Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The atheists monopoly of true morality....

page: 11
36
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
to me an atheist feels no beauty or wonder and views the world with a mechanistic newtonian view. Just random atoms assembling in this or that form and our being here is but only blind chance - a description I feel fits neither of us.


Atheist means: Lack of belief in a God/Deity. That is ALL it means. PERIOD!

Beyond that anything goes.

What an atheist believes - - is called "atheist philosophy".




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




I don't waste my time with sit down meditation. I do walking meditation - - while living a full life.

Who said anything about the meditation being "sit down"? I think that reflects the level of brainwashing by the amount of false assumptions and projections one has. On top of that, how do you know that your walking meditation is the best most potent form?



I've had OBEs - - premonitions - - visions etc - - since birth (or at least first memory) - - don't need to look for enlightenment or an awakening. Born that way.

Where do you think that part of you that was out of the body came from or was created by? How do you know your answer to the former question isn't some brainwashed biased run of the mill boilerplate answer you picked up off who knows for the sake of being cool?

On top of that, the atheist in me, doesn't believe in your obe's, premonitions, visions, all brainwashed illusions you've tricked yourself into believing. A real atheist doesn't believe in obe's, visions, premonitions.



If you want to call real life experiences and factual information brainwashing - - - no skin off my nose - - - it just reflects on you and your mentality.
you've been brainwashed into "believing" real life experiences are that and that factual information is factual..... its all collective brainwashing and your choosing to believe in it. Your whole stance operates on believing a bunch of brainwashing beliefs



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


There are as many different kinds of atheists as there are kinds of Christians. The only difference is, all Christians believe in God and all atheists, don't.


Otherwise, atheists are individuals in their philosophies. There is no "Atheist Bible."



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Yet both "believe" their right. Key word here is that both parties "believe".



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by windword
 


Yet both "believe" their right. Key word here is that both parties "believe".


Actually - - we know nothing. We do not know why we exist. We don't really know the origin of life.

Therefore - - - in reality everything and anything is a belief.

However - - it is incorrect to refer to atheism as a belief. It is a non-belief.


What is atheism?


“What is atheism” is usually the one question never asked of atheists. Most people do not ask this question because they already have their own ideas about what atheism is and what atheists are. Where these ideas originate vary from their minister to their social circle to myths encouraged by certain media outlets. [reality]

Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. The ulterior motive behind this incorrect definition is that if atheism is a belief system, then theists can refer to atheism as a religion. If one can refer to atheism as a religion, then one can argue that attempts to uphold the separation of church and state (SOCAS) supports the “religion of atheism.”

atheists.org...



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by windword
 


Yet both "believe" their right. Key word here is that both parties "believe".


Yeah...the difference is:

1) Atheists believe there is no god because there is NO EVIDENCE.
2) Creationists believe in one DESPITE there being no evidence.

No1 seems a lot more rational, especially in light of scriptures being demonstrably wrong


After all, I recon you don't believe in elves either...so why believe in a god(s) given that there's no evidence to back up that claim?



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Wonders

ChesterJohn, glad to see your posts here! Now if we could just get some people to stop ignoring these questions.


Here's your "crutch".

Gee - - and I wonder why atheists ignore the self-righteous God believer that has been brain washed into believing man is incapable of thinking for himself.


The atheist forms their morality based on what is best for their society, their empathy toward their fellow human, and their own enlightened self interest.

It is these two diametrically opposed aspects of what influences behavior that concern me as an atheist in a society comprised of mostly Christians. I have spent a considerable amount of time researching, observing and studying the behavior of those who base their morality on religious indoctrination. I have noticed very high instances of immorality stemming from their religious beliefs. In fact, the amount of people who hold bigoted and discriminatory points of view toward a variety of groups and individuals not conforming to their beliefs or who do not acknowledge the validity or existence of God is staggering. This includes rampant discrimination towards homosexuals and the general misogyny that exists within the fundamental Abrahamic religions.

atheists.org...

