Objective/subjective morals

[Jackalope]

What the actual fuck is wrong with you?

I have to assume this is a rhetorical question. Obviously, Jesus ate his brain.

[Cod]

I think this could be a shit and run.

He/she came over to our place (TTA) with this dinger: "How satan popped the muslim and atheist"

It was a long OP which, when boiled down, said "Woot, woot, I'm a chew toy" and has received the derision it deserved.

There was some follow-up so at least this wasn't just a one-post-wonder.

I don't get it. Whoever that was obviously had no confidence in what they were saying, so why bother?

There's nowt stranger than folk

---

Yeah.  A one-shit wonder.  Sort of like "jesus."

Problem is... The Jesus shit is still lingering.

[shadow]

I wish they'd do an experiment on this. Two tribes brought up in isolation one with religious influences the other without. My money is on the non religious tribe eating each other once they run out of resources because why not? lol. Despite what we all like to believe humans by nature gravitate towards evil, we are just easier to domesticate because we are good learners.

So you like the coercive aspect of religion? Do you think that is something I should choose to subject myself to, or something we still need to be good in the modern day?

[Simon Moon]

Curious as to how almost every modern society in every nook and corner of the world has religious influences... The OG atheist tribes probs ate each other lol

Moron...

It is not curious at all. There are many studies on this subject that explain the reason for this, but since your religion beat any semblance of your natural sense of curiosity out of you, you are clueless.

And the worst thing is, your ignorance if correctable. Just a bit of research and reading will cure it.

No offense but atheism comes off super rebellious (and by effect kind of infantile as well) to me(note:atheism, not atheists).guess we all gotta do our individual thing 🏇

Yeah, sure...

Those (72%) of all scientists that are atheists certainly are rebellious. Rebels are usually known for getting straight A's in high school, spending another 8 years in college, giving their thesis, then dedicating the rest of their lives to their scientific field of study.

So, your religious views in our profile state "atheist turned Christian", and I have no reason to doubt that you once were an atheist. But what I am curious of, is what was the demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that convinced you that a god exists?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Moron...

It is not curious at all. There are many studies on this subject that explain the reason for this, but since your religion beat any semblance of your natural sense of curiosity out of you, you are clueless.

And the worst thing is, your ignorance if correctable. Just a bit of research and reading will cure it.

sigh

Cannibalism isn't the point LOL. As far as the concerns on morality goes people don't get to change the rules god has for them but if you're going to say all that is subjective and it's up to you. One minute it's not cool to eat your friend, next minute it is, how is anyone going trust a guy like that?

Those (72%) of all scientists that are atheists certainly are rebellious. Rebels are usually known for getting straight A's in high school, spending another 8 years in college, giving their thesis, then dedicating the rest of their lives to their scientific field of study.

I would hardly call high school nerds "rebels" lol, in fact, the smarter a person the more likely he or she is trainable to fit into a mindset, after all "smartness" in any field really is just a measure of your learning capacity. If I had to follow your logic I'd say the smarter a person the more likely he or she will NOT leave faith. Anyway, being smart isn't everything in life. Most super smart people were loners with mental diseases and suicidal tendencies, not that I'm in any way belittling their accomplishments but let's not romanticize their 'dedication'.

So, your religious views in our profile state "atheist turned Christian", and I have no reason to doubt that you once were an atheist. But what I am curious of, is what was the demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that convinced you that a god exists?

Spirituality related things are nothing like that. You don't wake up one day, see some evidence and turn into a believer. It's a combination of things, it's about seeing the bigger picture, it's mostly a feeling than a thought, it's more an experience than a thesis, so really, you will have to experience it in order to understand it and in order to experience it you will have to open up your mind. Not that I'm asking you to open up your mind or anything, just explaining how I got there, you're the one that has to set the sail on your boat.

[The Grand Nudger]

sigh

Cannibalism isn't the point LOL. As far as the concerns on morality goes people don't get to change the rules god has for them but if you're going to say all that is subjective and it's up to you. One minute it's not cool to eat your friend, next minute it is, how is anyone going trust a guy like that?

How many times have people have changed gods rules for him, do you reckon? One minute I can;t eat a cheeseburger or wear my poly blend boxers or kill the better man...and the next......

[Simon Moon]

Moron...

