.

I have observed that nearly all of your posts on this website are posts trying to refute atheists,. And this is supposed to be a newly registered account.


You seem to believe in the infallibility of your opinion about what atheists think or what they believe. The small number of atheists here all think and believe all sorts of different things about everything under the sun.

Imagine the diversity among this "we" you're trying to push, on a global scale. Or do you, religious people, all think and believe the same way?

If I may ask you, who and of what are you trying to persuade here? Yourself? That atheists are deeply mistaken? Why is this?

Do you need everyone to agree with you so that you can feel secure you're right?


Are your own convictions not enough that you need to "prove" atheists "wrong"? Or are there doubts nagging at you and you think, "I'll challenge those atheists and reconfirm my faith"?

I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and your motivations here.

Endtimer:


Unfortunately you are the best informed atheist in this thread; despite your teenage in-your-face attitude you are doing better than the girl and that other guy by at least adding some sense to your invective. I’ll be quoting excerpts of your last post to make my point.

Endtimer:

Unfortunately you’ve missed the point entirely. It’s not necessarily going to be crimes as extreme as rape, but people will want to know why they should obey certain humanist principles with time.

Because we all lose if we all play negative sum games like murder, rape, and theft. Any society that doesn't prohibit these behaviours doesn't last long. Seriously, how long do you think a society made entirely of murderers would last? Stabbity-stabbity and everybody's dead. Anthropologists of the future will marvel at the extremely rapid decline of the Endtimers, lol.

Endtimer:

I’m not talking about you and me. I’m talking about one rule breaker who isn’t content with pretending like there is order where there isn't

You say that like society doesn't have criminals. There's plenty of order, it's just imposed from within.

efficiencie:


...Order cannot be generated without intelligence...

Dump marbles into a slightly tilted empty box and they cover the bottom in a very ordered pattern. The examples of order from chaos are infinite.

Near1:
This isn't directed at me but I'll take a shot anyway

Yeah, got it. It's something most of us including myself, realized for several decades now, thanks.

Speaking for myself, I don't personally try to deconvert Christians. By the way, atheism is not a belief-structure to which people convert.

Unfortunately, Atheism is a belief system of choosing to disbelief in Deities.

How can one believe or Disbelief something you have sufficient evidence for.

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman. I know both do not exist.

The question is:
Do you know if God exists or not!?

Near1:

Who here has said that science is infallible? Indeed, one of its strengths is that it corrects its own errors.

Exactly the point!
The OP is using a Strawman here: how can a fallible science prove or disprove the existence of God with certainty?

Tamaratonye1:

That's true given specific assumptions and definitions. Given a different but equally reasonable set of the same it's not true. So you are begging the question.

You probably don't understand my point. Let me illustrate if for you.

Suppose we don't know any history of civilizations, can we by science alone accurately reconstruct the empires and civilizations that has existed before us?

History is in the frame of reference of Art, Story, past time.
Science is in the frame of reference to Science, matter, energy, reactions of matter.

Just as History alone cannot decrypt science, science alone cannot decrypt history.

Same with Religion/ Spiritism and Science. It's a parallel world of view which may cross once in a while.

Tamaratonye1:

Which single or collective group of Christians are you asking about? The world would probably not change much, but if some religious assholes did, it might refocus their assholishness toward more innocuous behaviors than they engage in under their religious presumptions.

Throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater!? LOL!
Have you heard this before:
"All humans are wicked and destructive therefore for nature to survive, humans need to be eliminated"!


Your point is highly synonymous!!

Tamaratonye1:

Fallibility is a sliding scale, with much of science tending toward one side, and most of religion tending toward the other. That science is subject to bias is a canard unless you mean to say that science is more readily prone to the effects of bias than any other human endeavor, and for which I'd like to see some evidence. Quite the contrary, science, as much as any other human pursuit, has developed habits, norms, conventions, and practices which minimize the impact of bias on its conclusions. You want to know what's at the other end of the spectrum? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Discard God, morality becomes subjective and there would be nothing that is wrong.
Bestiality, Necromancers, Cannibalism, Incest etc. You'll be forced to replace God with your government as a standard by which all will live.
I cringe at your offering

Tamaratonye1:

FYI, TenQ, there's no such thing as "converting to atheism" - it is not a belief. To be atheist is to live life without faith in the existence of a god or, gods.

So you have swallowed the bait that Atheism is NOT a belief system?