Hmm...I think ultimately everyone thinks for themselves, YOU obviously have not been "brainwashed" into believing "man" is incapable of thinking for himself, and in a sense you are right that it would seem that way, but people CHOOSE to believe a crack-pot or they suspect and distrust the crack-pot.
My beef with Christianity is that the majority don't believe it's possible to stop sinning, they believe that they're on their path of sinful lifestyle without recourse for their actions and the way the word is preached in this day and age, little if any positive difference it makes in the lives of anyone listening.
That fact led me to study up on the "Christian sociopath", whereby they have a special formula where they can still sin and feel no guilt for it. On the other hand, it would be nice not to meet a Christian who says (as they commonly do) "We're sinners, Jesus didn't come to save us from our sins, he came to save us from the consequence our our sinful lifestyle, because we've decided to agree with today's church, that Christians are sinners and that's final."
Interesting how "thinking for yourself" brings you to pull up some ideology shaping material for some poor soul who wants to learn how not to believe.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

On top of that, the atheist in me, doesn't believe in your obe's, premonitions, visions, all brainwashed illusions you've tricked yourself into believing. A real atheist doesn't believe in obe's, visions, premonitions.


I really don't care.

I consider myself atheist - - and know my own experiences.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Regardless of what my worldview consists of, and what I believe to be moral vs imoral, I do believe that there is a black and white to every situation.

Some poeple say that because an ancient culture practiced sacrifice, and that they considered it moral to them, means it is a subjective. I would disagree. I would argue that no matter who you are, what time period you lived, what the people around you believed, killing an innocent person is an imoral thing to do.

If I said that due to my beliefs, it would be okay for me to walk up to you in the street, punch you in the face and take your wallet, would that really be a subjective truth?

I personally do not think it is. The world we live in today may think that we are more enlightened then people who lived three thousand years ago, but in a way, we are a lot less inteligent than those people. We wouldn't have what we have today without their advancements in technology and construction and engineering. We just sit on a lot more information, but we are in no way smarter as individuals than people who lived back then. IMO.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Konduit
Atheism is another institution just as any other religion. I'm right your wrong, I have moral high ground you don't etc... I mean look at the comments here and compare them to people with religious mindsets on other threads, it's pretty ironic


Ignorance deserves



The Persistent And Incorrect Belief That Atheism Is A Religion


It is suggested by many people that atheism is a religion. Before we can examine why atheism is sometimes defined as a belief, it is important to understand who defines it as such. Rarely, if ever, will you find another atheist, agnostic, freethinker, humanist, secularist, etc., putting the definition of religion in the context of atheism. Almost without exception, it is the religious who do so. The reason is simple. The religious are are so caught up in their own beliefs that imagining another person without having any religious beliefs is largely incomprehensible. Those who claim that atheism is a religion do not only lack a clear understanding of what atheism is, they also tend to use religious terms to describe atheism.

There exists only one definition of atheism, and that is simply the lack of a belief in a deity.

atheists.org...

I said it was an institution, not a religion. It assumes a set of specific beliefs according to a specific way of life. Taking my comment out of context to prove a point is not really helping to disassociate yourself from those "religious" nuts out there
edit on 19-11-2012 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konduit
It assumes a set of specific beliefs according to a specific way of life.


No it doesn't. There is no belief in atheism. There is only non-belief.

Atheism has one meaning: Lack of belief in a god/deity. That's it. That is its only meaning.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaronmc06
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Regardless of what my worldview consists of, and what I believe to be moral vs imoral, I do believe that there is a black and white to every situation.
That is a belief, it is not the objective truth.


Some poeple say that because an ancient culture practiced sacrifice, and that they considered it moral to them, means it is a subjective. I would disagree. I would argue that no matter who you are, what time period you lived, what the people around you believed, killing an innocent person is an imoral thing to do.
That is what you believe, and what or who is "innocent"? That is subjective in and of itself. We don't merely kill or hurt people because we think they are guilty. We have a long history of hurting people simply to gain an advantage, land or food, resources, politics, religion, race etc. Simply because we are afraid or to feel more secure. Being innocent had no impact in stopping that or making people believe it was wrong.


