There are lots of sources discussing non-religious morals where you can challange your views. I for one is not the person to adress such an issue. But being an atheist, I can say that I do not believe in the concept of "evil". I think people act out of what they think is best, and sometimes they do things other people find horrid. No one is able to do something they believe is wrong out of free will. I couldn't kill anyone unless I felt it was right to do so. (I do think its wrong to kill btw)
@thehumanistofnorway you DO believe it is right to kill if the person is attacking you or your family or if it is a chicken you wish to eat; if I were you I would plan the extermination of the human species as a parasite infestation of earth, and it would be right
@NadNareek As I said, I am no authority on non-religious morals so you'll find a real, intelectual challange elsewere. I don't have the knowlege nesessery to represent that view. However, I might comment your claim; No, I would not believe that it is right. The right way would be to try to stop him from attacking me, making him unable to do so. I would do what I can to prevent to kill or harm another human being. If he died in the process, it would be tragic, but he had alot of the blame himself
All atheism required is a disbelief in a god. To say there is no true atheist because people have beliefs is a false statement. I have many beliefs but belief in a deity is not one of them. Some beliefs though they are not 100% ingrained in scientific proof are justified by other means. I believe my husband loves me because he has a pretty good track record of doing the things I consider loving acts. That belief could be false but@ this point ive seen nothing to suggest that.
@krissy4nik you believe in your husbands love because you see evidence, right? but you do not believe he is one member of the vermin parasite infestation of earth
@NadNareek Where was it ever said the atheist position is that humanity are parasitic vermon infesting the earth? Some people may be parasitic vermon but the humans I know are concerned with knowledge, love,and kindness. If you think without a god humanity is nothing more than a bunch of vermon either you need new friends or a new world view.
@krissy4nik Humanity fits the definition of vermin parasite infestation: feeding off other species, destroying the habitat of other species, exterminating millions of species, destroying the air, oceans, and forests....all for human consumption and indulgence without regard for the welfare of other species. Why should humanity not be exterminated? especially if atheism is true?
The true rational atheist who believes in no afterlife, also believes in no morality although they may borrow moral values from social or belief systems and behave in a moral way from those viewpoints.
Atheists are technically agnostic because we cannot deny the possible existence of God; we also cannot deny the possible existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; it's not an argument in your favor. Rational atheists don't believe in an independent morality. Morality is something taught to us from parents and teachers. It is something that is passed on, and it changes, over time. The huge variance of right and wrong over time and across the world is proof enough that it's a human creation.
Sir, your argument is flawed. Just because an atheist has his or her own set of morals has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Did people not have morals before the the birth of Christ? Did people in the middle east not have morals before the time of Prophet Mohammad? I can't speak for everyone, but morality is a product of reason. Doing "right or wrong" has a lot of practicality associated with it. We don't need conflicting verses to tell us what already makes sense.
Atheist means you don't believe in a god or gods. That's it. And you don't have to have faith or believe in anything to be nice to people. That's like saying you need a Fanny Farmer cookbook to make chocolate chip cookies.
This is you're most ignorant and twisted idea yet. Atheism has nothing to do with "belief" and everything to do with "god". There can be belief without god. You propose belief doesn't exist? That ALL ideas are transient? You propose fact=word=nothing? Yet you deny a truism that fact=fact and that can avoid any leaps of FAITH(in God)? You can jumble all those words as you like but fact=fact but yet not make an atheist, it must speak directly to deny god.
So are you implying that, as atheists are moral, and as this morality is based on faith, atheists ought also to have faith in God? Furthermore, are you saying that both morality and religion can be seen as "comforts" for us as we live our lives? If so, this does not lead to the existence of God. In fact, it does nothing more than make God, and morality, weaker-they are simply a comforter to help us through our lives on this hypothesis.
There's no such thing as an occasional atheist. You either believe in something or you don't.
Atheists are just open-minded. We don't say "there's absolutely, 100%, no chance of there being a god"
We simply don't find it logical to believe in a supreme being. It's extremely hard to accept a belief system that requires you to talk to an invisible being in the sky.
Not bashing on the religion, just saying that it requires quite the leap of faith.
That's what Atheism is; the lack of a belief in a God.
Whether or not they believe in Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, or the after life is up to them.
The ONLY thing that makes Atheists what they are is the lack of a belief in a God.
Atheism isn't some group; it's a bunch of individual people.
It's not a label either, it's a belief.
If you believe in a deity you are Theist. If you believe in a creator who doesn't intervene, you are Deist. If you don't believe in any deity, you are Atheist
I agree that atheism is not some group, and many who are atheists would not describe themselves as atheists; they may simply not know what they believe but cannot say they do believe in god; some even become atheists for one moment then think they believe in god the next moment.
A better model is to see atheism more broadly as fluid and as doubting that God is real. Certainly there are hardcore militant atheists who have made it their cause and reason for living. However, a more realistic view is to see humans as on a continuum of unbelief and belief. As one said who came to Jesus, "Lord, I believe. Save me from my unbelief."
An atheist is not someone who casually doesn't hold a belief in god but someone who doesn't belief in god.
If they may, then they purport to be agnostic as if they do maybe believe there may be a higher being then they are agnostic. Nobody who is (50/50 or 99/100 or 1/100 or a/b) can be a Christian or Wicca or Muslim or strange pagan. Atheist 0% god, Agnostic 1-99% god, X religion 100% whatever god or spaghetti monster.