Can one sincerely belief or lack a belief something you know completely?

Using your exact definition here:
"To be atheist is to live life without faith in the existence of a god or, gods."
By your definition,
Atheism is godlessness!

Faith is a TRUST in the integrity of a PERSONALITY!

It is impossible to lack trust in the integrity of a personality who doesn't exist! In other words, Atheism is a Rejection of an Uncaused First-Cause of Everything! This makes Atheists godless! This covers both Gnostic -Atheists and Agnostic -Atheists.

Godlessness!

efficiencie:

If we are programmed to be good then there must be a programmer. You may want to say that the programme evolved but that would be you shooting yourself in the foot because that would mean that the programme in humans defining their behavioral patterns is capable of learning. A programme that learns is much more sophisticated than a mere set of instructions that would most certainly necessitate a highly intelligent designer. So you just refuted yourself with this statement.

"If we are programmed to be good then there must be a programmer"

What a load of bunk!
We see morality in humans going back 400,000 years when humans had to cooperate with each other to hunt and gather.
It was a necessary to work together to sustain life and pass on their genes. It was evolution at it's finest. Cooperating became a social norm. When one person depends on another person for survival the tribe also survives and anthropoligists can trace this in human development. This was a moral "order" that showed up during evolutiion and there was no need for a god.

On the other hand, perhaps you can explain to us why your "programmer" created malaria pathogens 15 million years ago (preserved in amber drops) that have killed a few billion people (mostly children) over the course of human history? Do tell!
Explain to me the morality of a god who would do such a horrific thing.


I'll wait.

TenQ:

1. It would be impossible for science to prove or disprove God because the frame of reference or operations are completely different.
2. What would be your gain if a Christian converts to Atheism?
3. You seem to believe in the infallibility of science to your peril. Science is subject to the bias of the interpreter of available data.

Ah yes, your god is conveniently too mysterious for science to detect......but so are invisible leprechauns and mysterious magical fairies!.
You're arguing the classic god of the gaps nonsense. Or the other trope you're presenting; a god that is outside of space and time so science can't detect your god in this mysterious place. Amazingly, I have an invisible magical donut outside of space and time which created your god out of powdered sugar and there is no way you could prove or disprove my assertion.

The bible can be interpreted a hundred-thousand different ways, depending on the readers bias. Religious bias is actually the basis of your beliefs as it is with Hindus and Muslims.
The bible is a book that claims a god exists, it is certainly NOT a book that proves a god exists. It is a tribal book full of ancient unproven myths and old family lore. It's a book that is a product the time period it was written in. Slavery is condoned. Rape is condoned. Stoning adulterous women is condoned. Stoning disobedient children is condoned. This reflects the dreadful morals of the time period 2500 years ago.

Here you are arguing against science but using a computer which was developed using many scientific theories! probably you drive a car which uses numerous scientific theories, you most likely have taken modern medicines, including anti-biotics or vaccines which directly use the germ theory of disease and the theory of evolution. These medicines would not work at all if evolution were not a fact.

Yeah, you don't seem to know how science works, do you?
By the way, nothing you have posted is new. Your arguments are old and tired.

TenQ:

Unfortunately, Atheism is a belief system of choosing to disbelief in Deities.

How can one believe or Disbelief something you have sufficient evidence for.

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman. I know both do not exist.

The question is:
Do you know if God exists or not!?


Exactly the point!
The OP is using a Strawman here: how can a fallible science prove or disprove the existence of God with certainty?

If science is fallible, then how do you suppose it can prove or disprove the existence of gravity with certainty?
Hint: Your certainty is a strawman!

GOD IS ELECTRONICS, MECHATRONICS AND ARTS.
GOD IS SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTISTS AND THE ARTISTS.
GOD IS OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, OMNIEVERY THING
HALLELUJAH HOSANNA IN THE HIGHEST.

TenQ:

Unfortunately, Atheism is a belief system of choosing to disbelief in Deities.

Lean back a minute and re-read what you just wrote.
By your own logic, every disbelief in something is a belief system. LOL

But reading your next paragraph pretty much tells us why you are so confused. You choose to believe and think everyone else does as well, and you are most probably interpreting this "choice" (to not believe) as a belief. You are utterly confused!


