(January 6, 2016 at 10:22 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 9:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: It saddens me to say, I don't think she ever will. She was never rational to begin with.

This is not an attack on you, Deidre, so don't take it as such. And neither should anyone else. I'm simply making a claim about her state of mind, and I think reasonably so.

She might come to refer to herself as being a "Christian atheist".  

You know, I believe there is such a category

(January 6, 2016 at 6:51 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 2:11 am)robvalue Wrote: It sounds like MK is stuck on the idea that morality has to be handed down from an authority and can't just be the result of our own thoughts and empathy.

Of course assuming there is objective morality is going to lead to failure, because it's a nonsensical concept. Hiding the problem behind an invisible figure just stops it being immediately obvious that it's a flawed idea, and because God is hidden and mysterious we don't notice it's just his opinion anyway.

I never understand the desire to seek out the most powerful thing available and just do whatever it wants. If we jettison any way we have to judge what is and isn't actually helpful or harmful to human and animals, then we become amoral and don't know what effect following this dictator is actually having. This is flatly contradicted by the way people making such claims then give alternative explanations as to why these objective judgements are "good". If there are sufficient reasons, it matters not who says it.

Morality is simple, in its basic form.

Question 1: Do you want other people to be happy and healthy?

If yes: Go to question 2
If no: You are a psycopath. If religion makes you act as if you did care about others, then by all means carry on.

Question 2: Do you have a good idea what harms people and what helps them?

If yes: Great! Do things that help and don't do things that harm.
If no: Think about what helps and harms you. If you don't even know what helps or harms you, seek professional help.

Well that's why I am confused, he claims for that week he was an atheist, but as an atheist believed morality required god. How can you not believe in something and at the same time believe it is required for things that happen in reality? If you cant shake the idea that god is the source of morality, then you never really stopped believing in god.

My understanding of the argument for objective morality (which is invariably subjective and dictatorial in the absence of a truly perfect and blameless god-being) is that those who are sold by this fail to observe and understand how primate life evolved. Basically, we really do have a lot more in common than our holy books would allow. Furthermore, the holy books are used no more for good than they are to feed the philosophy of the avaricious and the egotistical monsters of this world (e.g., "god helps those who help themselves", "god hates those people", "I'm on a mission from god!"). Just imagine a world without sources to help such people create gods in their own image, upon which they can deflect their evil deeds! People will always be different, but I believe it requires the delusional fantasies created by religious ideas to really cement the philosophical walls between people, and that we would all be significantly more close without them.

I wonder how long it will be before we have someone saying they are a Christian and a Muslim. I wouldn't argue, if that's what they said. It means as much to me as a middle name, to be honest. Have a double barrelled one if you want. I'm going to ask you what you actually believe, regardless of what religious label you give.

I'm interested what the law would have to say about that, when your stated religion becomes a matter of record somewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day

Found one!

(January 6, 2016 at 1:01 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 10:22 am)Jehanne Wrote: She might come to refer to herself as being a "Christian atheist".  

You know, I believe there is such a category

There are an almost limitless set of categories of "Christians".

(January 6, 2016 at 1:03 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 6:51 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Well that's why I am confused, he claims for that week he was an atheist, but as an atheist believed morality required god. How can you not believe in something and at the same time believe it is required for things that happen in reality? If you cant shake the idea that god is the source of morality, then you never really stopped believing in god.

My understanding of the argument for objective morality (which is invariably subjective and dictatorial in the absence of a truly perfect and blameless god-being) is that those who are sold by this fail to observe and understand how primate life evolved. Basically, we really do have a lot more in common than our holy books would allow. Furthermore, the holy books are used no more for good than they are to feed the philosophy of the avaricious and the egotistical monsters of this world (e.g., "god helps those who help themselves", "god hates those people", "I'm on a mission from god!"). Just imagine a world without sources to help such people create gods in their own image, upon which they can deflect their evil deeds! People will always be different, but I believe it requires the delusional fantasies created by religious ideas to really cement the philosophical walls between people, and that we would all be significantly more close without them.

Oh ya I understand the whole morals from god theory, my issue was with him saying he was an atheist for week but couldn't shake the idea that his morality came from god. That's like going on a diet and saying " that diet didn't work for me, I followed the instructions but still continued to eat whatever I wanted."

