It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Athiests Hypocrisy

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


My comments weren't directed at you. My initial point earlier in the thread was that the atheist position is ridiculous (see for yourself). The moral debate just seems to be how things turn out.




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by sinthia
 



Second, an atheist gets his morals from instinct or parents - so a child that is beaten by his parents, sees nothing else but violence has every right to treat others the same? As I said, the atheist position is ridiculous.


That child will likely be psychologically damaged because of his upbringing. We see this frequently that bad parents produce kids who turn into bad parents. No part of what I said was tantamount to the idea that the child has the right to to harm to others.


It's a shame you don't see life as sacred. That is THE problem.

I don't see it as sacred because it isn't. You consider how big a country is, 1 person matters for naught. Consider how big the planet it is, millions of people matter for naught, consider how big the solar system is, all of us matter for naught. The Cosmos keeps getting bigger and bigger in scale and for all of it we are not more significant than a lowly cockroach. Human worth is a relative thing. But to think that human life is sacred anyway is beyond arrogant and narcissistic.


The fact that morals have gone down the toilet

They haven't. You choose not to see the good in people. You are more misanthropic than I am.


primarily due to atheism and the notion of evolution,

Atheists are not immoral people, we don't go running about like madmen, killing and pillaging - Places like Norway are over 70% irreligious/atheistic yet they are also the most peaceful nation in the world. 2nd highest GDP per capita in the world, unemployment rate of under 2%, it goes on and on. Many european countries are similar and yet they are 'happy' nations. Yet the most religious nations are the exact opposite.
Evolution is science, it has nothing to do with theism - it's also demonstrably factual.


and so as you say, life isn't valued or respected.

I never said this.


A murderer is the product of a bad upbringing,

Possibly.


so isn't inherently to blame.

You can't just shift the blame onto your upbringing like that, how's that responsibility? A murderer (except for extreme cases) is still in control of his actions, and even if he weren't, I'm still going to protect myself and my family!


It's a sad sick world, and I have to say that although you might be a fantastic individual, reading parts of your post made me feel actually sick.

My heart bleeds. I'm sorry if you don't agree with my position that an attempt should be made to salvage what's left of a young rape victims life and mental stability by not making her carry her rapists baby.
Actually, frankly I'm not sure what I said that could make you sick, my positions aren't archaic is all.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I never said that atheists were immoral, I asked for the source of their morality, to which you replied parents and instinct. There is no need to bring emotional arguments into the debate.

You say "No part of what I said was tantamount to the idea that the child has the right to to harm to others."
According to your previous sources of morals, the child has every right to harm others, as it is right in the eyes of the child and no absolute morals exist. Who are you to judge what is right?

Macro evolution, which relates to your monkey comment isn't at all factual. There is absolutely no proof of it whatsoever. That is a different discussion, but I can assure you that the 'missing links' are still missing, or more properly, non existant to start with!

I think the thing that made me want to vomit the most was the statement "Life is not sacred and therefore lives can be valued and all lives are not of equal value".
This type of belief is like that of Adolf Hitler



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sinthia
 


You say "No part of what I said was tantamount to the idea that the child has the right to to harm to others."
According to your previous sources of morals, the child has every right to harm others, as it is right in the eyes of the child and no absolute morals exist. Who are you to judge what is right?

And who are you to? Everyone has a different take on what is right and what is wrong. I personally base my morals on the mist logical I can conceive.


Macro evolution, which relates to your monkey comment isn't at all factual. There is absolutely no proof of it whatsoever.

Said like a true christian who appreciates the science she likes and disregards the science she doesn't by ignoring the science-proven macro evolution (which is just lots of microevolution - it's like saying you get cents but you don't get dollars).


I think the thing that made me want to vomit the most was the statement "Life is not sacred and therefore lives can be valued and all lives are not of equal value".
This type of belief is like that of Adolf Hitler

Reductio ad Hitlerum. This is a logical fallacy.
What if you found yourself in a situation where there were two groups of people, one group was going to die and what you did determined which group that was. All you know is that one group has ten times as many people in it than the other. Which group do you choose?
It would be illogical and irrational to choose the small group. But you made a choice and to make it you needed to value human life.
If life was truly sacred, this could not be done and one life would be as valuable as 100 others - it's like 1 times infinity and 100 times infinity.

The idea that life is sacred always leads to this conundrum.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Unfortunately, there are extremists everywhere. Aggressive atheists generally are reacting to exposure to aggressive believers. I have my own particular beliefs about reality, derived from ongoing observation and research. But I generally don't even mention them unless somebody brings the topic up first (like on a forum message board
), because I know they're not all that popular.

For instance, I think the whole conflict between atheists and believers is kind of silly, because neither side can even define what they're arguing for or against. "God?" What even is that? I sure don't know, and I've never met anyone who can properly define it. As a result, I can't even define myself as an atheist, since I don't see how I can not believe in something I can't even define. Do I believe in ------------------- ? I find it ridiculous that anyone can say one way or another.


As for anyone being "good" or "evil," well... for the most part, people are good when they do things you like (or the dominant society likes), and evil when they don't. And that depends on where you are in history and location. A thousand years from now, things we do every day without even thinking about it might be thought of as evil and barbaric by the people living at that time. So generally, it's best not to be too judgmental about things, and mind one's own business. All of this will pass.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinthia
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


My comments weren't directed at you. My initial point earlier in the thread was that the atheist position is ridiculous (see for yourself). The moral debate just seems to be how things turn out.


Apologies then...

Good debate. In regards to your friends heckling people who have a belief then i think that's immaturity and has nothing to do with atheism.
In a sense that this person probably has some built up angst against those who have a belief. I truly don't...