[quote]I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman. I know both do not exist.[quote]
There are two states of belief. Positive (belief) and negative (disbelief). If you dont disbelief in Superman, then you do believe in Superman. Why do you believe in Superman, although you know he does not exist?
Did you "choose" to believe in him contrary to evidence, like in god? *sarcasm off*.

Seriously. You dont know what constitutes a belief, you dont know how to properly arrive at the according states (definitly not by "choosing", and you dont know shit about knowledge.
I recommend you get yourself informed about some basics, before you participate in more advanced discussions!

TenQ:

Same with Religion/ Spiritism and Science. It's a parallel world of view which may cross once in a while.

Provide evidence that "Spiritism" is a thing

Discard God, morality becomes subjective and there would be nothing that is wrong.

With god, morality is still subjective, from gods view!
You really dont know the basics my dear.

Bestiality, Necromancers, Cannibalism, Incest etc. You'll be forced to replace God with your government as a standard by which all will live.

So you need a god to keep you from Bestiality and Cannibalism? Hehehehe

By your definition,
Atheism is godlessness!

Duh. It is obvious! You have not said anything profound here.
And you say that as if it was something bad.

It is impossible to lack trust in the integrity of a personality who doesn't exist

God does not exist. Therefore, i do not have any trust in him. Like i dont have trust in anything else that does not exist.
What is so hard about that to understand?
Oh, i see, you need to make mental gymnastics, in order to drag down disbelief to the level to your unfounded belief. If you had any good reasons for your belief, then you would give those reason instead of this mental bend backwards!

In other words, Atheism is a Rejection of an Uncaused First-Cause of Everything! This makes Atheists godless! This covers both Gnostic -Atheists and Agnostic -Atheists.

Yeah, gnostic and agnostic atheists dont believe in your god
Duh!
And water is wet.

Oh, and you present that "uncaused first cause of everything" as if it was real. Got any evidence to support your claim?

chryssanthe:


Ah yes, your god is conveniently too mysterious for science to detect......but so are invisible leprechauns and mysterious magical fairies!.
You're arguing the classic god of the gaps nonsense. Or the other trope you're presenting; a god that is outside of space and time so science can't detect your god in this mysterious place. Amazingly, I have an invisible magical donut outside of space and time which created your god out of powdered sugar and there is no way you could prove or disprove my assertion.

The bible can be interpreted a hundred-thousand different ways, depending on the readers bias. Religious bias is actually the basis of your beliefs as it is with Hindus and Muslims.
The bible is a book that claims a god exists, it is certainly NOT a book that proves a god exists. It is a tribal book full of ancient unproven myths and old family lore. It's a book that is a product the time period it was written in. Slavery is condoned. Rape is condoned. Stoning adulterous women is condoned. Stoning disobedient children is condoned. This reflects the dreadful morals of the time period 2500 years ago.

Here you are arguing against science but using a computer which was developed using many scientific theories! probably you drive a car which uses numerous scientific theories, you most likely have taken modern medicines, including anti-biotics or vaccines which directly use the germ theory of disease and the theory of evolution. These medicines would not work at all if evolution were not a fact.

Yeah, you don't seem to know how science works, do you?
By the way, nothing you have posted is new. Your arguments are old and tired.

Some people think that Science is anti-religion and religion is anti-science! What ignorance!

These are two different ways of looking at existence my dear.

I am appalled!

chryssanthe:


If science is fallible, then how do you suppose it can prove or disprove the existence of gravity with certainty?
Hint: Your certainty is a strawman!

Till now, physics is still grappling with what gravity truely is my dear!

Using History to unveil physics or using Chemistry to unveil Sociology is an impossibility!
See the person using Strawman arguments calling a refutation a Strawman!? LOL!

Can science prove or disprove God!? It's a question you've not answered!

chryssanthe:

Lean back a minute and re-read what you just wrote.
By your own logic, every disbelief in something is a belief system. LOL

But reading your next paragraph pretty much tells us why you are so confused. You choose to believe and think everyone else does as well, and you are most probably interpreting this "choice" (to not believe) as a belief. You are utterly confused!

Exactly the point, you don't even know how to distinguish between believing and knowing.

I asked you a simple question:
Do you know or believe in the existence of not of Batman or Superman!

One choice has to do with certainty and the other has to do with reasonable evidence!

Your call!?

TenQ:

Unfortunately, Atheism is a belief system of choosing to disbelief in Deities.

How can one believe or Disbelief something you have sufficient evidence for.

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman. I know both do not exist.

