TenQ:

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

Wrong. I don't believe in Batman because there's zero.point.zero evidence of Batman's existence.

You should have the courtesy of asking me why I believe or don't believe something, rather than telling me my own motivations. That's very rude, but at least we've now confirmed irrefutably that you are comfortable speaking out in ignorance.

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!

Wrong. It's about weighing the (lack of) evidence and following it to a conclusion. You have no evidence for Batman, and no evidence for your little godling.

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

Is Religion opposite in meaning to Science?

Who cares what you think is hilarious about me or anyone else? It's almost as if you think I value your opinion of me. To answer your question directly, the Christian religion is profoundly antiscientific by its own admission and the behavior of many of its adherents. Science, on the other hand, is not terribly anti-religious.

Indeed, there are quite a few scientists who are believers. But when preachers stand up against a scientific discovery, do they present evidence? Generally, no, at least not anything that's worthy of probative value rather than "God says" bullshit.

Near1:


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


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.

I don’t mean to be petty but I’m starting to feel like I’m bullying you and the other girl. You respond with straw men and she responds with emotionalism. Once again, you aren’t addressing a point of mine. The quote you lifted had nothing to do with atheists being more likely to be imprisoned. I didn’t even hint at atheists being less law-abiding than believers of any stripe. That you made a point, appended my name to it and then proceeded to defeat it puzzles me. Did you do it because I said I’d take a break from the thread.

So, you win. Against yourself.

TenQ:

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?

What evidence is available? The archeology will say quite a lot about the day to day lives of those in the civilization. Any writings discovered will give their stories on what they think happened. Comparison of the evidence will give as good of a description as is possible. Do you think it is possible to accurately reconstruct the empires and civilizations that came before us at all? I think we can get some approximations, but there will always be questions that are unanswered. And, the only way to answer them is a scientific approach to ALL the available evidence.

TenQ:

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.

I think this is clearly false. We use science all the time to help us decrypt history. It often gives us quite deep insights into the past that even the writings of those from the time cannot give. By dealing with the scientific evidence we can learn a great deal about history. Often, that scientific approach reveals a lot about the written texts, both their biases and their meaning. For many ancient civilizations, all we have is the scientific evidence to decrypt what happened. The little writing available gives very little information. Yes, history gives a frame of reference for understanding art, music, and literature. By understanding the context, we can understand the intended goals of those endeavors and their impact both on the past and on the present. But I call bullshit when it comes to religion. It was originally proposed as a way to understand the world around us by those who had not yet developed the scientific method. As such, it is full of superstition and propaganda. Eliminate those and the rest can be studied by the scientific method provided it has anything real to say.

TenQ:


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!!

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,

That is, of course, an asinine argument. What is right or wrong is determined by people who want to live together to make their lives easier. The rules for a working society are not that difficult to figure out and are completely natural and based on human biology and psychology. Something is wrong when it harms human well-being. No deities required.

TenQ:

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!

So many different issues here. Why identify a first cause with God (assuming there is a first cause)? What is the problem with being godless? Isn't that simply being honest?

TenQ:

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!

Well, we don't have a tested quantum theory of gravity, that much is true. But I'm not sure why this is relevant. In fact, often the philosophical question of what something 'truely is' is simply mental masturbation. A thing is defined by its properties, including how it interacts with other things. Secondly, history would say something about the development of physics: which ideas worked, which ones didn't, what roads were investigated that lead nowhere, etc. Chemistry can help with sociology. Thirdly, the concept of 'God' isn't well enough defined to test. It's like asking if science can prove or disprove fremlins. You give me a good definition first and then we can look into it. The problem is that theists can't seem to agree on the properties of their deities. Please note that science looks at the facts and religion looks at the feelings. Science is about knowledge and religion is about feeling good about yourself.

Endtimer:

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/

To repeat for those who are clearly hard of reading: Those evidence correlation, but not causation.

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.

I have emboldened the point, for those who couldn't find a point on a tack.

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.

You've yet to come up with anything at all in the course of this conversation, so don't feel too bad about yourself there. I understood your point. I simply think it's vacuous and self-congratulatory on your part. You're very proud that your faith is what keeps you in line and provides you your values. Bravo. Let's have a little round of applause.