Yes, right and wrong depends on one's personal preferences...but those preferences are strongly influenced by one's society.
And yes, one can conclude that helping the weak undermines society...but one can ALSO argue that the weak can often contribute in unexpected and useful ways (like Einstein, for instance, who wasn't considered promising as a small child), and thus they SHOULD be helped. Fortunately, that conclusion is more prevalent among atheists and, indeed, most society.
Atheism just means no belief in God. It doesn't in any way mean no belief in values. Humanism recognize that certain values are helpful to society based on evidence (societies that lack them stagnate or decline; those that have them prosper). Our beliefs are NOT based on faith.
I'd clarify that #4 is incorrect, in that lots of species have unique value over other life forms in various areas. Ours, for instance, includes developing advanced technology.
But basically I (and most atheists) would agree with the remaining points.
But even fundamentalist Christians are relative moralists. They'll agree murder is evil...until you point out God deliberately drowned the world (including innocent children). Then murder's okay for him.
One can indeed identify value. Value is ascribed individually. What you may value I may not, and vice versa. But I still assign value to persons, places and things, and so does every other atheist.
Like I said...fundies agree murder is evil, but they believe it's okay for God to commit murder.
And sure, by definition an all-powerful God could take back what he gave, but that wouldn't make it morally right or good. Death isn't necessarily bad...but pointless suffering is.
Your premise is faulty. Atheistic moral codes aren't developed through sheer whim. People are part of societies, and societies develop moral codes that allow them to function well.
I would no more develop a moral code that concludes killing all humans is good than I would conclude that my favorite tasting foods actually taste terrible.
Perhaps you don't understand atheistic morality because you don't understand morality doesn't need to be forced upon someone through threat.
there is no real basis for morality; what is right and wrong depends upon ones own personal basic preferences, e.g. life preferred over death, personal comfort preferred over others comfort, etc
one can easily and logically argue that the idea of social welfare including the weak, undermines progress of human society by a) draining resources and b) allowing an inferior genetic contribution to the gene pool
Your comments here don't make a lot of sense. Atheist (a-theist) means by definition simply "without god". From the Greek atheos, a (wihtout), -theos (god). Of course people believe in other things and have to. The past can be proved to an extent. We hope for the future. This is not in the same league as religious faith.
Atheism being without god is also by logical deduction, without objective morality, human value, and meaning of life; very true that everyone must believe in many things since there is no absolute proof of anything, so humans must rely on preponderance and quality of evidence, e.g. time. Religion must be held under the same scrutiny.
Atheism is about unbelief and can include those who believe there is a god, but have a false view of god, a false idea of morality, and false idea of doctrine, etc. as well as those who believe all the right things but do not practice what they believe. Conversly one does not believe there is a god but who holds right views of morality and puts them into practice.
You're confusing philosophy with religion, NadNareek. One can have morality, values, ethics, etc. without being religious or having anything at all to do with any religion.
Just look at the definition of religion: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
cerainly one can believe anything they want to make up, and those morals, values do not have to be logical; e.g. all animals are equal value, so don't eat animals, but plants are OK, etc; cows are people too, etc
Christian belief in God = blind faith = similar to blind faith in Santa Clause by a section of the population:
Atheist = no blind faith due to non evidence:
Blind being the key word suggesting unreasonable
BTW assuming from your posts that you are a Christian, did you know that you too are an atheist in so far as all current god's, except one. We just believe in one more god less than you.
the transcendent source is a spirit, not physical, there is no proof of anything, but rather preponderance of evidence; evidence of my god is hundreds of detailed messianic prophecies given hundreds of years before the birth of the messiah
What are you talking about? None of this has anything to do with atheism. All atheism means is "lack or no belief in a deity/deities." That's it, nothing more. You state that there can be no true atheist and then stumble about creating your own idea of what an atheist is supposed to be so that you can show that nobody is that. That's a straw man.
There is no consistent atheist as all are compelled to believe in numerous things: morality, unique human value, compassion, meaning of life, time, memory to name a few
What does any of that have to do with whether or not you do or do not believe in a god? Atheism doesn't even make a statement about why a person doesn't believe. All it says is that they don't. What you've created is a straw man.
Atheism always contains claims of why one does not believe in a god. That's what humans do: ask why and say why. To say god does not exist because god is not observable leads to numerous logical problems: not a straw man.
People, individuals, have individual reasons. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all religious belief systems that carry with it philosophies and codes of conduct. Atheism is a statement that someone does not believe in god. It's a non-belief, not a belief system. What you've created is a straw man.
"Atheism is a statement that someone does not believe in god."
It is impossible for an atheist to avoid beiefs: morality, unique human value, compassion, meaning of life, time, memory to name a few. There is no consistent atheist.
Those beliefs have nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. You can't structure a belief system off of a non-belief. Any belief system used to interact with the world outside or inside can't be structured from atheism. Atheism is not a philosopy, it's not a belief system, it's not even a belief. It is a lack of belief. What you've created is a straw man.
"Atheism is not a philosopy, it's not a belief system, it's not even a belief. It is a lack of belief."
Atheism does not exist, or at least by itself. As an idea, it only exists in the human mind. Therefore, atheism is inextricably related to innumerable beliefs that humans by nature, must hold in order to live each day. No strawman here.