When you understand why you cannot believe in Batman, you'll understand why I cannot believe in your god.

We can address your silly claim that atheism is a "belief system" quite simply: tommyrot. The word means nothing more nor less than lack of faith in any deities.

The question is:
Do you know if God exists or not!?

I don't know, but I find what passes for evidence as so laughably thin that it seems to you have to suspend rational faculty in order to accept it.

Exactly the point!
The OP is using a Strawman here: how can a fallible science prove or disprove the existence of God with certainty?

There's a few problems with this statement. Being fallible is not the same as being useless, though; that's your first misapprehension. Here, let's do an experiment: turn off your computer and pray to your lord that your thoughts may be posted on this forum without any devices. "Well, that's stupid!" you're probably saying, and you'd be correct. Because despite its fallibility, science has come up with astonishing insights, and our knowledge continues to advance based on its findings. And applied science works.

The same cannot be said of religious faith. That's why when you want to shitpost this garbage, you turn to science and not your Batman: because you know your Batman cannot get a goddamned thing posted.

Tamaratonye1:

Because we all lose if we all play negative sum games like murder, rape, and theft. Any society that doesn't prohibit these behaviours doesn't last long. Seriously, how long do you think a society made entirely of murderers would last? Stabbity-stabbity and everybody's dead. Anthropologists of the future will marvel at the extremely rapid decline of the Endtimers, lol

You missed the point again. I’m not talking about society based on murder. I’m talking about atheists like you saying that we should all do good and one bad egg decides that it is in his best interests to organize large numbers of people to live contrary to whatever social order you want to authoritatively impose.

For instance, you are probably against bestiality and pedophilia. In your hypothetical society someone might decide that he loves children and animals and demands that their relationship be made legal. Regardless of how many times you claim that sleeping with children isn’t good for society, he may remark that good is a social construct or that he cares only for himself rather than society. There is no cohesive ideology to prevent him from carrying out his wishes other than authoritarianism based on what you, his fellow man, thinks is right. I’m only saying that that is a slippery slope to allow any kind of behavior.

In fact, I suspect that the prisons in such a society would be filled with people who dared question other people’s ability to do whatever they please. Filled with the exact kind of person who thinks that we all lose if one guy gets to enjoy his fun with a few toddlers. Filled with people who dare tell others what to do even after breaking free of the oppressive shackles of religion.

Tamaratonye1:

Dump marbles into a slightly tilted empty box and they cover the bottom in a very ordered pattern. The examples of order from chaos are infinite.

Someone does the dumping. Intelligence. Someone provides an empty box. Intelligence. Someone tilts the box at a well defined angle. Intelligence. Someone designed the patterned bottom. Intelligence. Your response reeks of intelligence yet in some oddly convoluted manner you believe your response implies that order comes from chaos without the intervention of intelligent agents.

chryssanthe:

Provide evidence that "Spiritism" is a thing

How can "++ism" be a thing?
As yourself again naw!

chryssanthe:

With god, morality is still subjective, from gods view!
You really dont know the basics my dear

So you need a god to keep you from Bestiality and Cannibalism? Hehehehe


Duh. It is obvious! You have not said anything profound here.
And you say that as if it was something bad.

Seems you don't know the difference between objective and subjective morality.

Objective morality means ABSOLUTE code of living
Subjective morality is a RELATIVE code of living.

Example:
God: it is a sin to commit Fornication
You: as long as the sex is between consenting adults and is done safely.

Objective morality gives a standard from God.


Let me ask you a question as an Atheist:
Is sex with an animal wrong if there is guarantee that the animal is not hurt, that adequate protection against STDs are used and no danger is posed to the society?


Please don't doge this question!

chryssanthe:

God does not exist. Therefore, i do not have any trust in him. Like i dont have trust in anything else that does not exist.
What is so hard about that to understand?
Oh, i see, you need to make mental gymnastics, in order to drag down disbelief to the level to your unfounded belief. If you had any good reasons for your belief, then you would give those reason instead of this mental bend backwards!

Yeah, gnostic and agnostic atheists dont believe in your god
Duh!
And water is wet.

Oh, and you present that "uncaused first cause of everything" as if it was real. Got any evidence to support your claim?

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

Please wade me through: as for me it seems to contradict simple Logic!

Near1:


When you understand why you cannot believe in Batman, you'll understand why I cannot believe in your god.