Life is not inherently valueless to the living. I never thought I'd have to actually type out such an obvious banality, but I guess some people have never considered or even noticed that very basic fact. Really, just because your life is meaningless in the absence of your faith doesn't mean that's the case for everyone; but I will say I'm glad for you that your faith prevents you from committing suicide. Whatever it takes, right? I don't go through each day trying to talk myself out of suicide or some crap just because our morality is subjective.

And I did not attribute anything to you other than the obvious: that you hold morality to be absolute, and then point out that your own faith, and therefore your own morality (since your faith is what you credit as the font of morality), is inherently subjective, because you choose to believe.

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.

Damn, dude, exactly how unperceptive are you?

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?

Well, this is a silly argument, and I use that word loosely. 1) is that simply repeating a bald claim doesn't lend it any more validity. 2) is that I can demonstrate that morality is subjective simply by pointing to the fact that humans have moral disagreements all the time. That is the very definition of subjectivity.

And, if your god determines what is and is not moral, than that too is subjective.

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

Evidence?

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.

The fact that you missed my point doesn't mean I didn't lay one. Do you need more help reading for comprehension? Perhaps you should get thee to a college for some remedial reading classes. Or, if you'd rather, I'll restrict myself to monosyllables and simple sentences.

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.

No. You'll need to demonstrate beyond a doubt that the god you claim to found your morality upon actually exists. Lacking that, I'm fully entitled to brush off your moral framework as just as subjective as anyone else's. I believe you simply lack the honesty, or courage, to admit that.

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.

This is a clear and deliberate misstatement of my point. Dishonest much?

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.

Wrong. Many laws have no moral dimension at all, say, tax laws, budgetary laws, and so forth.

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.

Yeah, given the fact that you clearly are having issues with English comprehension, I can't really blame you for begging off this discussion. The links you provided did not show causation but only correlation for religion and teh happyfeelz, despite my pointing that out previously. You've misrepresented some of what I have written, and clearly misunderstood more.

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

Hey now, we've got a tough guy over here. LOL

Near1:


To repeat for those who are clearly hard of reading: Those evidence correlation, but not causation.



I have emboldened the point, for those who couldn't find a point on a tack.



You've yet to come up with anything at all in the course of this conversation, so don't feel too bad about yourself there. I understood your point. I simply think it's vacuous and self-congratulatory on your part. You're very proud that your faith is what keeps you in line and provides you your values. Bravo. Let's have a little round of applause.

Life is not inherently valueless to the living. I never thought I'd have to actually type out such an obvious banality, but I guess some people have never considered or even noticed that very basic fact. Really, just because your life is meaningless in the absence of your faith doesn't mean that's the case for everyone; but I will say I'm glad for you that your faith prevents you from committing suicide. Whatever it takes, right? I don't go through each day trying to talk myself out of suicide or some crap just because our morality is subjective.

And I did not attribute anything to you other than the obvious: that you hold morality to be absolute, and then point out that your own faith, and therefore your own morality (since your faith is what you credit as the font of morality), is inherently subjective, because you choose to believe.



Damn, dude, exactly how unperceptive are you?



Well, this is a silly argument, and I use that word loosely. 1) is that simply repeating a bald claim doesn't lend it any more validity. 2) is that I can demonstrate that morality is subjective simply by pointing to the fact that humans have moral disagreements all the time. That is the very definition of subjectivity.

And, if your god determines what is and is not moral, than that too is subjective.



Evidence?



The fact that you missed my point doesn't mean I didn't lay one. Do you need more help reading for comprehension? Perhaps you should get thee to a college for some remedial reading classes. Or, if you'd rather, I'll restrict myself to monosyllables and simple sentences.



No. You'll need to demonstrate beyond a doubt that the god you claim to found your morality upon actually exists. Lacking that, I'm fully entitled to brush off your moral framework as just as subjective as anyone else's. I believe you simply lack the honesty, or courage, to admit that.



This is a clear and deliberate misstatement of my point. Dishonest much?



Wrong. Many laws have no moral dimension at all, say, tax laws, budgetary laws, and so forth.



Yeah, given the fact that you clearly are having issues with English comprehension, I can't really blame you for begging off this discussion. The links you provided did not show causation but only correlation for religion and teh happyfeelz, despite my pointing that out previously. You've misrepresented some of what I have written, and clearly misunderstood more.



