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.
Originally posted by Derised Emanresu
I have read a few of your posts coming down hard on religious people, but your comments reek of the arrogance that the OP points out relating to unscientific claims made by atheists.
Tour comment above, if you can support it with evidence is most exciting scientific breakthrough that I have ever seen.
Can you point out the studies that indicate a complete understanding of the universe so as to rule out any external force, consciousness or intelligence.
Can you point out the scientific method, tested and observed that indicates the origins of the universe and the origins of all life that excludes any kind of intelligence or "god".
Thanks Traditional Drummer, I am really excited by your announcement regarding our understanding of how the universe operates and that this understanding excludes any concept of a superior being, or god like entity.
I'm no bible thumper and I have enough respect for science to know, that science itself cannot make such a claim as this:What scientific method reveals to us is that the universe operates just fine without our concepts of creators/deities/gods.
When we know how the universe works my friend, then you can blow your trumpet. Until then, your comments are just a continuation of the religious rhetoric you seem to enjoy criticizing.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
That's the point I was getting at; someone who hasn't seen any evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, would be better off stating: ''I personally have not come across any evidence to support this''.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
No, I've set up an ''anything goes'' scenario because it's the most logically sound. Any other position commits the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
Originally posted by LeoVirgo
So what about all the other times in history where a culture came up with a list of rules for their soceity? Are you saying it was impossible for them to do such without the belief in God?
Originally posted by LeoVirgo
We have a compass within us as well as we learn from experiences and through others. Empathy is a nature within us unless we are raised in a enviroment where this empathy becomes too hard to tap into and acknowledge.
Originally posted by LeoVirgo
there are pleny of non believers that will stand up for universal rights for others.
Originally posted by LeoVirgo
But you have no reason to assume a person that does not believe in God should have no reason to believe in morality.
Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Why so harsh on others? Why does it bother you so that non believers can be good people and have good leader ship skills, and can have a good healthy dream for society?
Originally posted by Sasky
Every thing and I mean EVERYTHING can be explained by math and science with out the existence of a god.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
It doesn't bother me, in fact I'm glad that they are as moral as the rest of us !
My point is purely in regards to the atheists that claim to be logical, then suspend that logic when it comes to morality; and instead use a faith based system.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
Why would making a personal decision to follow a certain set of ethics be considered a burden, hinderance or irrational, if that individual believes that doing so will benefit their existence in some way?
Originally posted by Greyling2012
I disagree that there's no relevance between 2 events. In general, if most people would just take the money, then we would live in an even more paranoid and distrusting society, so while not directly related, again, doing the "right" thing has a pay-it-forward type of affect on society as a whole, although not certainly to the degree that we might hope.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
You are talking past-tense in all of these examples. Maybe that's an indication that those societies didn't quite nail the whole ethics thing very well.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
At some point, we realized that eating each other wasn't necessary nor safe, lest we be eaten ourselves. Also, I never said all societies were created (dare I use that term - hehe) equal, and some today are practically eating each other.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
A lack of education, technology, natural resources and the oppression by rich countries like the US make sure their enlightenment progress is slow to nill. (what's that say about US/UK (etc.) ethics as a whole?)
Originally posted by Greyling2012
Why would making a personal decision to follow a certain set of ethics be considered a burden, hinderance or irrational, if that individual believes that doing so will benefit their existence in some way?
Originally posted by Greyling2012
I disagree that there's no relevance between 2 events. In general, if most people would just take the money, then we would live in an even more paranoid and distrusting society, so while not directly related, again, doing the "right" thing has a pay-it-forward type of affect on society as a whole, although not certainly to the degree that we might hope.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
You are talking past-tense in all of these examples. Maybe that's an indication that those societies didn't quite nail the whole ethics thing very well.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
True, and while those individuals may well "succeed" in their own life, how many others might they bring down in the process, and what kind of a ripple effect might that have in terms of the overall success of that society? It's like several people seeing someone steal a pack of gum, and then just all saying screw it, let's alll do it because that guy did. That animal pack mentality eventually backfires because the store owner will eventually fight back, or the store will close, and then those people lose the convenience of utilizing that resource. At some level, most people inherently make the "right" decision out of a cause and effect rationalization, without a god telling them why.
No it's not. It doesn't prove anything. You're making zero sense. If it was titled "Husband kills wife", would it be generalizing husbands? If it was titled "Man kills Woman", would it be generalizing towards men? Maybe we should just title it human kills human, just make to make sure we don't offend anyone.
Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by technical difficulties
The title "Preacher Kills Wife" is quite enough to see that its another generalizing hitpiece. Its no surprise because atheists publish a few Million such pieces every day on this Planet. Their hatred knows no bounds.
Originally posted by lucid eyes
Atheism is the religion of the Plebs. As they lack sophisticated brain circuitry they are incapable of spiritual sight and unable to appreciate the beauty of Creation. Thus, they should not be condemned or judged as many have the habit of doing. Instead we must view them with the tolerance and love we would view children with and do our best to provide education in the hopes that through millenia of education they too become mature enough to witness greatness.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
This seems like a flawed argument... it's the aggregate of all of a societies individuals' personal morals that indicate what that societies overall morality stance is. Sure, laws play a part in enforcing some morals (most of the important ones), but those are also based on a legal (if we're lucky) consensus of the body politic, so in essence, an average of the range of personal morality for the individuals in that society.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
Well, maybe this is true for the majority, and yes, this is likely what will do us in. However, there are many, especially those who understand at least a little bit about physics/inertia/blunt trauma, who will go the speed limit (or maybe a tad slower), because they know it may someday help save injury/life. Do you always go full-tilt at or above the speed limit without considering road/visibility/safety conditions? I guess most do, but that's sad = many people are just plain stupid and don't consider the consequences of their actions. The bible doesn't tell us how fast to drive - maybe it should.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
I disagree, and it's not about personally "needing" to follow the code, it's a choice, and there are many atheists that drive the speed limit, like myself. It's not illogical, it's about survival, courtesy, gas mileage, and yes, perhaps some fear of the po-po. Apply this same concept to actual morality, not just following laws.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
Wow, okay, I think you've just proven my point. Yes, it would personally disadvantage me to beat my family. I therefore have personally determined that it's wrong to beat them - I don't need a god/bible to tell me so. Again, it's not about "need," but a conscious choice to adopt such morals.
Originally posted by Greyling2012
Your argument that it's illogical for an atheist to also have self-imposed (or follow "normal" societal) morals is baseless, IMHO. The definition of Atheism doesn't say anything about logic, BTW.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
I apologise if I haven't made a clear enough distinction; my points are aimed at atheists who claim to have come to their disbelief through the use of logic, yet suspend logic and rely on a faith or emotion based belief when it comes to morals, rather than the most logical position of amorality.
Originally posted by grahag
If the God of the bible exists as I was taught in the Catholic religion, he loves each and every one of us.
If there's some being up there that's taken on the mantle of God, it's not worthy of being called God.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus
edit to add the quote from Epicurus.
Originally posted by andrewh7
Morality is not illogical. We are a social species and we spend most of ours lives relying on one another for the things we need to survive. Without a common sense of morality, there could be no trust and reliance.
Originally posted by andrewh7
Our ancestors who did not steal from their peers were more socially desirable and thus more likely to be chosen as mates.
Originally posted by andrewh7
In this sense, morality kept you alive
Originally posted by darkbake
Stealing the guy's money would, in fact, be forever connected to the event at some point in time where your wallet was lost and someone else had to choose between turning it in and giving it back. Because, either you accept the money back and become a hypocritical ass, or you don't get your money back.
Originally posted by darkbake
If this wallet example is a typical slice of your everyday life, then it is likely that you will have a hard time keeping friends or meaningful relationships.
Originally posted by darkbake
Even if "no one will ever know" seems to be the case, do you really want to be walking around with thousands of "no one will ever know" situations weighing you down? And, most importantly, don't you want to live in a society where someone else will give you back YOUR lost wallet?
How can you expect this from anyone else while not being willing to do it yourself? At the very least, it makes any argument for wanting to get your wallet back completely illigitimate coming from your own mouth.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Because morality is not derived from a belief in god, therefore such a thought process is not logical.
For the gazillionth time, atheism is not nihilism. You really should try to absorb this fact.
Originally posted by lucid eyes
Because of the aforementioned deficiencies in brain chemistry the Pleb does not recognize the logical fallacy of "he is a baker and commited a crime, therefore bakers are criminals" and falls for atheist propaganda.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
Do you know that for a fact ? How do you know which evolved first, belief in God or morality ? How do you know they are not intertwined
Nihilism is the default position for an atheist; any other philosophy is contradictory to logic.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And that is my exact position.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No scientific discovery nor claims from the devout have presented any objective evidence of deities, gods or creators.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Although there is a remotely slim possibility that evidence could be presented otherwise, I feel fine with reasoning a certitude based on these facts.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
There is a remotely slim possibility that evidence could be presented for tooth fairies and easter bunnies too but based on the facts I have formed certitudes about them also.