You cannot believe Batman because you KNOW that he doesn't exist.

Near1:

We can address your silly claim that atheism is a "belief system" quite simply: tommyrot. The word means nothing more nor less than lack of faith in any deities.

Until you KNOW for a fact that God (the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of EVERYTHING) does not exist : every thing is about reasonable excuse making it a BELIEF!

Near1:

I don't know, but I find what passes for evidence as so laughably thin that it seems to you have to suspend rational faculty in order to accept it.

There's a few problems with this statement. Being fallible is not the same as being useless, though; that's your first misapprehension. Here, let's do an experiment: turn off your computer and pray to your lord that your thoughts may be posted on this forum without any devices. "Well, that's stupid!" you're probably saying, and you'd be correct. Because despite its fallibility, science has come up with astonishing insights, and our knowledge continues to advance based on its findings. And applied science works.

The same cannot be said of religious faith. That's why when you want to shitpost this garbage, you turn to science and not your Batman: because you know your Batman cannot get a goddamned thing posted.

I find it hilarious that some educated folks think that Science is the opposite of Religion!

Is Religion opposite in meaning to Science?

1000WaysToLive:
I have observed that nearly all of your posts on this website are posts trying to refute atheists,. And this is supposed to be a newly registered account.


You seem to believe in the infallibility of your opinion about what atheists think or what they believe. The small number of atheists here all think and believe all sorts of different things about everything under the sun.

Imagine the diversity among this "we" you're trying to push, on a global scale. Or do you, religious people, all think and believe the same way?

If I may ask you, who and of what are you trying to persuade here? Yourself? That atheists are deeply mistaken? Why is this?

Do you need everyone to agree with you so that you can feel secure you're right?


Are your own convictions not enough that you need to "prove" atheists "wrong"? Or are there doubts nagging at you and you think, "I'll challenge those atheists and reconfirm my faith"?

I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and your motivations here.

This isn’t an argument but I’ll give you an answer. Your post seems like advice for me to back off.

I don’t appreciate any form of psychoanalysis, because I understand my own mind to a large extent.

I find your post to be disrespectful towards all the atheists here. Are you trying to say that when they post something, looking for discussion with people on the other side of theological aisle, they should be left unchallenged? Why is that? Do you not believe that they really mean it when they say they want to know what theists think on certain issues? Do you think they can’t take it when someone has a difference of opinion? Why do you feel the need to protect people who’ve chosen to participate in intellectual discourse concerning their own opinions?

As to who I am, that is hardly of any importance. Like I said before I’m a Christian of sorts. You’d have better luck finding me reading Augustine’s City of God, than dancing at your local church. I feel comfortable communicating with people who believe that there is something wrong with the church today because that is exactly how I feel. Where we disagree is that some people would rather we got rid of religion than amend a few loose ends. Like everyone else, I’m searching for answers and helping those who share that quest. I do it because I like to, not because I doubt what I know and tell. I do it because we’re all looking for someone who disagrees with us to give them a piece of our minds and to confirm the strength of our beliefs. I do it because this is something I can do; something I’m well informed about. We are better off disagreeing than we are complacently believing we are right all the time.

midnight378:


That's not my main point bro . (It also was not your main point).

..my point was that something(s) existed at high temperature and density PRIOR to the expansion , (which IS what the Big Bang was), thus the Big Bang says nothing about a creation event , despite what Christian apologists try to make it look like . the Big Bang DOES NOT support theism. Lots of known events need no cause . What is the "cause" of a random quantum fluctuation(s) ? What is the cause of random radioactive decay ? Order arises spontaneously in this universe. No gods are needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

You avoid my point by calling the singularity, “something that existed at high temperature and density”. By doing so, you’ve demonstrated that we can fix SARS by renaming them SWAT. There is no evidence of anything existing prior to the Big Bang. That is intuitive human speculation. A good glance at Wikipedia should convince you of this.

I’m tired of playing defense so let me ask you once again. Where and when was this something that existed at high temperature and pressure prior to the existence of space and time?

As to your misunderstanding of causality. No theist worth his akara and bread has ever said that everything has a cause. That is a faulty restatement of the first premise of the cosmological argument. Everything that begins has a cause is the correct premise. Radioactive decay is spontaneous, rather than random. If your phone suddenly started decaying it would be random, but the decay of radioactive material is hardly random; it just happens without prodding and is therefore spontaneous. It’s cause is nuclear instability; that is, it is caused by unstable atomic nuclei. It does not happen randomly. As for quantum fluctuations; I know very little about the subject but a simple Google search shows that the Uncertainty principle might have something to do with it. I’ll look into it some more.