Hey now, we've got a tough guy over here. LOL

I’ve read your latest nonsense and I’ve discovered that you have the intellectual abilities of grass. It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s just that I need to explain things to you that everyone should know. Properly basic philosophical fact. For instance, you know nothing of objectivity or morality. You question my reading comprehension in order to make me fix your straw men in the most spectacular display of daftness I’ve experienced this decade.

To beat you in an argument, I’d need to teach you what I’m talking about; allow you to come to predictable conclusions and prove to you why you’re wrong. You are simply not worth the effort as a human being. I’ll add you to the list of people who can’t make intelligent responses along with the emotional girl who said something about ballet. Good luck to you.

TenQ:
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

Clap for yourself!

You just admitted that you and, according to you, all your "brothers in Christ" will be raping your own children, pets and any animal you happen to find "attractive" and eating your neighbours and coworkers, the moment you decide there is no god!

WE, inferior, immoral atheists, do not look to our government to tell us not to rape our children and eat our parents. WE, inferior, immoral atheists, have our own moral compass, yes, informed by society and by humanity as a whole, but still our own, not IMPOSED upon us by laws and government.
You (and, apparently, all religious people) have no morals of their own and need SOMEONE ELSE to tell you not to rape children and eat other human beings.

Congratulations, you're an outstanding human being. You should be proud of yourself.

.....just wondering if there are any recommendations for which theist system any of the pro-religion posters have for me ?
all of you seem to be implying I'm supposed to try to convince myself (dishonestly) that a faith I could never believe in,.... would be best to embrace seriously , and attempt to LIE to myself about . That sounds like a great idea. (LOL). actually many of the major religions have exceptions (for example the Catholics for those who "follow their conscience", as in their system, still also being "saved".

I will be happy to "convert". (LMAO) I am more than happy, to consider any statistically sound study, (and the studies referenced do not say ALL, and are actually not statistically sound, or representative. Should I consider Islam, and turn into a terrorist, or turn into a Christian and organize an Inquisition, and murder/kill people who don't agree with me ? Let me know . which is it, Jesus, Mohammed, or Baal ?

being in a science field , what I need to know is which faith system releases the most beta-endorphins.
please provide a graph and references.......

midnight378:
.....just wondering if there are any recommendations for which theist system any of the pro-religion posters have for me ?
all of you seem to be implying I'm supposed to try to convince myself (dishonestly) that a faith I could never believe in,.... would be best to embrace seriously , and attempt to LIE to myself about . That sounds like a great idea. (LOL). actually many of the major religions have exceptions (for example the Catholics for those who "follow their conscience", as in their system, still also being "saved".

I will be happy to "convert". (LMAO) I am more than happy, to consider any statistically sound study, (and the studies referenced do not say ALL, and are actually not statistically sound, or representative. Should I consider Islam, and turn into a terrorist, or turn into a Christian and organize an Inquisition, and murder/kill people who don't agree with me ? Let me know . which is it, Jesus, Mohammed, or Baal ?

being in a science field , what I need to know is which faith system releases the most beta-endorphins.
please provide a graph and references.......

Morality is objective and subjective according to theists.
It's objective when they're trying to prove that a god exists and subjective when they're defending their gods actions.
Can't really make their minds up. Much like their god.

Endtimer:
Regardless of how many times you claim that sleeping with children isn’t good for society,

Yet your god impregnates a 14 year old virginal girl. And I'm being lenient here. The age of concent in the Hebrew culture 2000 years ago was 12 or 13. The bible is a vile, immoral book that no thinking person should ever hold up as a source of morality!

efficiencie:


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.

Somewhere in this thread I posted this but I'll type it out again: Scientists have found malaria pathogens preserved in drops of amber that are 15 to 40 million years old. Is your intelligent god responsible this?
If so he's the murderer of 2 or more billion people from prehistoric human history to modern times!
Most of the dead are children!

Prior to the big bang time and space did not exits. No one knows what came before or made the big bang occur and you DO NOT EITHER!
Putting your god-did-it rubbish into a scientific unknown is the ultimate in self entitlement, privilege and ego.

You are also begging the question...where did your god come from? It is Christians who believe that something came from nothing!
Yet if your claim is that everything existing needs a first cause and your god exists then where did your god come from? If your god needs no first cause, why does the universe? Again, you can use religious entitlement but it is a flawed proposal from the get-go..

Endtimer:


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.