(January 6, 2016 at 8:00 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 1:03 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: My understanding of the argument for objective morality (which is invariably subjective and dictatorial in the absence of a truly perfect and blameless god-being) is that those who are sold by this fail to observe and understand how primate life evolved. Basically, we really do have a lot more in common than our holy books would allow. Furthermore, the holy books are used no more for good than they are to feed the philosophy of the avaricious and the egotistical monsters of this world (e.g., "god helps those who help themselves", "god hates those people", "I'm on a mission from god!"). Just imagine a world without sources to help such people create gods in their own image, upon which they can deflect their evil deeds! People will always be different, but I believe it requires the delusional fantasies created by religious ideas to really cement the philosophical walls between people, and that we would all be significantly more close without them.

Oh ya I understand the whole morals from god theory, my issue was with him saying he was an atheist for week but couldn't shake the idea that his morality came from god. That's like going on a diet and saying " that diet didn't work for me, I followed the instructions but still continued to eat whatever I wanted."

Yeah, and this is why I challenge anyone who claims to be a "former" atheist who went BACK to being religious. You know how they say "Fool me once...Fool me twice.." - if you fall for the same con more than once, then you must have extremely poor memory! Moreover, if you were a believer and "became an atheist", this cannot happen temporarily - it's not something you put on like a different t-shirt! You get there through disillusionment with ideas which you have discovered to be no longer believable, because nobody who promotes them is discussing them with the honesty or intelligence which they are purporting. So unless you hit your head and forgot everything you learned from that experience, you will not be going back again.

If the above is not how you "became" an atheist as a former believer, then you are probably misusing that word, or you happen to misunderstand it altogether. That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy, and nobody should ever take that sort of shit when a Christian tries to use it on you in an attempt to push you back up from the end of your limb - it's simply pointing out a misuse of language!

(January 6, 2016 at 11:33 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 8:00 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Oh ya I understand the whole morals from god theory, my issue was with him saying he was an atheist for week but couldn't shake the idea that his morality came from god. That's like going on a diet and saying " that diet didn't work for me, I followed the instructions but still continued to eat whatever I wanted."

Yeah, and this is why I challenge anyone who claims to be a "former" atheist who went BACK to being religious. You know how they say "Fool me once...Fool me twice.." - if you fall for the same con more than once, then you must have extremely poor memory! Moreover, if you were a believer and "became an atheist", this cannot happen temporarily - it's not something you put on like a different t-shirt! You get there through disillusionment with ideas which you have discovered to be no longer believable, because nobody who promotes them is discussing them with the honesty or intelligence which they are purporting. So unless you hit your head and forgot everything you learned from that experience, you will not be going back again.

If the above is not how you "became" an atheist as a former believer, then you are probably misusing that word, or you happen to misunderstand it altogether. That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy, and nobody should ever take that sort of shit when a Christian tries to use it on you in an attempt to push you back up from the end of your limb - it's simply pointing out a misuse of language!

I agree, its not how belief works, you can't flip it on and off like a light switch.

It seems like some people just aren't doing atheism properly. It's time for a refresher course.

http://youtu.be/DS1icEssOUM

(January 6, 2016 at 8:00 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 1:03 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: My understanding of the argument for objective morality (which is invariably subjective and dictatorial in the absence of a truly perfect and blameless god-being) is that those who are sold by this fail to observe and understand how primate life evolved. Basically, we really do have a lot more in common than our holy books would allow. Furthermore, the holy books are used no more for good than they are to feed the philosophy of the avaricious and the egotistical monsters of this world (e.g., "god helps those who help themselves", "god hates those people", "I'm on a mission from god!"). Just imagine a world without sources to help such people create gods in their own image, upon which they can deflect their evil deeds! People will always be different, but I believe it requires the delusional fantasies created by religious ideas to really cement the philosophical walls between people, and that we would all be significantly more close without them.

Oh ya I understand the whole morals from god theory, my issue was with him saying he was an atheist for week but couldn't shake the idea that his morality came from god. That's like going on a diet and saying " that diet didn't work for me, I followed the instructions but still continued to eat whatever I wanted."

As someone who went through something similar, it doesn't all fall apart immediately.  You believe God is necessary to morality.  You stop believing in God.  The next step is to stop believing in morality, but you have to think it through. It's not instantaneous.  I'm putting words in his mouth, but I believe that's where his disbelief came to an end (or his belief in no God came to an end).

Myself, I got rid of God.  Then morality.  Then value, free will, meaning, etc...  And it wasn't done in a week.  If you even bother thinking about it, you have to undo each belief one by one.

I'm still adding and subtracting beliefs stemming from no longer believing in God which happened about a decade ago.