That's not true at all. In fact, if it were not for the predominance and power of theists atheism would not even be recognized at all. It's not a belief, it's not inextricably linked to anything, it's not a philosophy or system of beliefs, it is merely a lack of belief. What you've created is a straw man.
"it's not a philosophy or system of beliefs, it is merely a lack of belief. What you've created is a straw man."
No straw man. The idea of no god, has necessary implications; e.g. without a transcendent source, then there is also no objective morality, unique human value or meaning of life, beyond human fantasy.
That argument rests on two very poor assumptions, the first of which you've already detailed, and the second of which is that a transcendant source would somehow bring about objective value, unique human value or meaning of life, etc. Judging from the course of history, however, I would have to say that the belief in deities has brought little in the way of new or objective morality, and has belittled the value of human life, which was determined often by irrational criteria or whim alone.
Yes it has. It has been found wanting. It has been found flawed and irrational. It has been found lacking of internal consistency. The Bible has been interpreted to mean anything that anyone needs or wants it to mean, which shows a lack of cohesive meaning. Christian dogma has been used as the backbone of ignorance for well over a thousand years, and continues to play that role through the supposed Young Earth Creationist Controversy. It has been tried, and has been found wanting.
The "real Christianity" of Jesus, eh. A man whose taught nothing new. His moral teachings had been well known before, and he did them up rather poorly. His only claim to fame is the miracles he supposedly performed. Jesus was style, but no substance. His words were rhetoric, but had no real meaning. More importantly, he didn't found the religion. Paul did. He made Christianity into a true religion, and he added a great deal to it that Jesus never spoke. Interesting, original things at that.
Well morality and compassion, while not being universal in value, are not subjective beliefs. Time, while subjective, is part of our reality and does not form part of an individual belief system. Time exists and passes whether you believe in it or not.
Unique human value, what's that when it's at home? Memory, do you only believe you have memories or do you indeed have memories?
Morality and compassion depend upon one's beliefs, as does the idea of unique human value and what one remembers. Time cannot be observed and relies totally on belief; e.g. the past and future cannot be observed nor the present that is always moving into the past. These are all beliefs, and everyone including atheists believes them without absolute proof.
Morality and compassion might depend on one's beliefs but are not, in themselves, subjective beliefs. I already said that.
Time can be observed (try looking at a working clock) and doesn't need to be taken on faith. The past is easily observed (magic box called TV displays the past all day long if you want it too). Photos also capture fragments of the past.
There is no such thing as absolute proof but that doesn't mean everything is just a belief.
"There is no such thing as absolute proof but that doesn't mean everything is just a belief."
Not everything is JUST a belief, but there is an element of belief in everything accepted as fact. When you see a clock, you must rely on memory of the second hand having moved from the previous second. Certainly morality and compassion are subjective and in fact non-existent fantasies, unless derived from a transcendent source.
Except animals have been observed to exibit compassion, if not morality. Chimps empathise with each other and how many times have you been feeling low, only to have your spirits lifted when your faithful dog comes up and puts her head on your knee. The dog is deeply aware and has total sympathy for your suffering.
Now, you may claim that is a total illusion, that I only believe the dog is displaying compassion but any dog owner will tell you how real it is.
"Except animals have been observed to exibit compassion, if not morality."
Animals lack the ability to choose between alternative behaviours and must be conditioned with food rewards, etc., and/or have traits bred into/out of them. It's not "compassion" for dogs but pack behaviour.
Pack behaviour is the basis of morality. The ability to empathize with others motivates defense and support networks that improve the survivability of the group. Leadership structures, the alphas, form the basis of a political system that determines who gets what when. Territorial behaviour forms the basis of concepts of property and ownership. These traits all improve the survivability of both individual and group, form the basis of morality, and are hardly subjective.
Actually, I have no problems equating the morality of a dog and the morality of a human. In fact, with their far more limited capability for abstract thought, they are far less capable of working around their instictive morality which, in a sense (a twisted one, mind you), makes them more moral than humans.
I've just avoided, or purged perhaps, our tendency to become emotionally invested in the idea that we are somehow superior. If you'd like I could go even further and show you how much of our immorality is also genetic. Take racism, for example. Racism is an outgrowth of tribalism, which is the instinct to protect and support those like yourself. It creates an us against them mentality, but is also necessary for pack structures to work and for societies to form.
"Racism is an outgrowth of tribalism, which is the instinct to protect and support those like yourself." So racism is "also genetic" and you have "purged... the idea that we are somehow superior." These ideas have serious logical problems.
No, I've worked on removing my emotional investment. It's not like I've gone and removed pieces of my genetic code, 'cause that's just silly. Also, racism is an outgrowth of tribalism, but it is also a conditioned behaviour as well. But, this is starting to sound like the old nature vs. nurture or both debates that raged for quite a while, and still do in some circles.
in this sense there are no theists/deists/atheist. You need to go to a library and take out a couple philosophy books. I assure you if you did you too would be perplexed about your conclusions.
What I am trying to say is that atheists are too often hung up on the judeo-christian definition of god. E.g. because of their spiritual nature, any subjective "meaning" or "value" one assigns to life, becomes one's spiritual core and in a sense god, even e.g. the self as god. The nihilist who denies meaning and value is the only true and consistent atheist.