There are other numbered points but, the summary of this first one caught my attention:

1Actively religious people are more likely than their less-religious peers to describe themselves as “very happy” in about half of the countries surveyed. Sometimes the gaps are striking: In the U.S., for instance, 36% of the actively religious describe themselves as “very happy,” compared with 25% of the inactively religious and 25% of the unaffiliated. Notable happiness gaps among these groups also exist in Japan, Australia and Germany.

Is it possible that the inactively religious & the unaffiliated are considerably less very happy because actively religious people are so annoying to be around? Very dodgy.

I also noticed it states, "...in about half the countries surveyed." - what about the other countries where this gap isn't as wide? Does that mean religion isn't even a factor in happiness?

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

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

This opinion article from a religious site, is based on a study of dead people. Here is a referenced quote from the Newsweek article about the study:
Scientists at Ohio State University arrived at the figure after studying over 1,000 obituaries from across the U.S. The team also factored in whether the person was married and their sex, which both can affect how long a person will live.

So, were one third of the victims who died in the WTC (that would be about 1000 people) happy or unhappy with their lives, according to their obituaries?

The above absurd question is about as relevant as the study. My point being, the interpretation of social surveys, as opposed to actual statistics, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Lots of cool graphs, though. I do enjoy decoupage.

TenQ:

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!



[color=blue]Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

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

No, that's not what objective morality means. It's rather ironic that you accuse her of not knowing the difference and then go on to demonstrate that you, yourself, don't know the difference.

Absoluteness is a qualifier of moralities and applies to both objective and subjective moralities.

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.

Please tell me that you're being ironic when you describe secular law as authoritative.

History is replete with examples of "bad eggs" who did exactly as you describe. They didn't work out because, as I said, the social structures that they produce aren't stable. While you're at it, note how many of those used religion as a justification of their atrocities and how few religion did anything to stop.

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.

It was called NAMBLA and it didn't get very far. That's because all societies function by majority rule and always have. It's just that the majority is no longer the church. Anybody who goes against the majority either needs a very persuasive argument or they get told that trying that shit will get them locked in a deep dark hole for a very long time.

The joke is that both secular societies and theocracies have subjective morality. Theocracies simply manage it by way of cherry picking the scripture that is convenient to them. This is why there is no single law for the entirety of Christendom. Nor for the Muslims, the Jews, or the Hindus. Instead, you get a whole host of different cultures springing up, each interpreting scripture to fit their desires.

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.

Please tell me that you're being ironic again. You just described the prisons of every theocracy ever. By contrast, a couple centuries of relatively secular rule have failed to produce anything like what you describe. Or did you miss the part where churches no longer rule the world and society has failed to implode? You may have noticed a few improvements:

[1] Slavery is out. I know, that's unbiblical.

[2] Ditto stoning, burning of witches, heretics, and apostates.

[3] Shellfish are legal.

[4] Rape isn't. Funny how that one never rated a Commandment.

TenQ:

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.

I understood your point well enough, but mine doesn't seem to have registered with you. It depends upon the assumptions and definitions, just as what history is depends upon definitions and assumptions. The only question being whether or not in the set of reasonable definitions and assumptions that one can make about the subject, is there a set that demonstrates the opposite of your conclusions, and I suggest that there are.

As to history, your analogy, besides being a false one, shows the same problem. You define history as being a frame of reference of art, story, and past time. If I conceive of history somewhat differently from you, being only about what is past, then it may at some point in the future be possible to accurately reconstruct all of the past. It's not currently possible, but this isn't about what is currently possible but about what is possible in principle, and since whether it is possible for science to demonstrate god's existence being false depends critically upon cherry-picking your assumptions and definitions such that your chosen conclusion results, that is a form of begging the question and makes your conclusion invalid.

TenQ:

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!!

I fail to see how this is at all analogous. Failing further elaboration on your part, I'm dismissing it as much. And since I said that in general that things would not change much, either you simply didn't understand what I said or you're reaching in order to be argumentative. I didn't suggest throwing out any bathwater, and as far as having a point, my only point was that in some, religion is an enabler for their evil. If you want to dispute that, I'm all ears. Instead you've made a tortuous and poorly explained analogy which doesn't at all seem cogent. I think you're just looking to say "nuh uh" to anything anyone says.

TenQ:


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

That's nice. Even if I were to agree, that has nothing to do with the third question or my response to it. This is a species of ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy whereby even if what the arguer says is true, it would not refute the point they are responding to. Since I've responded to such questions elsewhere, I'll simply note that in this context this is irrelevant and therefore a red herring.