I like to study religion and make my own mind up. I guess i'm of a philosophical mind as opposed to a religious mind. I like to think we are of a free form and life should not be reduced to a few lines of text, no matter how fancy.

This is the reason we are spiralling downwards, too many people are singular people, we place our global trust in singular players and have lost touch with communities and free thought.

Much like we did when religions clashed. This is the opposite side of the coin. Instead of following a mythical diety, we are following a human opinion. Which in itself is just as bad.

Free thought, free souls.

Peace



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by sinthia
 


You say "No part of what I said was tantamount to the idea that the child has the right to to harm to others."
According to your previous sources of morals, the child has every right to harm others, as it is right in the eyes of the child and no absolute morals exist. Who are you to judge what is right?

And who are you to? Everyone has a different take on what is right and what is wrong. I personally base my morals on the mist logical I can conceive.

Exactly. Everyone has a different take on what is right and wrong in your view - hence there is no absolutes. If I wanted to kill someone in your worldview, it is totally fine if I decide what is wrong or right.



Macro evolution, which relates to your monkey comment isn't at all factual. There is absolutely no proof of it whatsoever.

Said like a true christian who appreciates the science she likes and disregards the science she doesn't by ignoring the science-proven macro evolution (which is just lots of microevolution - it's like saying you get cents but you don't get dollars).

Perhaps you have some proof of macro evolution you could share with me?
There is evidence of dogs changing breeds, but NO EVIDENCE of dogs turning into anything other than dogs. If you have evidence to the contrary, i'm sure even the evolutionists will be interested in it, because they haven't yet got any.



I think the thing that made me want to vomit the most was the statement "Life is not sacred and therefore lives can be valued and all lives are not of equal value".
This type of belief is like that of Adolf Hitler

Reductio ad Hitlerum. This is a logical fallacy.
What if you found yourself in a situation where there were two groups of people, one group was going to die and what you did determined which group that was. All you know is that one group has ten times as many people in it than the other. Which group do you choose?
It would be illogical and irrational to choose the small group. But you made a choice and to make it you needed to value human life.
If life was truly sacred, this could not be done and one life would be as valuable as 100 others - it's like 1 times infinity and 100 times infinity.

The idea that life is sacred always leads to this conundrum.


It's your logical fallacy!!! I merely said it was the same ideal as Adolf Hitler, which is a statement of fact (see holocaust and Jews for further information). You have turned the argument around to number of lives rather than life itself - nice trick, but I spotted it. Number of lives is not related to value of life. To imply that one life is superior in whatever way to another like life is the actual point of question.
Ironically, your example of of one life in exchange for 100 times infinity lives mirrors the sacrifice of Jesus Christ - Well done!



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sinthia
 


If I wanted to kill someone in your worldview, it is totally fine if I decide what is wrong or right.

I don't think in terms of right or wrong because of the moral dilemmas it brings up. The only thing that I see that really matters is that acts can be justified.


Perhaps you have some proof of macro evolution you could share with me?
There is evidence of dogs changing breeds, but NO EVIDENCE of dogs turning into anything other than dogs. If you have evidence to the contrary, i'm sure even the evolutionists will be interested in it, because they haven't yet got any.

What you describe is not what macro evolution is, evolution doesn't even allow for a creature to give birth to something not it's own species. But even with that said over 80,000 years, we turned wolves into dogs. You'll have to wait and see what we turn dogs into next.


It's your logical fallacy!!! I merely said it was the same ideal as Adolph Hitler,

No, the logical fallacy was you comparing me to Hitler.


You have turned the argument around to number of lives rather than life itself - nice trick, but I spotted it.

Fine, over look it. Here's a better example. Murderer-rapist or my daughter? I have to choose one life or the other, therefore I have to value each life. If I can do this, then life has a discrete value and not all lives are equal.


Ironically, your example of of one life in exchange for 100 times infinity lives mirrors the sacrifice of Jesus Christ - Well done!

If you're going to challenge me on evidence for evolution, then I'm obliged to challenge you for evidence of Jesus.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 

funny porn comment!
But, the truth is, there is MOUNDS of evidence throughout our world history that, if you choose to research, you will find christianity is just another religion that was birthed from the stars. You have to study world history, theology, astrotheology, astrology, psychology. But the problem with christianity is, your not allowed to do so...isnt that a scream of bull**** to you? Blind faith is dangerous, and thats what Christians are brought up to believe from the moment they are out of the womb. I truly believe the bible is an awesome book that teaches how to have good morals. The stories are great and so much can be learned from the bible. The problem is, it just simply was never meant to be a religion. History proves that. Look how many times the church has changed views.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Enigami
 


I've always had that thought too. I think that every major religion is essentially trying to connect to the same God/Consciousness/Creator. I've always had the view that not one religion is more right than the other (unless it involves human sacrifice or cannibalism) every religion that teaches peace, love of one another, and spiritual guidance, is part of all religions. Us people just get the ego factor involved, the whole "We're better than you". Which is why my friend bugs me, I feel like he thinks he's smarter than the rest of us. I have definitely could imagine that there might have been ET intervention in religions. It would explain how Mary got pregnant without intercourse, and a whole bunch of other things.
Jesus in my mind is divine but only in the way that he had some knowledge of the Universe we have yet to attain (like knowledge of Quantum Physics) which would explain the abilities to walk on water & resurrection. That is if the Bible is accurate.

The only thing that bothers me about the Atheist point of view is the fact that some atheists, like my friend, will not accept the fact that there is still many unknowns about Human Origins, Evolution, the Creation of the Universe, our own planet, ourselves, and so on. I guess that's why I could never call myself an Atheist, because I will always have belief that something new and exciting is always out there waiting to be discovered. Just 2 cents, while we seem to be debating it a little.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join