Ok, I had a much longer response, but I'll shorten it to this. Atheism simply means a lack of a belief in god. We are not an organized group, you can't assume any more of an Atheist other than his or her lack of belief in a supreme deity(s). Now, there are belief systems - not attached to a god, mind you - that are generally compatible and often fit together nicely such as Humanism (BTW, that would be secular humanism, not "atheist humanism").
Solopsism is the idea that there is no reality outside of my own mind since I can only be aware of my own existence. However, since my existence cannot be objectively scientifically verified by observation of others, even my own existence being subjective, must rely on faith or belief. In addition, my self-awareness relies upon memory as the basis of my identity, and since my memory is past and possibly inaccurate and fading, my own existence must again rely upon considerable faith and belief.
In your video you claim that there is no evidence of the past, however light takes time to travel from one place to the next, thus every thing you see is an image of the past. Furthermore, if you start thinking as if everything could just be your imagination (a preponderance of evidence as you put it) then there is no point to anything. obviously there is very little that we can actually prove exists, but science seeks to define what we perceive to be the world around us.
There is evidence but no PROOF of anything. Therefore a degree of faith is required for everything. 1) All light that one sees depends upon subjective memory. 2) The past cannot be directly observed, only a reflection of light. I accept matters of faith only if there is observable evidence, and in the case of god, there is vast preponderance of evidence. Science by logical necessity is a mixture of evidence and faith.
The difference between Religion and science is that science only relies on belief when it has no other choice, If we truly cannot prove the world around us in the way you suggest it wouldn't be for a want of trying. Religion, however, does not try to prove the world around them, in many cases it is even required to rely on faith alone to be a good religious subject.
In order for faith to be valid, it must ultimately be based upon science. i.e. observable evidence. This is abundantly and pre-eminently true of Christianity.
I'm glad you think that, but that statement contradicts at least 90 percent of religious people. If you ever listen to people who preach about religion they will almost always say not to doubt or question god, and scrutinizing the bible by searching for evidence is doing just that.
Those Christians are mistaken. My wife was converted from atheism because of evidence that supports claims of faith, and my firm conviction is that faith without evidence is vulnerable falsehood.
The message of the video is that atheism is a religion because fundamentally spiritual assumptions are made about ultimate reality, human value, meaning of life, and morality.
As an Atheist I do hold beliefs, but belief need not be from any Religion. My morals are mostly common sense, beating a person over the head with a bat with the intent to cause injury is wrong, basic common sense tells me this. Atheism is a freedom from Religion. Religion asks obedience above all else and thus I see it as a form of control.
"Religion" is just a word for a set of "beliefs," and humans by nature cannot escape "beliefs." Whether or not a belief is believable depends upon the quality of the evidence. If someone were attacking you physically, you probably believe it would be OK to beat them over the head. Whatever you "believe," will "control" your behaviour. So the real distinction is between organized "religion" and customized religion.
There may come a day when science uncovers something which our minds are too primitive to understand, but we have seen no indication of this as of yet. There is nothing stopping us from some day understanding everything so no we are not bound by beliefs, and certainly not by blind faith. most people, when in the absence of absolute fact, use the information available to believe in the most probably possibility, while awaiting further investigation.
My faith is NOT blind but requires observable evidence that is observable in the hundreds of messianic prophecies written hundreds of years before Jesus' birth and that give details of his birth, life, and death. The record of fulfillment is credible (not contrived) because of its thoroughness. Historical method also supports the credibility of the New testament documents.
This will be my last post on this topic because at this point it becomes hard to debate since it's basically a comparison of evidence, I personally feel the evidence for atheism is far greater and far more logical then for theism, but you obviously disagree. I would suggest learning as much as you can about the science which contradicts religion and then decide whether you still believe in god.
Science does not contradict religion, and atheism offers no evidence of any kind. On the contrary, all logic provides clear and obvious evidence that the transcendent is a necessity. As scripture says, "The person who lacks reasons says in his heart that there is no god." (Psalms 14:1)
Good thing we have the bible to tell us what logic and reason is, right? by the way when I said the science which contradict religion I did not mean all science, I meant the science which contradicts religion. Also there is evidence to support atheism, if took my advice and looked at the aforementioned science you would know this.
The bible is not needed to know what logic and reason are. Logical necessity is just that. The bible does not say the earth was created in 6 days as we now know them.
If you going to start talking like that then everything in the bible must be discounted, how for example do we know that when they said "thou shalt not kill" it wasn't assumed in their society at the time that certain people were below others and were thus excluded from this rule. the fact is you don't, so if you start twisting what the bible says and say that it doesn't define 6 days as six days as we know them, then you may as well forget the whole thing.
Read the book of genesis chapter 1 referring to the days. The "day" existed before the sun and moon. Therefore the length of a day was not determined by the sun and moon. The bible also says 1000 years is as one day and one day as a 1000 years.
Science has proven the earth is older than that. If the bible says the earth is that young it just supports atheism because of the sheer volume of evidence that supports a much older earth then the one described in the bible.
if you read the bible literally, then it pretty much flat out says the earth was created within the last ten thousand years. This is one of the main reasons why science and religion originally clashed. Scientists discovered evidence of the that the earth was older then theists of the day believed it to be, because of this the church began rejecting science, the same thing happened when scientists suggested the earth was round, and again when a heliocentric model was proposed.