It's pretty obvious now that you're just pissing into the wind for the hell of it. You'll make any response to points made just to be contrary and that is arguing in bad faith.

TenQ:
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!

To the best of my knowledge, I have never asserted the words you attribute to me here. I'll need you to cite the relevant context where I said this before I can respond. At this juncture I'll simply point out that again you are playing games with definitions here. In addition to being dishonest it renders your conclusion invalid.

Endtimer:


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.

On the contrary, morality is simply a way for humans to live together. An adherence to a morality based on human needs is thereby very warranted and desirable. I would go further and say that adherence to a God based morality is unwarranted.

Endtimer:


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..................

..some day when you grow up, you may attend school , and take an anthropology course.
If you can get into one of those, you, if you pay attention, you will find morality has nothing to do with the gods, (even though you know nothing at this point about the subject), .... and BTW what is considered as "good" under the Christian god, CHANGES from book to book in the Bible .... Culture has ALWAYS historically informed religious culture, (religion sanctions culture, culture does not sanction religion) not the other way around... but that's a few years away, from your present level, son, and obviously far from your present education level.

... you will learn, assuming you do your assignments, that adherence to moral standards promotes group cohesion, is group forming, and also assuming you get into a science course, you will learn that conforming to group rules, promotes survival of the group. The gods are not necessary to motivate moral systems, which you will also learn when you learn about different cultures, and comparative cultures.

we won't hold our breath that you will get into any of those courses .
we get that you need the candy/sucker to motivate your moral adherence, as you have the mentality of a two-year old, but most outgrow their moral infancy pretty quickly. You obviously are stuck in your toddler phase .

chryssanthe:
your post

Somewhere in this thread I posted this but I'll type it out again: Scientists have found malaria pathogens preserved in drops of amber that are 15 to 40 million years old. Is your intelligent god responsible this?
If so he's the murderer of 2 or more billion people from prehistoric human history to modern times!
Most of the dead are children!

Intelligence breeds intelligence and where there are free moral agents there will be never be a lack of calamities and solutions. I trust you are sensible enough to discern this. People today have created machines that learn and are intelligent. God didn't do that, man did but your post seems to attribute all forms of intelligence to God without acknowledging the reproductive capacity of intelligence.

Prior to the big bang time and space did not exits. No one knows what came before or made the big bang occur and you DO NOT EITHER!
Well, news flash, the James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory. Some galaxies have been spotted that seemed too old to be real with some dating back to within 200 million light years after the so called big bang. Lol, find another theory.


Putting your god-did-it rubbish into a scientific unknown is the ultimate in self entitlement, privilege and ego.
But it is not self-entitlement or ego when Steve Hawkings claimed that the universe could spontaneously bring itself to existence. Lol. It is amazing how extremely brilliant minds can spout stuff that challenge the basest levels of intuition and commonsense. Imagine getting home and your kid tells you the food you left behind ate itself. Lol. But Steve Hawkings, one of the world's foremost theoretical physicists claims the universe caused itself and folks like you will immediately swallow that piece of crap and use it in arguments. How are you different from the religious folks you so accuse of being self entitled. Scientists say stuff and you swallow it without thought.

It is Christians who believe that something came from nothing!
Wrong! Steve Hawking also believes the same.

Yet if your claim is that everything existing needs a first cause and your god exists then where did your god come from? If your god needs no first cause, why does the universe? Again, you can use religious entitlement but it is a flawed proposal from the get-go.. Yet in a bid to solve an equation that does not yield to algebraic manipulations using numerical approaches or to estimate a ensemble/classifier model you can easily assume initial conditions without questioning the philosophy behind such an approach but you find it impossible assuming an uncaused first cause. Lol. You are entitled to your beliefs though.

Endtimer:
...Everyone here wrongly thinks I’m talking about...

This is chronic with respect to your posts. Everyone but you doesn't get it. An objective observer might suggest you get a mirror.

Endtimer:
I don’t mean to be petty but I’m starting to feel like I’m bullying you and the other girl.

You needn't worry yourself; I'm no endtimer. Nothing you've written has been hurtful or whatever it is you're feeling guilty about. But I'm not complaining.

