Of course there is immense beauty in the universe as a whole. There is also immense beauty in every individual being or thing in the universe. Is the beauty of the immense universe more or less than the beauty of a person thinking or a microbe clinging to life in adverse conditions or a rock? How can you quantify such things?

 

I don't believe this market is cornered by the religious or the atheist.

 

 

 

 

How are atheists going to convince people to help the poor? If we all become atheists will we all be magically wonderful?

 

we would simply be nice to people and help the poor, why would we not help people if we became atheists... humans are intrinsicly good for evolutionary reasons...im sure u know this...

 

Religion has had a role in shaping society as has atheism (smaller). Human nature as a whole has a far greater role than either IMO.

 

i agree here, only that religions shape on the world, specifically the big three christianity, judaism, islam have all shaped the world in dogmatic ways.

 

 

 

 

To refute the claim that atheism provides no basis for morality he attempts to demonstrate that religion does not provide a basis for morality. That can be argued, but even if you say religion provides no basis whatsoever for morality and has not at any time in history, he has still done nothing to say that atheism does. He does not even appear to be trying to refute the original claim (which he made up to begin with ). I'm supposed to respect this guy's use of logic? Really?

 

again morality can be explained in evolutionary terms, it is a benefit for our species to help one another so we can survive...

[DC Tom]

is that u sean hannity.... are u really that frustrated...??

 

 

do u enjoy just making up things...

 

So when presented with an argument, all you can do is lob insults?

 

 

again morality can be explained in evolutionary terms, it is a benefit for our species to help one another so we can survive...

 

What's you evidence?

[OCinBuffalo]

So when presented with an argument, all you can do is lob insults?

Hehehe

 

Just further evidence that the atheist is more often the dumbest guy in the room, not the smartest. Or, at the very least, there is no correlation between atheism and intelligence.

What's you evidence?

You might as well be asking Pelosi for sanity. Clearly the OP is one of these "my team is writing things I like to hear" dopes.

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

So when presented with an argument, all you can do is lob insults?

o cin in buffalo had no argument whatsoever just pure right wing attacks, he never made a real attempt to refute what sam is saying. he made no argument......

 

What's you evidence?

\

 

 

why is murder wrong in our society? u can answer ur own question.

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

Hehehe

 

Just further evidence that the atheist is more often the dumbest guy in the room, not the smartest. Or, at the very least, there is no correlation between atheism and intelligence.

 

You might as well be asking Pelosi for sanity. Clearly the OP is one of these "my team is writing things I like to hear" dopes.

 

 

here i make it simple for u,, what is ur evidence for god, what is god?

 

are u a christian?

[VABills]

here i make it simple for u,, what is ur evidence for god, what is god?

 

are u a christian?

Here let me make it simple. What evidence do you have their isn't God? How's about a black hole? You've never seen either, yet somehow you seem to believe in the later but not the former. How's about the existance of The great wall of china. Other than picture which can be doctored, what proof do you have that it exists. For that matter how do you know you do

[DC Tom]

why is murder wrong in our society? u can answer ur own question.

 

No, I can't. I can't answer the question of what YOUR evidence is for making a claim that morality is evolutionary.

 

So where is your evidence?

[OCinBuffalo]

why is murder wrong in our society? u can answer ur own question.

Let me start by saying it's unwise to attempt to monkey with Tom's quotes...if it was unintentional, so be it.

 

and

 

I will get out my spoon and feed you one argument at a time. How about we start with my first blatantly obvious argument that you say doesn't exist, or, is a "right wing attack" :

 

"if you say it the way "Sam" did, then this means that an atheist placing any meaning, even a sliver, on life....gets to to say that at least s/he doesn't believe life is meaningless."

 

You tell me how the above statement is NOT an perfect example of looking at morality as relative, instead of looking at it properly = based on set principles(don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc.)

 

Take all night if you have to....given what I have seen so far from you...we can expect something REASONABLE, by next week

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

Let me start by saying it's unwise to attempt to monkey with Tom's quotes...if it was unintentional, so be it.