Lastly, I followed your link on Chaos theory. I find it self-defeating for you to try to posit an unordered universe by pointing to a systematic study of disorder. The entire point seems to be that things formerly thought random are in fact not, but can be studied through complex analyses. If these things truly were random, no science could study them.

By the way, where are we going with this?

Near1:

I had asked you for a source. You haven't provided any. Why should I lend some complete stranger credence?

Just as I had asked you to look it up. Here’s one that proves my point and more:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

Findings include:
-Religious people happier and more satisfied with life.
-Religious people less likely to drink and smoke.
-Religious people more likely to vote
Amongst others. Check it out.

Here’s another study showing that religious people live longer:

https://www.apu.edu/articles/why-do-religious-people-live-longer/

Near1:

This is a particularly stupid riposte. There is a clear difference between choosing what I value and choosing my capabilities. Surely you possess the mental acuity to at least see that.

No argument. Just childlike rhetoric. Whatever point you struggled to articulate here, I will address below.

Near1:

Further, your dismissing of the subjective choices we all make rather undercuts your own faith, because that too is a subjective choice you have made about which credo you will follow. As such, by your own logic your choice is just as insipid as mine.

I can’t come up with something witty to address this straw man (believe me, I’ve tried). I spoke of ultimate value and ultimate purpose and you replied in a completely unreasonable fashion. To clarify, my point was that on atheism, life is ultimately valueless and purposeless, regardless of how you feel or think about it. Attempts to create value for oneself may serve as the mirage/delusion they were meant to, but do not change the fact that life is inherently worthless (this is my point in case you want to know what you should be attacking). The attempt to create ultimate purpose or value is a succinct reminder that there is none. No mention was made about the validity of selective choice or free will. You might want to reassess my point and address it, rather than create your own and then proceed to tear it down.

Near1:

I really don't care what theists believe about me or my outlook. I'll let you know if that changes, but don't hold your breath. And again, your choice to believe in your god is equally subjective. Or, if you are compelled by objectivity, then you've just undercut free will. Congratulations.

Are you kidding? What does this have to do with anything? I suspect you didn’t understand any of what I wrote. You’re taking my argument, going off on a tangent and posing as though you’ve accomplished some great feat by attacking your own ideas.

Near1:

Again, your unspoken premise is that values may only be handed down from on high. In that sense, you are simply reiterating your argument, not supporting it.

That is hardly an unspoken premise. If you could see it then it must’ve been clear. When we speak about moral values, they can only be truly authoritative if provided by God. Moral values cannot be provided by men, the objection to this is simply: “says who?”

-We shouldn’t kill one another. It isn’t good.
-Says who?

Authoritarianism is the only way to enforce this baseless system of ethics.

Near1:

This is one big non sequitur. Just because values are subjective, that doesn't mean that people cannot agree upon many, most, or all of them. Sloppy thinking on your part does not an argument make.

No point made. Whether or not people agree on them is not the argument. The argument is that they do not cohere with objective reality. Collective delusion is what you’re suggesting.

Near1:

All societies depend upon consensus regarding basic mores. And quite frankly, the idea that religious thought coheres with reality is laughable.

Consensus on what is believed to cohere with reality. If you know that there is no foundation for these conventions then there can be no consensus. It’s like a placebo: it only works if you believe it is the real thing. Until you provide an authoritative philosophy of ethics to underlie atheistic morality I’ll assume you know that no actual moral values exist without God; only opinions. In that case, you are suggesting further collective delusion: “let’s all act in our collective best interests as though morals exist”. People aren’t stupid enough to go along with that and will eventually inquire as to why they shouldn’t act in their best interests to everyone else’s detriment.

Near1:

You think morality and legislation are inextricably linked? Are you saying that all laws have a basis in morality?

Now, I've already asked for sourcing for your bald claims, which sourcing is noticeable by its absence in this second pile of bald assertions. I assume that your tacit refusal to do so means that you have none. If I'm wrong on this, feel free to show that, by providing said sources.

Yes, all laws are moral principles enforced by power of state. They exist because it is believed that X is good and Y is bad, not because X is beneficial to our society. An easy example of this is slavery.