If I said that due to my beliefs, it would be okay for me to walk up to you in the street, punch you in the face and take your wallet, would that really be a subjective truth?
Yes.


I personally do not think it is.
As you say, it is a personal belief. Subjective.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
My , my the belief word still being tossed around.

Let me clarify, belief or lack thereof is not required when a simple lack of empirical evidence will suffice.

There is no evidence for the existence of deities, so I do not find it necessary to believe/disbelieve in their aforementioned existence.
I believe I'll sleep, I believe I'll die I even believe in faith (I see/read/listen to it being practiced everyday). But deities do not require belief or a lack of one, they simply have never been shown to exist.

As for morality, no one has a monopoly on morality. It is societal quicksilver and cannot be defined beyond ones own interpretation.
edit on 19-11-2012 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-11-2012 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I don’t know if I am an atheist many people think I am.

I reject all religions and dogma but I am open to the possibility that there is a divine force.

Even if there is something like that and it is sentient I don’t think it cares what I believe.

I don’t think that there is a single human or religion on earth that accurately knows for sure.

The only fact that I know for sure about something like that is that I don’t know.

My morality comes from how I was raised, the books I read, and life experiences.

I do not expect a reward or punishmant after I die.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Thought I'd comment on things.

The intelligence that life on this planet exhibits is proof that there is intelligent design to be found in the universe.

So, now in an attempt to find the source of intelligent design we divide the intelligently designed beings, and assess what it's source is. If everything existed in a cause-effect relationship, then the intelligent design should supposedly extend to the smallest particle we could possibly find. Go one step further and the particle, which we no longer have the means to detect has the same intelligent design. Hence, proof of the existence of a "source" of intelligent design outside of our capability of fathoming.

There are people who, having been born in circumstances that teach them the doctrines of religion, may subsequently decide that they are not interested in theories that expound the existence of "God", for one reason or another.

That being said, there are people across the entire spectrum of possible beliefs, including the idea that we are beholden to aliens.

The fact that religion expounds punishment to those who transgress laws in multiple scriptures, is not necessarily the reason that everyone accepts what religion teaches. Morality has been claimed by atheists on this website (and thread) as having some sort of natural occurrence in their life. If atheists can feel this "morality", why should a religious individual not feel the same logic for behaving morally, without having to feel threatened by his/her religions' doctrines?

One way in which God can be explained by the religious is that he is "reality personified". This then would make sense to an atheist, in that his logic explains that reality holds its rewards and punishments for those who do not follow natural morality. But, this is the same logic that *can* drive someone who is religious then.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensibleSenseless
Thought I'd comment on things.

The intelligence that life on this planet exhibits is proof that there is intelligent design to be found in the universe.


Sorry, it proves no such thing. It simply proves that "intelligent" life exists in this universe. There is zero evidence of intelligent design

The rest of your post is built on this premise and therefore requires no further rebuttal as it is invalid due to being based on an incorrect premise.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensibleSenseless
Thought I'd comment on things.

The intelligence that life on this planet exhibits is proof that there is intelligent design to be found in the universe.



I stopped reading your post immediately after reading this first line..... An observation, swiftly followed by an extraordinary conclusion....

Can you please explain how the fact that there is intelligence in the universe in any way proves intelligent design?

PA



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
It is a cause-effect relationship.

Is this not the premise of science and research?
edit on 21-11-2012 by sensibleSenseless because: word change



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sensibleSenseless
 


No... not really...

You are proposing that the only way intelligence can come about is by design/creation..... when this is patently not the case...

Intelligence comes from observation and intepretation of said observation. Conclusions are then formed and tested... and an understanding proposed...

This is how science operates....

Unfortunately you appear to be falling into the same hole that most creationists fall into... that of starting with a conclusion you wish to achieve, and making huge leaps of faith and false observations to attempt to prove this premise...

PA



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by sensibleSenseless
 


Its hard to argue with logic like that. But I will try with pictures.






It does make you think or it should.
edit on 22-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: add picture





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join