Once again, you aren’t addressing a point of mine. The quote you lifted had nothing to do with atheists being more likely to be imprisoned. I didn’t even hint at atheists being less law-abiding than believers of any stripe. That you made a point, appended my name to it and then proceeded to defeat it puzzles me. Did you do it because I said I’d take a break from the thread.

So, you win. Against yourself.

I've addressed your point insofar as I've pointed out that you seem to think that religion provides stability in a society but we can all see that this is not necessarily the case. And nor does atheism mean that morality is all the sudden individual, entirely disparate, and unagreed.

Since you apparently missed my point again, I'm not going to waste any more time on you. If you cannot see the pertinacity of my point, or even see my point at all, which I've already pointed out, then you're going to have to figure out on your own why atheists don't need any gods to tell them how to behave.

Now, if you still need your god in order to understand why murder or rape is bad, by all means, please keep believing. I'm not interested in changed your mind, simply trying to point out why nonbelievers can still maintain involvement in the social contract.

The fact that you cannot see the implications of your own point indicates to me you have not really thought this through very much, or that you're are unable to see any position that you don't actually hold. In either case, it strikes me as pretty useless to try and peel the blinders off you.

Endtimer:
I've read your latest nonsense and I’ve discovered that you have the intellectual abilities of grass. It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s just that I need to explain things to you that everyone should know. Properly basic philosophical fact. For instance, you know nothing of objectivity or morality. You question my reading comprehension in order to make me fix your straw men in the most spectacular display of daftness I’ve experienced this decade.

Oooh, burnsauce. Or something.

To beat you in an argument, I’d need to teach you what I’m talking about; allow you to come to predictable conclusions and prove to you why you’re wrong. You are simply not worth the effort as a human being. I’ll add you to the list of people who can’t make intelligent responses along with the emotional girl who said something about ballet. Good luck to you.

I thought you'd already said you weren't going to answer me? Oh, that's right, you did:

However, I will not persist in arguing with you over your own points.

But here you are still yammering on about how you're so smart, and still not getting or answering my points.

Trust me, if we don't talk again, I will feel no loss. So if you're going to shut up, quit threatening to do so and actually do so already. It's not like I care. Shoo, fly.

As for all of the questions about objective versus subjective morality, uncaused first causes, sex with animals and so on, I personally wonder why theists even ask atheists about such matters. Do they ask other ordinary people about such issues? Shouldn't they be asking such questions of philosophers, physicists, and legal experts?

In other words, we atheists may all have our opinions about such matters, but we don't see them as necessarily related to our rejection of belief in God or gods. Religious people may see them as related, but we are not religious people.

Personally, I consider the idea that unless we accept some so-called objective moral system from an assumed God, we only have our own subjectivities to guide us, to be nonsense. We have our evolved human nature and evolved secular legal systems to depend on, just like theists who only pretend they have something better. What theists really have is a mythology about how morality came to be and a mythology about how the world was created. Atheists have discarded those mythologies.

You don't need crutches if you can walk without them.

You seem to think our evolved human nature is entirely selfish, but the majority of people are quite empathetic to the suffering of others, especially within their families and communities.

So from my perspective as an atheist, we humans created our moral and ethical systems because of our evolved nature as a social species.


The benefits to ourselves and our societies are enough motivations, however subjective you consider them to be. From this perspective, we are all motivated by what you might call "Godless morality," even religious believers.



The only thing religious people add to the equation is the unlikely assertion that morality is derived from God, which many of us consider mythology rather than fact.

Endtimer:


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.

TenQ:


Objective morality gives a standard from God.

actually that is not true.
have you never studied the Bible ?
The standards there changed countless times.

Endtimer:
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.

Okay. Then presumably you can demonstrate that objective morals would not exist in the absence of God. If you have and I missed it, please link me.

efficiencie:

Intelligence breeds intelligence and where there are free moral agents there will be never be a lack of calamities and solutions. I trust you are sensible enough to discern this. People today have created machines that learn and are intelligent. God didn't do that, man did but your post seems to attribute all forms of intelligence to God without acknowledging the reproductive capacity of intelligence.

Yeah, this is a load of clever wordplay. Intelligence doesn't breed unless you're speaking figuratively, in which case this becomes not a truth but a deepity.

efficiencie:

Well, news flash, the James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory. Some galaxies have been spotted that seemed too old to be real with some dating back to within 200 million light years after the so called big bang. Lol, find another theory.