I’ve addressed your post in its entirety despite it having nothing to do with my points. I’ve also furnished you with links to the relevant studies backing my obvious “misinformation” to quote the writer of the op. However, I will not persist in arguing with you over your own points. Next time, read and understand me and try to address points I’ve actually made. I will not dignify your straw men with my responses any longer.

Note that I’ve matched the snark and pettiness in your comment and will continue to do so if it persists.

Near1:


The ignorance encapsulated in this one sentence is stunning.

That should read: “responsible for spreading Christianity...”

These two claims you made are wrong by definition.

Subjective and relative moralities are distinct things, objective moralities are not absolute, and gods literally cannot be the source of an objective morality.


For a thing to be objectively good or bad, there must be something good or bad -about a thing itself- and -in fact-.

That's it, that's all, that's the only way things can be objectively good or bad.

TenQ:


Objective morality means ABSOLUTE code of living
Subjective morality is a RELATIVE code of living.

Objective morality gives a standard from God.

I don't agree with that, obviously, and I'll point out that our hypothetical pedo is overwhelming likely to be a god believing person.

Some people don't care whether or not the thing they're doing is bad. Some do, and can't help themselves or are self destructive for reasons too long to list in a short post.


This isn't a problem for any particular moral system - it's a problem for every moral system. In the end, that's why authoritarianism is such a garbage system.


You can tell people to do whatever you want all day long. Won't mean they listen. Ask the many impotent gods we're told to consider. Listen to their whiny complaints about it in magic books.

Its much better to be able to explain to people why they shouldn't do x by reference to some fact of x, not some (alleged)fact of who said not to do x - which would be a subjective deontology.

Endtimer:


For instance, you are probably against bestiality and pedophilia. In your hypothetical society someone might decide that he loves children and animals and demands that their relationship be made legal. Regardless of how many times you claim that sleeping with children isn’t good for society, he may remark that good is a social construct or that he cares only for himself rather than society. There is no cohesive ideology to prevent him from carrying out his wishes other than authoritarianism based on what you, his fellow man, thinks is right. I’m only saying that that is a slippery slope to allow any kind of behavior.

Not opposite, just disparate. Science studies what is. Religion proclaims what ought to be.

Science is a process. Religions are ideologies.

TenQ:


I find it hilarious that some educated folks think that Science is the opposite of Religion!

Is Religion opposite in meaning to Science?

Endtimer:


You missed the point again. I’m not talking about society based on murder. I’m talking about atheists like you saying that we should all do good and one bad egg decides that it is in his best interests to organize large numbers of people to live contrary to whatever social order you want to authoritatively impose.

For instance, you are probably against bestiality and pedophilia. In your hypothetical society someone might decide that he loves children and animals and demands that their relationship be made legal. Regardless of how many times you claim that sleeping with children isn’t good for society, he may remark that good is a social construct or that he cares only for himself rather than society. There is no cohesive ideology to prevent him from carrying out his wishes other than authoritarianism based on what you, his fellow man, thinks is right. I’m only saying that that is a slippery slope to allow any kind of behavior.

In fact, I suspect that the prisons in such a society would be filled with people who dared question other people’s ability to do whatever they please. Filled with the exact kind of person who thinks that we all lose if one guy gets to enjoy his fun with a few toddlers. Filled with people who dare tell others what to do even after breaking free of the oppressive shackles of religion.

And how many societies do you know that have legalised pedophilia (and btw, I'd suggest you thread extremely lightly if you're going to be making this about child abuse. Though you seem exactly the type of nasty creature who'd go this way, just for shock value) because of one "bad egg"?
If anything, it is religion, the claim that you have some sort of divine, larger-than-humans truth that is more likely to make masses of people blindly follow someone, even if it goes against their own moral compasses.

For all your puerile onanism here (seriously, have you tried maybe saying something of substance, instead of drowning us in your I'm-12-and-this-is-smart ejaculate?), YOU are missing the point (well, a whole lot of points, really). This is the whole point of secular (or human, they are the same, as opposed to the often hateful "god-given" edicts of religion) morality.

It is NOT about what one person wants. We HAVE morality because we're a SOCIAL species (capable of empathy) that, for all its selfishness, ultimately cares about the survival of the group. This is literally all it takes.

Of course, judging by the effluvia you've smeared all over this place, if most people were like you, if they needed an external factor to tell them not to sleep with kids and animals, we'd be screwed.