It is not curious at all. There are many studies on this subject that explain the reason for this, but since your religion beat any semblance of your natural sense of curiosity out of you, you are clueless.

And the worst thing is, your ignorance if correctable. Just a bit of research and reading will cure it.

sigh

Cannibalism isn't the point LOL. As far as the concerns on morality goes people don't get to change the rules god has for them but if you're going to say all that is subjective and it's up to you. One minute it's not cool to eat your friend, next minute it is, how is anyone going trust a guy like that?

Since I am an atheist that believes that secular morality does not have to be subjective, this is meaningless. See my post #17 on the first page of this thread.

The reason why it is never cool to eat my friend, is because it harms his/her well being. Just like slavery has always been wrong, even if your god once condoned it and created rules for keeping slaves (Exodus 21). Just like genocide has always been wrong, even when your god ordered it. How do I know these have always been wrong? Because they harm the well being of those that were the victims.

Are you saying, that if you didn't have your god beliefs, you might think it is cool to eat your friend?

Those (72%) of all scientists that are atheists certainly are rebellious. Rebels are usually known for getting straight A's in high school, spending another 8 years in college, giving their thesis, then dedicating the rest of their lives to their scientific field of study.

I would hardly call high school nerds "rebels" lol, in fact, the smarter a person the more likely he or she is trainable to fit into a mindset, after all "smartness" in any field really is just a measure of your learning capacity. If I had to follow your logic I'd say the smarter a person the more likely he or she will NOT leave faith. Anyway, being smart isn't everything in life. Most super smart people were loners with mental diseases and suicidal tendencies, not that I'm in any way belittling their accomplishments but let's not romanticize their 'dedication'.

I'll skip this, since it looks like you missed my sarcasm.

So, your religious views in our profile state "atheist turned Christian", and I have no reason to doubt that you once were an atheist. But what I am curious of, is what was the demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that convinced you that a god exists?

Spirituality related things are nothing like that. You don't wake up one day, see some evidence and turn into a believer. It's a combination of things, it's about seeing the bigger picture, it's mostly a feeling than a thought, it's more an experience than a thesis, so really, you will have to experience it in order to understand it and in order to experience it you will have to open up your mind. Not that I'm asking you to open up your mind or anything, just explaining how I got there, you're the one that has to set the sail on your boat.

I have the ability to see the big picture. I still see no evidence of a god.

So, you claim it is mostly feelings. Is it possible that feelings could be wrong? Please explain how feelings are a reliable path to ruth?

There are a billion and a half Muslims, many claim they can also feel the presence of their god. If feelings are such a great path to the truth, why did it lead 1.5 billion Muslims to the wrong god? Or 1 billion Hindus?

The number of supernatural claims is huge (crystal healing, Tarot cards, dowsing, auras, chakras, etc, etc, etc). Many people also believe these based on feelings. Again, feelings are not a reliable path to truth.

I am a very open minded person. I am willing to believe any claim that is supported by demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument. Without these, what should be my justification to believe a god exists?

On a side note, when was the 'spiritual realm' demonstrated to exist? You just sort of throw it in as if it was a given.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I am an atheist that believes that secular morality does not have to be subjective

How confidently can you say every other atheist in this world share your exact moral standards? See, atheism is just "absence of belief", that's just it, there is no 'good atheist' or 'bad atheist' there's just 'atheist' but hey look there's a 'good Christian' that follows the word of God and then there's a 'bad Christian' that doesn't follow the word of God. Atheism isn't like that because there's no guidelines to follow, you just have to not believe. It is only when you not not believe you become a 'bad atheist', some pinnacle of behavioral standard that. Why isn't a atheist rapist not called a "bad atheist" but a Christian rapist is called a "bad Christian" it's precisely because atheist doesn't carry any other meaning other than 'I don't believe'. There's an implication that all behaviors whether good or bad is acceptable within the atheism realms. So where are your morals? You will of course say such and such are my morals and those will be good morals as well I have no doubt but what about every other atheist on the planet, do they share your exact same morals? A Christian is going to be a Christian whether he is in Russia, Japan, Germany or France, you can trust a Christian to be a Christian but you can't trust a atheist to be a atheist because there is nothing to trust.

I have the ability to see the big picture. I still see no evidence of a god.

You see no evidence because there is none. There is no equation that leads to God, there is no chemical formula, there's no special glasses through which you look and suddenly discover God. God is in our hearts.

