Atheists are held accountable by existing systems in society, just like theists. The only difference is we come together and decide what we will enforce while theists look into a book.

Whether or not a god exists does not affect whether or not an act is moral. That's why atheism (lack of belief in god) has no comment on morality, it's like fashion design has no comment on what constitutes a good novel. It doesn't mean fashion designers don't have favourite books, it just happens to be 2 different field.

It's religion that's obsessed with having moral authority where it should have none, maybe that's why you linked atheism to morality like it's even the same subject.

(August 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Just going to say that while atheism is not predicated on morals, atheists are not amoral. With this in mind, how do you justify saying atheism is amoral?

And also @Captain Colostomy:

I agree that atheists are not amoral as I said multiple times.. I also do believe that atheists ARE moral, so nobody's insulting you. And yet atheism itself is an ideology that is amoral, yet begs that morals are essential. It states these morals are relative to the society, but every society that embraces these relative morals without a God concept devolves towards the stone age. That, to me, is evidence of its failure. It contradicts itself on its most fundamental levels, and yet time and time again when I let atheists know my reasons for not following it they get angry and bash me for attacking them, using unscientific and illogical arguments, condemning them to hell, and a myriad of other things I am not arguing.

Everything I'm saying right now was covered in my last post, so it seems to me you both replied without understanding my last post. Please make sure you understanf what I was saying.

---

(August 10, 2013 at 4:10 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Atheists are held accountable by existing systems in society, just like theists. The only difference is we come together and decide what we will enforce while theists look into a book.

Whether or not a god exists does not affect whether or not an act is moral. That's why atheism (lack of belief in god) has no comment on morality, it's like fashion design has no comment on what constitutes a good novel. It doesn't mean fashion designers don't have favourite books, it just happens to be 2 different field.

It's religion that's obsessed with having moral authority where it should have none, maybe that's why you linked atheism to morality like it's even the same subject.

Atheism is an anti-position. An anti-position is not necessarily incoherent, as long as the implications aren't pressed.. But you are pressing the implications toward their conclusion. With a belief that stands outside of the moral sphere, then makes them necessary for a society to thrive, the society that follows it always crumples on itself. History proves this is consistent. You ask for evidence, there it is.
It's evidence for me not to follow atheism, which was the only point of my post anyways, as far as you're concerned.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Locke Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Just going to say that while atheism is not predicated on morals, atheists are not amoral. With this in mind, how do you justify saying atheism is amoral?

And also @Captain Colostomy:

I agree that atheists are not amoral as I said multiple times.. I also do believe that atheists ARE moral, so nobody's insulting you. And yet atheism itself is an ideology that is amoral, yet begs that morals are essential. It states these morals are relative to the society, but every society that embraces these relative morals without a God concept devolves towards the stone age. That, to me, is evidence of its failure. It contradicts itself on its most fundamental levels, and yet time and time again when I let atheists know my reasons for not following it they get angry and bash me for attacking them, using unscientific and illogical arguments, condemning them to hell, and a myriad of other things I am not arguing.

Everything I'm saying right now was covered in my last post, so it seems to me you both replied without understanding my last post. Please make sure you understanf what I was saying.

Atheism isn't an ideology. Why are you insisting this? Most of your post is using this assumption. And 'back to the stone age....really? What godless group has devolved into cave men by lack of morals?

You are a Christian shill.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Locke Wrote: ...atheism itself is an ideology that is amoral, yet begs that morals are essential.

Atheism doesn't beg for anything. It's not some grand, overarching scheme of doctrine and dogma with rules and stipulations. It's one thing and one thing only: the disbelief in any deity. Some atheists do ascribe to the necessity for morals, this is true. To say that atheism is amoral opens up a whole other can of worms and begs numerous new questions such as, "Is the idea of atheism moral?" "Do morals become subjective under the umbrella of atheism?" and so on. Do not confuse terms here, please.

Locke Wrote:It states these morals are relative to the society, but every society that embraces these relative morals without a God concept devolves towards the stone age.

Again, atheism states no such thing, for it cannot. Not only that, where do you get off making a statement like this? Ever heard of the dark ages? That period was nothing but a huge God concept, and look where it got them. There is available evidence that directly contradicts your statement here on a grand scale. Care to back up your claim?

Locke Wrote:That, to me, is evidence of its failure.

You need to have real evidence first before you can make such a claim. Here, you have actually forged evidence based on your lack of evidence, and you are calling it real. I'd say you're almost as guilty as the freaks that start religion in the first place if this is exactly how you proceed in life. Could you please come off of Bullshit mountain and join the rest of the villagers down below that actually care about what's true?

Locke Wrote:Everything I'm saying right now was covered in my last post, so it seems to me you both replied without understanding my last post. Please make sure you understanf what I was saying.

This is an extreme level of arrogance to believe everyone on the forum will read and remember every little thing you write here. You need to get used to having to repeat yourself or to minimize some of the things you say. The key to being heard here is brevity and clarity. If you can master both of these concepts, you're going to do just fine.

A miracle could probably do it.

But hey, good luck finding me one

Just look in the mirror sis.

I think you might get stuck in some kind of contradiction loop if you go there tho.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Locke Wrote: Atheism is an anti-position. An anti-position is not necessarily incoherent, as long as the implications aren't pressed.. But you are pressing the implications toward their conclusion. With a belief that stands outside of the moral sphere, then makes them necessary for a society to thrive, the society that follows it always crumples on itself. History proves this is consistent. You ask for evidence, there it is.
It's evidence for me not to follow atheism, which was the only point of my post anyways, as far as you're concerned.

Atheism is the lack of belief, you keep trying to put more to the word.

(August 10, 2013 at 5:35 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Locke Wrote: And also @Captain Colostomy:

I agree that atheists are not amoral as I said multiple times.. I also do believe that atheists ARE moral, so nobody's insulting you. And yet atheism itself is an ideology that is amoral, yet begs that morals are essential. It states these morals are relative to the society, but every society that embraces these relative morals without a God concept devolves towards the stone age. That, to me, is evidence of its failure. It contradicts itself on its most fundamental levels, and yet time and time again when I let atheists know my reasons for not following it they get angry and bash me for attacking them, using unscientific and illogical arguments, condemning them to hell, and a myriad of other things I am not arguing.

Everything I'm saying right now was covered in my last post, so it seems to me you both replied without understanding my last post. Please make sure you understanf what I was saying.

Atheism isn't an ideology. Why are you insisting this? Most of your post is using this assumption. And 'back to the stone age....really? What godless group has devolved into cave men by lack of morals?

You are a Christian shill.

Ideology: 1 : visionary theorizing 2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.

A lot of godless groups, actually. I already gave examples, feel free to read up

EDIT: They haven't gone back to the stone age, that was an exagerration. However, they all go backwards - it has proven to be counterproductive to the advancement of human society

So you think that all the muslim countries are doing better than godless nations? Because I actually lived in one for a long time, and I think you don't know what religious oppression is like.

Most unicorns are pink and not believing in them will make you stupider. Go read about it. It's all there.