The bible and archaeology indicate humans and their civilization are relatively young. E.g. the oldest cities are about 5-6,000 years old. The age of the earth is a different matter and not possible to know from biblical sources.
Thats your interpretation of the bible, and that is fine. However I know that plenty of christians (all of them before the real age of the earth was determined by science, as I said before) do think the bible tells the approximate age of the earth.
I really don't have any problem with people believing what they want to believe. But only when it crosses the line and religion is imposed upon me even in a passive way I don't like it. For example if people of a particular religion want to believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, then I would ask them to keep it to themselves and out of the science class.
There are true atheists. Atheism is simply the belief that there is not a god. You can not be an atheist with regards to morality or generally accepted historical truths. Atheism does not apply to those things. Atheism only applies to god. I believe in many irrational things that haven't a thing to do with science. The belief that people have the right to their own life is an irrational belief of mine, but I am still an atheist because I don't believe in god.
Do you define god in a judeo-christian sense or in a broader sense? I think most atheists are hung up on the definition of god and think it can be defined only one way. So they label themselves atheists rather than for example avaluists,or ameaningists, or amoralists.
Ameaningist? Avaluist? Perhaps the word you are looking for is Nihilist? No, I do not believe in anything that could in any contemporary sense be considered "god." I am not a Deist. I am an Atheist and I also happen to be a Nihilist. Why do you ask? Is it difficult to believe there are people out there who do not believe in god?
I respect you for being a consistent atheist. Indeed, atheism requires also belief in no objective morality, value, or meaning. I can understand why people would be atheists, and I believe it is because they do not know the scriptures. They do not try to read and understand perhaps because of fear.
If you are referring to the Judeo-Christian bible than yes, I have read the "scriptures." I was born into a Christian family. I still do not understand the contradiction between atheism and morality. Why must a person must believe in god to be "moral." Atheists may not believe in objective morality but many may believe that although no absolute morality has been dictated by a higher power there is a human obligation to respect the lives of other human beings and that is also morality.
Atheists are capable of being "moral" in a christian sense or altruistic if if makes them emotionally happy. But this is beside the point that without a transcendent source, being a nice person is irrational unless it serves one's own self-interest. If this life is all there is, one should live only for ones own pleasure and use others to that end.
Yes, without a transcendent source mandating a particular social behavior no rational incentive to be "moral" exists, however since when have people exhibited a willingness to act rationally? People act irrationally all the time. In fact Sigmund Freud himself said that most of our actions are irrational. The logical decision for an atheist would be to consistently exploit others for your own personal gain but obviously I'm sure you could find at least one atheist who does not act this way.
They probably get their morals from public schools, TV, and family upbringing under influences of judeo-christian and other religious values underpinning society.
What of the population of Sweden. The vast majority of Sweden is atheist, there is little Christian influence yet crime in Sweden is at a minimum. What of Anarchists or Marxists? Anarchists are the most peaceful people you will ever meet and I personally have never met a religious one.
I am an anarchist, so now you have met one. Swedish society was formed out of strong Christian teaching: Christian, Catholic, then Lutheran. It is quite possible to be prosperous and forget god, as scripture says.
It is true that atheism provides no incentive to act compassionately towards others, but does our religious or philosophical position really govern all of our actions? No. The incentive to be "moral" is derived from our consciousness as human beings as to the repercussions of our actions.
We, unlike any other animal, are aware of the effect our actions have on others and I believe that many of us, or those of us intelligent enough to realize this simple truth, are born with a general disposition that being "nice" is simply what we should do. If you look back to man in his earliest of states, before the development of religion, he had a natural tendency to look after his own tending to the wounded and providing food for his family.
How about Buddhists. Buddhism is a very peaceful religion yet Buddhists by definition are atheist and nowhere in Buddhist religious dogma does Buddhism state that there is a reward for good behavior other than the self satisfaction that comes from helping others. Kindness is a universal phenomenon not restricted to only the religious.
Buddhists are not true atheists. They believe in reincarnation and karma and cosmic consciousness. In other words, strong ideas about transcendence. If there is no transcendence, there is nothing especially good or bad about helping or hurting others whether human or beasts great and small. Protozoans are people too!
So you see although religion can provide a strong incentive to be "moral" it is not the only one. The creation of religions, other than of course the "true religion," that advocate peace are testament to the fact that "goodness" is something that at least some of us naturally strive for.
Perhaps yes because man is created in the image and reflection of God who blesses us with all things generously. One might carry on these qualities yet forget or deny God.
My standards are very minimal. Comments that are way off topic, that try to de-rail, or that contain vulgar and obscene terms will be removed. Thanks for asking.
Are you suggesting that the evidence for god is the fact that humans are able to make moral judgments? Why not examine morality without the theistic drivel?
There are many more practical atheists than philosophical atheists; people who may not describe themselves as atheists but who choose behaviours based on their lack of real conviction that god exists. Then there are philosophical atheists who choose behaviours as if god does exist, based on beliefs and values from society derived from judeo-christian beliefs. These are practical theists who would describe themselves as atheists.
the argument you state here is what I call the "what if 1+1 really = 3 argument" indicating that because we belive 1+1=2 this takes a certain amount of faith. The differnce is everything based on human logic, reasoning suggests 1+1=2 and this what we use to structure our "beliefs". there will always be the what ifs, what blue is really yellow. but billions of trail an errors would indicate it is safe to BELIEVE that when I drop a ball it will fall to the ground.
