99 ways to annoy an atheist

ghost said:
I'm starting to wonder if there are biological drives that impel us to fight one another. If that is true, then these are drives of our lower nature that must be either transcended or carefully managed. I am sorry that I am not able to transcend my drive for aggression. The best I can do is to use it to defend by beliefs from those who believe differently. Watch out, I might hurl an argument at you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but let's face it.... It's gonna be a pretty crappy one. ;)
 
malf said:
Perhaps, with the smallest


I'm not sure that I understand this sentence. Can you help me out by giving me an example of a morality argument that 'stands on fact'?
Click to expand...
I was not stating that morality is a fact, however presenting arguments against a religion with the main theme of "these people are morally reprehensible, just look at what they've done" is illogical as it is based on a personal belief I.e. Subjective morality that what they have done is wrong, it cannot be proven factually that one morality is better than the other while it remains objective. Arguments against religion based on testable evidence seems much stronger than one based on emotion, something athiests frequently criticise Christians for doing
 
johnyudodis said:
I was not stating that morality is a fact, however presenting arguments against a religion with the main theme of "these people are morally reprehensible, just look at what they've done" is illogical as it is based on a personal belief I.e. Subjective morality that what they have done is wrong, it cannot be proven factually that one morality is better than the other while it remains objective. Arguments against religion based on testable evidence seems much stronger than one based on emotion, something athiests frequently criticise Christians for doing
Click to expand...
Still confused... Whether held by an atheist or not, isn't every moral position based on personal belief (i.e. subjective). What, in your view, precludes an atheist from taking a moral stance, when others can? Or are you against anyone taking a moral stance?
 
johnyudodis said:
Some may debate as to how objective morality can be, it would seem to me that in the most simplest terms to treat each other with respect, avoid doing things that are going to physically/psychologically hurt someone (this excludes silly things such as someone being upset by the fact that you have a tattoo, are a homosexual etc as they come from religious indoctrination and chances are they would not be seen as negative if it was not for religion). It's fine if one wants to see morality as subjective, but you cannot state that and then criticise religion for being morally reprehensible when that is simply a matter if opinion, the criticism has no substantial basis.
Click to expand...

Here, I've dug up one of my posts setting out my basic approach to morality:
Not my best post on it, since it looks like I did it on my phone, I cleaned up some of the typos. Should serve to give you a basic idea though.

Arouet said:
I've set out my basis for morality a few times here. It's a mix of subjective and objective as I don't think you can have pure objective.

We start off by assuming three basic goals for humans: to survive, thrive and be happy. These are subjective but i suspect there is probably pretty massive agreement on these. We also recognise that humans are not self sufficient - we need others to help achieve those goals. From those starting points i think you can derive a pretty broad based relatively objective moral system.

Example: I could treat everyone like shit but what is likely to happen: it doesn't make me feel good to do that, it hurts others and in return it may cause others to retaliate and hurt or refuse to help me. A society where everyone did that would be a pretty crummy place to live.

It's not that simple of course and there is plenty of room for debate and at times there will be conflict that requires compromise.

I'm sure there are holes and aspects I haven't thought of so I welcome constructive feedback - probably in its own thread though.

The thing is with basing morality on what we're made of is that its pretty easy most of the time to argue it multiple ways.
Click to expand...
 
malf said:
Still confused... Whether held by an atheist or not, isn't every moral position based on personal belief (i.e. subjective). What, in your view, precludes an atheist from taking a moral stance, when others can? Or are you against anyone taking a moral stance?
Click to expand...

I don't feel you can criticise a topic based on its moral implications if they are to be seen as entirely subjective, this goes for athiests, Christians agnostics etc. however, I do see it most frequent in certain Christians who think athiests are morally reprehensible for the things they support as it contradicts their bible. I also see it frequently in the boring tirades of dawkins, hitchens etc as they criticise religion for being morally reprehensible whilst stimultaneously presenting a subjective veiw of morality, it just doesn't make sense. Arouet explained it quite well that there is indeed a mix of subjective and objective morality, denying objective morality while criticising someome else's morals is illogical in my opinion
 
steve001 said:
However, there are religious wrongs that transcend societies such as stoning women to death, making women subservient to men. My own country USA denied women the right to vote until 1920 based on Biblical literacy. In certain African nations some Christian leaders are calling for witch hunts. You can find at least one vid of old women be set afire and people of the village watching doing nothing, very graphic.
Click to expand...
These things are more the product of traditional lifestyles that centered around religion than religion per se, which gets interpreted equally well by modern liberal morality
 
johnyudodis said:
Haven't really opened my eyes as they were never closed. I did not make that statement to out religion on a pedestal, however it is entirely irrational to believe that somehow without religion, everyone would get along and there would be absolutely no need for violence or war, mankind will always find something to fight over. The problem is not with religion itself, it's the more extreme ends of the spectrum that make it a problem. I'm sure you've heard arguments against violent video games for example, claiming that they make children go out and attempt murder, theft and all sorts of other things, trouble is though, these problems all pre exist the invention of video games or even television. Granted, some children do indeed see something on television and decide to repeat it, but that cannot be blamed on the show. I do loathe the sight of Christians standing outside exclaiming that the only way to heaven is through Christ and prayer etc. like they are bouncers for heaven and have some divine right to choose who gets in and who doesn't. But I alsoloathe atheists (particularly Internet) who seem to believe that, simply due to their lack of belief in god, they have this incredibly high level of intelligence, it doesn't take a genius to copy and paste a Wikipedia article and declare "yeah! See? Science!" While stimultaneously labelling everything they may counter they're veiws as 'pseudoscience' When in all reality they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and it is simply a case of picking and choosing what they want to believe, kinda like the vast majority of Christians with a bible
Click to expand...

There was someone who copy-pasted Paul Edwards material a few hours ago. XD
 
It's all just internal conflict manifest on both sides. People fight in the name of things, and quite often it is a cover.
I am aware of it because I have done the same and still do, the more aware, the more conscious you become, the more you can heal. It is incredibly hard not to hate those who hate. But that is what should be strived for. I'm Still working on that. ;)

it is all a crisis of consciousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top