 

and

 

I will get out my spoon and feed you one argument at a time. How about we start with my first blatantly obvious argument that you say doesn't exist, or, is a "right wing attack" :

 

"if you say it the way "Sam" did, then this means that an atheist placing any meaning, even a sliver, on life....gets to to say that at least s/he doesn't believe life is meaningless."

 

You tell me how the above statement is NOT an perfect example of looking at morality as relative, instead of looking at it properly = based on set principles(don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc.)

 

Take all night if you have to....given what I have seen so far from you...we can expect something REASONABLE, by next week

 

when an atheist say life is full of meaning, yes that is subjective. emotional well being and not murdering people are both positve attributes towards society... this has nothing to do with relativism and has everything to with what mental health is and why we value sanity.... (we already know what it means to be sane without believing in the preposterous)... this is not moral relativism....

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

moral relativism is saying whatever god says, ( whatever that means) is right.... might is not always right...

[billsfan89]

Atheism much like Religion can be good or bad. Its all about how you take it and accept what you believe. Atheism is a thing that can be good many atheists feel that since this is the only world we have we should take care of it and each other while we are here. While others embrace a much more hedonistic life style (I have only met 1 atheist that lives his life that way and odds are its not due to his lack of a belief in a God although he says that it influences him but I doubt it).

 

IF you take religion to an extreme you get things like Religious wars and extremists that carry out things like terrorism in the name of religion. Yet if you take religion in the right way you can get a good message out of it and carry out your life in a positive way. Its all about the way you interpret your belief or lack of a belief.

 

Almost everything can have a good side and a really bad side. All you can do is live your life in a good way and believe what you want to believe. I believe in God I think it gives the world a little bit of meaning to it and until they disprove God I will believe. If you don't believe in a God thats cool in fact if you don't believe in God and do the right thing it makes your actions a product of you.

 

Its all about tolerance just let others be they way they are as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

the consequentalist can simply say happiness breeds happiness or good is good by itself,

 

for example when we argue that compassion is conducive towards happiness and this is a foundation towards more happiness. this is a moral objective now in light of happiness being the goal or foundaiton... it wraps around on itself..

[John Adams]

the consequentalist can simply say happiness breeds happiness or good is good by itself,

 

for example when we argue that compassion is conducive towards happiness and this is a foundation towards more happiness. this is a moral objective now in light of happiness being the goal or foundaiton... it wraps around on itself..

 

You're StupidNation aren't you?

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

lol relax man

[OCinBuffalo]

when an atheist say life is full of meaning, yes that is subjective. emotional well being and not murdering people are both positve attributes towards society... this has nothing to do with relativism and has everything to with what mental health is and why we value sanity.... (we already know what it means to be sane without believing in the preposterous)... this is not moral relativism....

What? Seriously. What the hell is this? Because it certainly isn't a response to my argument. The point being made by Sam is:

 

No atheists believe that life has no meaning.

 

And my point is, that means that all atheists can adjust the value of individual life up and down relative to whatever they want based on their perception or whatever becomes convenient for them = the exact opposite of morality. As long as they place even a tiny bit of meaning on one life, then they can get off the hook. Of course, if we are suddenly talking about their kids, I am certain the value of one life goes through the roof. This is the very definition of relativity. For example, how many atheists are for abortion, but against the death penalty? The reasons they are for and against have nothing to do with morality, and, instead they are based on relative arguments of convenience, often based on political expediency, and not some consistent set of principles.

 

I am not going to bother addressing whatever you said because it's simply babble.

 

moral relativism is saying whatever god says, ( whatever that means) is right.... might is not always right...

Yes, the message Jesus espoused was "might is right". And, because that's what he said, you are now right for arguing against it.

 

Retarded.

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

an atheists ethics come from the foundation of happiness and suffering... moving away from suffering and towards happiness...

 

this is off topic but do u think life starts at conception? lets find out what morality really means here...

[DELLAPELLE JOHN]

i forget to mention jesus supported slavery too...