Yes, so-called atheist do believe in many things that are not absolute fact (especially since it does not exist). We usually fall back on "preponderance of evidence" since that's all that's left, of which there is ample for god.
Hundreds of messianic prophecies giving details of jesus' life and death hundreds of years before his birth. To see, type in browser "360.yahoo" then ".com" then "/dankeeran" then at my blog click on "more"
Have you considered the possibility that the writers of the new testement fabricated the jesus story to concide with Old testement stories. And are you aware of how much the jesus story resembles the egyptian gods horus and Osiris stories created 2000 years before christ. almost identical eg - born of virgin on 25Dec, 12 Disciples, star ine the east, 3 wise men, crucified on a cross, reseructed after 3days.
There are too many details for the story to be fabricated to line up with OT prophesies, added to the fact the writers had nothing to gain but persecution. If the horus and osiris and many other prior religious stories are accurate reflections, then they are perhaps ways god was preparing ancient peoples for the messiah and thus constitute remarkable evidence, added to the fact no other figure has followed in the same pattern since Jesus of nazareth.
the writers had alot to gain by fabricating prophecies, this gave their new religon alot of substance. and as we know religon is power especially in those times.
it is true the new religion attracted many in Israel because many Jews who witnessed the events were convinced by the fact Jesus fulfilled the prophets
"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also..." (I John 1:1-3)
again, that is a biblical passage, it all comes down to matter of faith whether it is true. and for me the fact that something was written down in a book does not make it true.
The fact remains we have an early document from the period written by someone who claims to be an eye-witness.
The historical method helps to determine whether or not something written is credible and reliable. Do other sources corroborate an early date for the writing? Yes. Did the writer have something materially to gain by making such claims? No.
The early church writings after the New Testament verify that the New testament is of an earlier date and accurately transmitted because they quote much of it just as we have it.
The ancient myths point to the messiah; Paul recognized this and used pagan myths to reach the Greeks for example when he said "I want to tell you about the Unknown God you worship in ignorance" and "even as your own poets have said 'we are his offspring' " (Acts 17)
if you wan't to believe Jesus is the messiah, son of god thats up to you. for me im not going to spend my life worrying about something that cannot be confirmed 100%.
I do not think it is even probable. the bible was written decades after the time of jesus based on a few transcripts of paul who refers to jesus in the pagan diety sense not as a actual man.
Paul speaks of Jesus in the Jewsih Messiah sense, not the pagan deity sense. Remember that Paul was a zealous persecutor of Christians, then was converted after he claimed to have had a close encounter with Jesus while on his way to conduct more persecution.
as i understand this is what the bible is based on a mystical experience of paul. everything else was made up after this with a mixture of pagan sun god stories.
this is not just your ordinary claim, you are claiming jesus is the son a god that has never been proven, this is an extrodinary claim which requires extrodinay evidence, so far i have seen none. I have never heard of any of these eye witness accounts you are talking about.
The eyewitness accounts are in the New Testament. Those who witnessed the amazing events of Jesus' life became his followers and wrote down what they saw. Even the Jews of the period who wrote the Talmud and who opposed Jesus, spoke of his existence but said he was a fraud who is now sitting in hell in boiling excrement.
There are lots of sources discussing non-religious morals where you can challange your views. I for one is not the person to adress such an issue. But being an atheist, I can say that I do not believe in the concept of "evil". I think people act out of what they think is best, and sometimes they do things other people find horrid. No one is able to do something they believe is wrong out of free will. I couldn't kill anyone unless I felt it was right to do so. (I do think its wrong to kill btw)
thehumanistofnorway 1 year ago
@thehumanistofnorway you DO believe it is right to kill if the person is attacking you or your family or if it is a chicken you wish to eat; if I were you I would plan the extermination of the human species as a parasite infestation of earth, and it would be right
NadNareek 1 year ago
@NadNareek As I said, I am no authority on non-religious morals so you'll find a real, intelectual challange elsewere. I don't have the knowlege nesessery to represent that view. However, I might comment your claim; No, I would not believe that it is right. The right way would be to try to stop him from attacking me, making him unable to do so. I would do what I can to prevent to kill or harm another human being. If he died in the process, it would be tragic, but he had alot of the blame himself
thehumanistofnorway 1 year ago
@thehumanistofnorway humanism offers no certainty and only despair
NadNareek 1 year ago
All atheism required is a disbelief in a god. To say there is no true atheist because people have beliefs is a false statement. I have many beliefs but belief in a deity is not one of them. Some beliefs though they are not 100% ingrained in scientific proof are justified by other means. I believe my husband loves me because he has a pretty good track record of doing the things I consider loving acts. That belief could be false but@ this point ive seen nothing to suggest that.
krissy4nik 1 year ago
@krissy4nik you believe in your husbands love because you see evidence, right? but you do not believe he is one member of the vermin parasite infestation of earth
NadNareek 1 year ago
@NadNareek Where was it ever said the atheist position is that humanity are parasitic vermon infesting the earth? Some people may be parasitic vermon but the humans I know are concerned with knowledge, love,and kindness. If you think without a god humanity is nothing more than a bunch of vermon either you need new friends or a new world view.
krissy4nik 1 year ago
@krissy4nik Humanity fits the definition of vermin parasite infestation: feeding off other species, destroying the habitat of other species, exterminating millions of species, destroying the air, oceans, and forests....all for human consumption and indulgence without regard for the welfare of other species. Why should humanity not be exterminated? especially if atheism is true?