What make you think that GL-z13, if verified, is a problem for the big bang theory?

efficiencie:

But it is not self-entitlement or ego when Steve Hawkings claimed that the universe could spontaneously bring itself to existence. Lol. It is amazing how extremely brilliant minds can spout stuff that challenge the basest levels of intuition and commonsense. Imagine getting home and your kid tells you the food you left behind ate itself. Lol. But Steve Hawkings, one of the world's foremost theoretical physicists claims the universe caused itself and folks like you will immediately swallow that piece of crap and use it in arguments. How are you different from the religious folks you so accuse of being self entitled. Scientists say stuff and you swallow it without thought.

You mean like how quantum mechanics challenges the basest levels of intuition and common sense despite being the most extensively confirmed theory in history? That you use intuition and commonsense as your yardstick absent actual arguments and observations only shows that you're an idiot.

efficiencie:
Steve Hawking also believes the same only that in the place of God he attributes the universe beginning of the universe to gravity.

Not that it matters, as the point this is springboarding off of only shows you to be incompetent, but what is this a reference to?

efficiencie:

Well, news flash, the James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory.

No it didn't. Not even a little bit .

https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/

were this actually true, news of this nature would be front page headlines around the world . Instead it's found only in the lunatic fringes of the internet.

Oh, right. That it isn't in Newsweek or NPR PROVES it must be true and is being suppressed by the Hillary controlled baby-eating cabal . SMH

Chimpanzees show moral behaviour and most of them, the ones that fit the physical description of "chimp" routinely show moral behaviour to others in their troop. This without any god or gods. Just felt like putting it out there.

TenQ:

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


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!



Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

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

Any religious code is adopting the subjective opinions of some deity. Saying that is objective is like my claiming everybody asking me what is moral would give an objective morality. Sorry, but it doesn't. You mentioned that objective morality gives a standard from God. That claim is simply pushing the subjective morality back one step. Why does God think that sin is moral or immoral? If it is simply his whim, then it is not objective: it is simply the subjective opinion of God. If, instead, it is based on some deeper principles, then morality doesn't come from God, but from those deeper principles. You asked if 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? Well, can the animal give consent? if not, then it is immoral.

Furthermore, your asking if there can possibly be no uncaused first cause that exists is a rather twisted way to ask the question, but yes, of course it is possible that there is no first cause of everything that exists. For example, there may be many different uncaused causes. That even seems likely since it is not uncommon for two different events to have no causes in common. So we expect a wide diversity of causes as we go back in time. To think all of those causal lines converge to a single 'first cause' would be quite remarkable and unlikely. And, of course, we know that uncaused causes happen all the time: most quantum events are uncaused in any classical sense. As for the universe as a whole, it is far from clear that there needs to be a single cause for the whole thing. And, in fact, since ALL causality we have ever seen has been inside of the universe, and since causality is simply another way of saying there are natural laws, the very idea of a cause for the universe seems self-contradictory.

Endtimer:
The problem is that adherence to Godless morality is unwarranted.

And yet that's what we've been doing ever since we stopped letting the churches write our laws.

TenQ:

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?

The act itself indicates a danger to society. Animals cannot consent. Leaving aside for the moment the wrongness that is animal rape, you've just identified somebody who isn't overly concerned with consent and may not always be content to limit their predation to the livestock. Letting your rapists get a start with non-verbal victims is not something that any smart society encourages.

TenQ:

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

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

That's because you're using simple logic and common sense to try and understand the most complicated and least common event in the history of history. Common sense is wonderful for not grabbing hot objects, sticking your tongue in electrical outlets, and avoiding a host of other common everyday hazards. It is complete rubbish at understanding the origin of the universe.

efficiencie:


Somewhere in this thread I posted this but I'll type it out again: Scientists have found malaria pathogens preserved in drops of amber that are 15 to 40 million years old. Is your intelligent god responsible this?
If so he's the murderer of 2 or more billion people from prehistoric human history to modern times!
Most of the dead are children!

Intelligence breeds intelligence and where there are free moral agents there will be never be a lack of calamities and solutions. I trust you are sensible enough to discern this. People today have created machines that learn and are intelligent. God didn't do that, man did but your post seems to attribute all forms of intelligence to God without acknowledging the reproductive capacity of intelligence.