TenQ:

Till now, physics is still grappling with what gravity truely is my dear!

Till now, christians are still grappling what god really is!
Are you done with moving goalposts and gish gallopping now?

Your point was about certainty (namely the fallibility of science and thus its inability to detect your god), and i exposed your fallacious thinking about certainty of scientific discoveries.

Can science prove or disprove God!? It's a question you've not answered!

It should be able to provide evidence for a god that interacts with reality.
Got some evidence for your god interacting with reality?
No? Until then, i am going to "choose my belief system of disbelief in your god", as you would put it!

Exactly the point, you don't even know how to distinguish between believing and knowing.

Point, what point? You confused belief with disbelief. This point went completely over your head! What you are doing now, is pretending you never said what you have said!

I can distinguish between believing and knowing, can you?
You cant even distinguish between believing and not-believing, thinking that disbelief is a belief (system)
So, please explain what the difference is between belief and knowledge. I am all ears.

I asked you a simple question:
Do you know or believe in the existence of not of Batman or Superman!

No, you were confused about belief, disbelief and knowledge, by saying

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman.

and now repeating it again (in your confusion)

One choice has to do with certainty and the other has to do with reasonable evidence!

Please enlighten me
But my reading is you are thinking knowledge = certainty and belief = reasonable evidence
And that, my dear, is the confusion i was talking about earlier!

How can "++ism" be a thing?

I didnt bring that nonsense to the table, you did! So please define "spiritism".

Seems you don't know the difference between objective and subjective morality.

Objective morality means ABSOLUTE code of living
Subjective morality is a RELATIVE code of living.

Can you imagine? Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea of what you are talking about (again). Your gods commandments are not objective, but absolute!
Thats why, uhm, you used the very word in BOLD letters!
Objective morality would be not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Not influenced by feelings of anyone, including your god!

Endtimer:

In fact, I suspect that the prisons in such a society would be filled with people who dared question other people’s ability to do whatever they please. Filled with the exact kind of person who thinks that we all lose if one guy gets to enjoy his fun with a few toddlers. Filled with people who dare tell others what to do even after breaking free of the oppressive shackles of religion.

What's funny is that you'll find atheists underrepresented in American federal prisons:

There were 139,002 people in the U.S. federal prison system last year, and exactly 143 of them identified as atheists. Those self-described atheists made up a mere 0.1% of the federal prison population.

That’s according to a Freedom of Information Act request I filed last summer with the Federal Bureau of Prisons that arrived earlier this month.

I made similar requests in 2013 and 2015 and the numbers have been roughly the same each time, suggesting this proportion isn’t changing even as the percentage of atheists in the general population steadily, yet slowly, inches upwards. More significantly, it means our presence in U.S. federal prisons is significantly lower than what we find in the general population. (Last year, a Pew Research Center analysis found that self-identified atheists made up 4% of the population.)

https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/in-20...opulation/

So much for the notion that atheists are more prone to criminality, all other things being equal.

TenQ:


Objective morality gives a standard from God.

This is begging the question. You're assuming the conclusion you're attempting to demonstrate. Simply repeating your argument doesn't lend it any more validity.

1000WaysToLive:
I don't agree with that, obviously, and I'll point out that our hypothetical pedo is overwhelming likely to be a god believing person.

Some people don't care whether or not the thing they're doing is bad. Some do, and can't help themselves or are self destructive for reasons too long to list in a short post.


This isn't a problem for any particular moral system - it's a problem for every moral system. In the end, that's why authoritarianism is such a garbage system.


You can tell people to do whatever you want all day long. Won't mean they listen. Ask the many impotent gods we're told to consider. Listen to their whiny complaints about it in magic books.

Its much better to be able to explain to people why they shouldn't do x by reference to some fact of x, not some (alleged)fact of who said not to do x - which would be a subjective deontology.

Everyone here wrongly thinks I’m talking about actual experiences rather than abstractions. I agree that most people will continue living as though there is a reason to be good. What I’m saying is that there isn’t such a reason, regardless of whether people act as though there were. The problem isn’t that there are people who digress from morality. The problem is that adherence to Godless morality is unwarranted.

It appears discussion on this thread is played out. One of the women here has begun talking about drowning in my ejaculate, which I find stupid and disturbing. I’ll take myself to a more intellectually simulating thread, at least until this one stabilizes.