NadNareek 1 year ago
I want to address one of your points. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting anything.
You discuss the fact that you have never met a single atheist who is "atheist in all respects" regarding morality. I have two points to make:
1) Just because you have not met an atheist without morals does not mean this person does not exist.
2) You have uncovered a point often used by atheists against the religious - morality is not derived from religion.
Is your point that "true" atheists are immoral?
housemd22 3 years ago 4
The true rational atheist who believes in no afterlife, also believes in no morality although they may borrow moral values from social or belief systems and behave in a moral way from those viewpoints.
NadNareek 3 years ago
Atheists are technically agnostic because we cannot deny the possible existence of God; we also cannot deny the possible existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; it's not an argument in your favor. Rational atheists don't believe in an independent morality. Morality is something taught to us from parents and teachers. It is something that is passed on, and it changes, over time. The huge variance of right and wrong over time and across the world is proof enough that it's a human creation.
brucejuice52 3 years ago
Sir, your argument is flawed. Just because an atheist has his or her own set of morals has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Did people not have morals before the the birth of Christ? Did people in the middle east not have morals before the time of Prophet Mohammad? I can't speak for everyone, but morality is a product of reason. Doing "right or wrong" has a lot of practicality associated with it. We don't need conflicting verses to tell us what already makes sense.
globalsyrup 3 years ago 2
Atheist means you don't believe in a god or gods. That's it. And you don't have to have faith or believe in anything to be nice to people. That's like saying you need a Fanny Farmer cookbook to make chocolate chip cookies.
philnoll 3 years ago
This is you're most ignorant and twisted idea yet. Atheism has nothing to do with "belief" and everything to do with "god". There can be belief without god. You propose belief doesn't exist? That ALL ideas are transient? You propose fact=word=nothing? Yet you deny a truism that fact=fact and that can avoid any leaps of FAITH(in God)? You can jumble all those words as you like but fact=fact but yet not make an atheist, it must speak directly to deny god.
You are completely twisted/dumb.
strawman101 3 years ago
I encourage you to seek help, but I know you are trying your best. Never give up. God bless you.
NadNareek 3 years ago
So are you implying that, as atheists are moral, and as this morality is based on faith, atheists ought also to have faith in God? Furthermore, are you saying that both morality and religion can be seen as "comforts" for us as we live our lives? If so, this does not lead to the existence of God. In fact, it does nothing more than make God, and morality, weaker-they are simply a comforter to help us through our lives on this hypothesis.
manic111 3 years ago
I think you should look up ATHEISM in a dictionary.
It's a philosophical standpoint against the existance of supernatural beings. (because there isn't a shred of evidence for it)
It has nothing to do with your belief in everyday life, like for example my belief in that my car will work when i turn the key.
Just because you look like OBI WAN KENOBI doesn't make you smart!
Salladsdressing 3 years ago
Finally someone who gets it.
WrathchildSteven 3 years ago
thanks
NadNareek 3 years ago
you fail to understand the Atheism is not a religion it is a lack of faith- is no collecting stamps a hobby?
No true atheist- it does not change that some disbelieve in supernatural entites
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
Um...Atheists are ALWAYS atheist.
There's no such thing as an occasional atheist. You either believe in something or you don't.
Atheists are just open-minded. We don't say "there's absolutely, 100%, no chance of there being a god"
We simply don't find it logical to believe in a supreme being. It's extremely hard to accept a belief system that requires you to talk to an invisible being in the sky.
Not bashing on the religion, just saying that it requires quite the leap of faith.
WrathchildSteven 3 years ago
the stories of unbelievers reveals many who simply do not believe but would not label themselves atheists
NadNareek 3 years ago
That's what Atheism is; the lack of a belief in a God.
Whether or not they believe in Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, or the after life is up to them.
The ONLY thing that makes Atheists what they are is the lack of a belief in a God.
Atheism isn't some group; it's a bunch of individual people.
It's not a label either, it's a belief.
If you believe in a deity you are Theist. If you believe in a creator who doesn't intervene, you are Deist. If you don't believe in any deity, you are Atheist
WrathchildSteven 3 years ago
I agree that atheism is not some group, and many who are atheists would not describe themselves as atheists; they may simply not know what they believe but cannot say they do believe in god; some even become atheists for one moment then think they believe in god the next moment.
NadNareek 3 years ago
Someone who doesn't believe in God one moment then doesn't believe in him the next isn't Atheist.
That's called "Wishy-washy."
Someone who doesn't know what they believe can't be Atheist, either. They're called "indecisive."
Anyone who doesn't believe in a God is Atheist whether they like the term or not.
What if a tiger didn't like the term "tiger?"
Would it still be a tiger?
WrathchildSteven 3 years ago
A better model is to see atheism more broadly as fluid and as doubting that God is real. Certainly there are hardcore militant atheists who have made it their cause and reason for living. However, a more realistic view is to see humans as on a continuum of unbelief and belief. As one said who came to Jesus, "Lord, I believe. Save me from my unbelief."