Prior to the big bang time and space did not exits. No one knows what came before or made the big bang occur and you DO NOT EITHER!
Well, news flash, the James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory. Some galaxies have been spotted that seemed too old to be real with some dating back to within 200 million light years after the so called big bang. Lol, find another theory.


Putting your god-did-it rubbish into a scientific unknown is the ultimate in self entitlement, privilege and ego.
But it is not self-entitlement or ego when Steve Hawkings claimed that the universe could spontaneously bring itself to existence. Lol. It is amazing how extremely brilliant minds can spout stuff that challenge the basest levels of intuition and commonsense. Imagine getting home and your kid tells you the food you left behind ate itself. Lol. But Steve Hawkings, one of the world's foremost theoretical physicists claims the universe caused itself and folks like you will immediately swallow that piece of crap and use it in arguments. How are you different from the religious folks you so accuse of being self entitled. Scientists say stuff and you swallow it without thought.

It is Christians who believe that something came from nothing!
Wrong! Steve Hawking also believes the same.

Yet if your claim is that everything existing needs a first cause and your god exists then where did your god come from? If your god needs no first cause, why does the universe? Again, you can use religious entitlement but it is a flawed proposal from the get-go.. Yet in a bid to solve an equation that does not yield to algebraic manipulations using numerical approaches or to estimate a ensemble/classifier model you can easily assume initial conditions without questioning the philosophy behind such an approach but you find it impossible assuming an uncaused first cause. Lol. You are entitled to your beliefs though.

You are making the claim of a magical "first cause" though you're giving it the name "intelligence".
It does not matter the name, what matters is....where did your intelligent being come from. You are begging the question once again. You are the one who is claiming something came from nothing, not I. Where did your deity get all the material to make the stars and planets?

The James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory

No, sweety pie. What has been observerd has NOT destroyed the big bang theory. It has shifted some of the data but the big bang is still intact. The JWTelescope is relaying raw information and is only weeks old.
The information it has not fully been studies or accessed, so untwist your panties and check back in two years!

Prior to the big bang physics, as we know it, does not apply, so again untwist your knotted up panties!

Instead, answer the question.
Why would your "intelligent" omniscient thing, whatever the hell you want to call it, create microscopic malaria pathogens 14 to 40 million years ago before humans evolved knowing full well it would kill 2 billion people or more in the future?
Humans did not cause or create this calamity, nor did they have a choice in the matter, your deity pre-created malaria and murdered billions with the disease. It still kills 440,000 every year despite every human effort to curb the deaths.

Spontaneous abortions naturally happen in unknown pregnancies. This means that most spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) happen even when the woman is not aware she is pregnant. These sponteneous abortions means your god is responsible for naturally aborting millions of fetuses.

Speaking of baby murder and mayhem, your god, whom you claim created the entire universe and everything in it, cannot seem to distinguish the difference between the houses of his favorite tribe from those of Egyptians. He is so befuddled by this problem that he requests blood be smeared on the Jewish houses so his special angel doesn't kill all the wrong babies. It's pathetic that this is the god you hold up as moral.

Let's discuss the mass annihilation and genocide commanded, condoned and assisted by your god.

Deuteronomy 7:2 ...

and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Deuteronomy 2:34 ...

And the LORD our God delivered him over to us, and we defeated him and his sons and his whole army. At that time we captured all his cities and devoted to destruction the people of every city, including women and children. We left no survivors. We carried off for ourselves only the livestock and the plunder from the cities we captured.…

There are many more genocidal biblical events condoned and assisted by your god but I don't have time to post them all.
Frankly, the biblical deity makes Hitler look like a little girl at a tea party so don't talk to me about your god and morality.

TenQ:

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!

allow me please to answer you.
yes it is NOT wrong, and it's precisely what Genesis describes, and you should know the answer to this if you have ever read your Bible.
you see your god is too stupid to figure out what to do about Eve.
you do read the Bible, right ?
your god has exactly that occur as He tried to figure out what to make for Adam as a helpmate.

Genesis 2:18-20
The Lord God said : "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him". So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a suitable partner for the man.

so as you can see from the Bible, your god is too stupid to make a partner for the man, and to compensate for His stupidity , they had to have "tryouts",...
and as part of that, your god had to have Adam sleep with pretty much every animal in existence . since your Bible mentions none of the things you're worried about, sex with animals is totally a part of god's master plan, and He totally approves of sex with animals . Hehehehe