(September 29, 2018 at 9:34 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 5:32 am)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote: Say that in English.

It seems that I mostly seem to see this in response to the moral argument for God. This type of response would indicate that they don't understand the moral argument; hence the incorrect response.

The point is that deities are not required for morality. It is possible to have goodness and there be no deities.

In fact, I would suggest that atheists are, in general, much more moral than theists. I've had way too many theists say that they would steal or kill if they didn't believe. That, in my mind, is evil. Evil suppressed, but still evil.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:08 am)polymath257 Wrote: I've had way too many theists say that they would steal or kill if they didn't believe. 

As opposed to how they behave day-to-day? 

(September 29, 2018 at 10:08 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 9:34 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems that I mostly seem to see this in response to the moral argument for God. This type of response would indicate that they don't understand the moral argument; hence the incorrect response.

The point is that deities are not required for morality. It is possible to have goodness and there be no deities.

In fact, I would suggest that atheists are, in general, much more moral than theists. I've had way too many theists say that they would steal or kill if they didn't believe. That, in my mind, is evil. Evil suppressed, but still evil.

That you are arguing that atheists or theists are more moral, shows my point.

Although if you believe that morality is subjective, it is difficult to even make such a classification at , because morality is based on the subject.  You are not speaking to something external when talking about good or evil but your state of mind or your opinion.  Which may of course be different relative to the subject.  If people really believed that morality was subjective, then such statements are nonsense.

(September 28, 2018 at 5:34 pm)Bahana Wrote: Do you think this is a good statement to make? It seems to me like they are trying to prove themselves to religious people. Is it a response to religious people who think atheists are less moral? I would rather not dignify that. If you wanna address that argument then bring it to them but to use that as your motivation is low rent.

No.

The proper response to religious people thinking atheists are less moral is to remind them that theism is fundmenatly not amoral but immoral, and one could not really be all that moral without being an atheist.

---

(September 29, 2018 at 10:15 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 10:08 am)polymath257 Wrote: I've had way too many theists say that they would steal or kill if they didn't believe. 

As opposed to how they behave day-to-day? 

The fact that some Nazis might be murdering people of other extractions if they weren’t murdering Jews doesn’t make nazism a moral choice, nor mean that they were made better people by nazism, nor people who were not Nazis were therefore less good.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:27 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 5:34 pm)Bahana Wrote: Do you think this is a good statement to make? It seems to me like they are trying to prove themselves to religious people. Is it a response to religious people who think atheists are less moral? I would rather not dignify that. If you wanna address that argument then bring it to them but to use that as your motivation is low rent.

No.

It’s like saying I am not a Nazi but I am with hitler,  or I am not scum but I am good with  trump.

The proper response to religious people thinking atheists are less moral is to remind them that theism is fundmenatly not amoral but immoral, and one could not really be all that moral without being an atheist.

---

(September 29, 2018 at 10:15 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: As opposed to how they behave day-to-day? 

The fact that they might be murdering people of other extractions if they weren’t murdering Jews doesn’t make nazism a moral choice.

When did I say it did? 

(September 29, 2018 at 10:34 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 10:27 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: No.

It’s like saying I am not a Nazi but I am with hitler,  or I am not scum but I am good with  trump.

The proper response to religious people thinking atheists are less moral is to remind them that theism is fundmenatly not amoral but immoral, and one could not really be all that moral without being an atheist.

---

The fact that they might be murdering people of other extractions if they weren’t murdering Jews doesn’t make nazism a moral choice.

When did I say it did? 

Didn’t say you said it. Just saying ascribing the avoidance of one immoral act to another immoral act does not make the second act moral.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:20 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 10:08 am)polymath257 Wrote: The point is that deities are not required for morality. It is possible to have goodness and there be no deities.

In fact, I would suggest that atheists are, in general, much more moral than theists. I've had way too many theists say that they would steal or kill if they didn't believe. That, in my mind, is evil. Evil suppressed, but still evil.

That you are arguing that atheists or theists are more moral, shows my point.

Although if you believe that morality is subjective, it is difficult to even make such a classification at , because morality is based on the subject.  You are not speaking to something external when talking about good or evil but your state of mind or your opinion.  Which may of course be different relative to the subject.  If people really believed that morality was subjective, then such statements are nonsense.

Once again, it's possible to have subjective knowledge of objective facts, even about things that are themselves subjective.

(September 29, 2018 at 9:34 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 5:32 am)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote: Say that in English.

It seems that I mostly seem to see this in response to the moral argument for God. This type of response would indicate that they don't understand the moral argument; hence the incorrect response.

No. I'm pointing out that your sentence made absolutely no sense.. Hence I pointed it out.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:37 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 10:34 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: When did I say it did? 

Didn’t say you said it.  Just saying ascribing the avoidance of one immoral act to another immoral act does not make the second act moral.

Gee, never heard that in the past 67 years. 

I don't go out of my way to shout it from the mountain tops. But, I never shy away from whipping it out whenever the time arises.