So, you claim it is mostly feelings. Is it possible that feelings could be wrong? Please explain how feelings are a reliable path to ruth?

What is truth? The very limited access to information we have and suddenly we declare it the truth ™. Kind of naive and arrogant don't you think? An ant probably thinks it's perception of the world is the truth ™ as well, I can only call that attitude "cute". Like I said, broaden your mind and at least try to see the bigger picture because you declare you can just fine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your heart is a pump, pool.  Not a god box. You're "I used to be an atheist" cred is wearing awfully thin. Why on earth would atheism imply that all behaviors good and bad are acceptable? Where are your goddamned morals, lol? I don't trust a random christian for shit, and certainly not to "be a christian"...you're over there wondering what I taste like roasted with bushgrass.

Perhaps, if "christians" stopped being smarmy douches people would stop pointing out explicitly christian hypocrisy?

[Simon Moon]

I am an atheist that believes that secular morality does not have to be subjective

How confidently can you say every other atheist in this world share your exact moral standards?  See, atheism is just "absence of belief", that's just it, there is no 'good atheist' or 'bad atheist' there's just 'atheist' but hey look there's a 'good Christian' that follows the word of God and then there's a 'bad Christian' that doesn't follow the word of God. Atheism isn't like that because there's no guidelines to follow, you just have to not believe. It is only when you not not believe you become a 'bad atheist', some pinnacle of behavioral standard that. Why isn't a atheist rapist not called a "bad atheist" but a Christian rapist is called a "bad Christian" it's precisely because atheist doesn't carry any other meaning other than 'I don't believe'. There's an implication that all behaviors whether good or bad is acceptable within the atheism realms. So where are your morals? You will of course say such and such are my morals and those will be good morals as well I have no doubt but what about every other atheist on the planet, do they share your exact same morals? A Christian is going to be a Christian whether he is in Russia, Japan, Germany or France, you can trust a Christian to be a Christian but you can't trust a atheist to be a atheist because there is nothing to trust.

YOu are correct. There are no "good atheist" or "bad atheist". But there are "good people" and "bad people".

I can't be sure that every person, no matter if they believe in gods or not, will share my moral standards? Funny thing is, the countries in the world with the highest percentage of atheists (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and others), have the most moral societies, ie; lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, better education rates, more freedoms, etc.

So, when Christians in Africa kill people because they are 'witches' (Exodus 22:18), are they being good Christians or bad Christians? Ort if a Christian decides to kill infidels (Deuteronomy 17, Deuteronomy 15), are they being good Christians, or bad Christians?

I have the ability to see the big picture. I still see no evidence of a god.

You see no evidence because there is none. There is no equation that leads to God, there is no chemical formula, there's no special glasses through which you look and suddenly discover God. God is in our hearts.

Well, that is pretty poor planning of your god then. And if he punishes those of us that are not gullible enough to believe without evidence, then it is really immoral, also.

The thing is, there are many, many examples of your god giving plenty of direct evidence of his existence all over the Bible. If the stories are true (I have no reason to believe they are), those people did have evidence. Why did your god hide himself to us?

Why did he create me, with a mind that understands standards of evidence, knowing that I wouldn't be convinced of his existence without evidence, and withhold the evidence that would convince me?

If a Damascus road experience is good enough for Paul, why not me?

So, you claim it is mostly feelings. Is it possible that feelings could be wrong? Please explain how feelings are a reliable path to ruth?

What is truth? The very limited access to information we have and suddenly we declare it the truth ™. Kind of naive and arrogant don't you think? An ant probably thinks it's perception of the world is the truth ™ as well, I can only call that attitude "cute". Like I said, broaden your mind and at least try to see the bigger picture because you declare you can just fine.

I shouldn't have used the word "truth", I should have said something like, "that which comports to observed reality". I wasn't referring to any absolute truth.


So, let me ask again, why do you believe your feelings actually comport with reality? Again, 1.5 billion Muslims, and 1 billion Hindus also believe their feelings comport with reality, yet their feeling lead them to a completely different god beliefs. So, if feelings can lead to incorrect conclusions, how are they reliable? How do you know your feelings have lead you to the correct conclusions, and the other 4+ billion people on the planet, with equally strong feelings, have been lead to the wrong conclusions?