NadNareek 3 years ago
Why would I want to be saved by something that I don't believe in?
If you were falling, would you pray that fairies would catch you?
Seems ridiculous, right?
WrathchildSteven 3 years ago
An atheist is not someone who casually doesn't hold a belief in god but someone who doesn't belief in god.
If they may, then they purport to be agnostic as if they do maybe believe there may be a higher being then they are agnostic. Nobody who is (50/50 or 99/100 or 1/100 or a/b) can be a Christian or Wicca or Muslim or strange pagan. Atheist 0% god, Agnostic 1-99% god, X religion 100% whatever god or spaghetti monster.
strawman101 3 years ago
There are some thorough atheists, but there are some who doubt god is real sometimes and sometimes not. Where do they fit?
NadNareek 3 years ago
The statement "Many atheists believe in right and wrong" is pretty useless.
EVERYONE believes in a form of right and wrong.
WrathchildSteven 3 years ago
Yes, right and wrong depends on one's personal preferences...but those preferences are strongly influenced by one's society.
And yes, one can conclude that helping the weak undermines society...but one can ALSO argue that the weak can often contribute in unexpected and useful ways (like Einstein, for instance, who wasn't considered promising as a small child), and thus they SHOULD be helped. Fortunately, that conclusion is more prevalent among atheists and, indeed, most society.
Underlings 3 years ago
you are wise.
rcnitrodude999 3 years ago
Atheism just means no belief in God. It doesn't in any way mean no belief in values. Humanism recognize that certain values are helpful to society based on evidence (societies that lack them stagnate or decline; those that have them prosper). Our beliefs are NOT based on faith.
Thus, the premise of your video is false.
Underlings 3 years ago
No belief in god has other related beliefs I am sure you agree to:
1. humans have no souls
2. there is no afterlife
3. there is no ultimate moral accountability after death
4. humans have no unique value above other life forms
5. there is no objective morality apart from genetics in cultures and individuals
which of the above do you accept/deny are related to atheism?
NadNareek 3 years ago
I'd clarify that #4 is incorrect, in that lots of species have unique value over other life forms in various areas. Ours, for instance, includes developing advanced technology.
But basically I (and most atheists) would agree with the remaining points.
But even fundamentalist Christians are relative moralists. They'll agree murder is evil...until you point out God deliberately drowned the world (including innocent children). Then murder's okay for him.
Underlings 3 years ago
re #4 one can identify ability but not value
re God taking life, he can take back what he gave; death is not necessarily a bad thing
NadNareek 3 years ago
One can indeed identify value. Value is ascribed individually. What you may value I may not, and vice versa. But I still assign value to persons, places and things, and so does every other atheist.
Like I said...fundies agree murder is evil, but they believe it's okay for God to commit murder.
And sure, by definition an all-powerful God could take back what he gave, but that wouldn't make it morally right or good. Death isn't necessarily bad...but pointless suffering is.
Underlings 3 years ago
if everyone makes up their own idea of value, then there ultimately is no value apart from the colour of socks you like to wear
NadNareek 3 years ago
Your premise is faulty. Atheistic moral codes aren't developed through sheer whim. People are part of societies, and societies develop moral codes that allow them to function well.
I would no more develop a moral code that concludes killing all humans is good than I would conclude that my favorite tasting foods actually taste terrible.
Perhaps you don't understand atheistic morality because you don't understand morality doesn't need to be forced upon someone through threat.
Underlings 3 years ago
there is no real basis for morality; what is right and wrong depends upon ones own personal basic preferences, e.g. life preferred over death, personal comfort preferred over others comfort, etc
one can easily and logically argue that the idea of social welfare including the weak, undermines progress of human society by a) draining resources and b) allowing an inferior genetic contribution to the gene pool
NadNareek 3 years ago
Your comments here don't make a lot of sense. Atheist (a-theist) means by definition simply "without god". From the Greek atheos, a (wihtout), -theos (god). Of course people believe in other things and have to. The past can be proved to an extent. We hope for the future. This is not in the same league as religious faith.
joesadick 3 years ago
Atheism being without god is also by logical deduction, without objective morality, human value, and meaning of life; very true that everyone must believe in many things since there is no absolute proof of anything, so humans must rely on preponderance and quality of evidence, e.g. time. Religion must be held under the same scrutiny.
NadNareek 3 years ago
WTF???
are you talkin about r u for god or not??
yomomand 3 years ago
Atheism is about unbelief and can include those who believe there is a god, but have a false view of god, a false idea of morality, and false idea of doctrine, etc. as well as those who believe all the right things but do not practice what they believe. Conversly one does not believe there is a god but who holds right views of morality and puts them into practice.
NadNareek 3 years ago
One word that would sum it all up is: BULLSHIT!
howmuchart 3 years ago
You believe in morality, human value, meaning of life, all of which are purely beliefs not scientifically observable; thus your RELIGION.
NadNareek 3 years ago
You're confusing philosophy with religion, NadNareek. One can have morality, values, ethics, etc. without being religious or having anything at all to do with any religion.
Just look at the definition of religion: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
Underlings 3 years ago 6
cerainly one can believe anything they want to make up, and those morals, values do not have to be logical; e.g. all animals are equal value, so don't eat animals, but plants are OK, etc; cows are people too, etc
NadNareek 3 years ago
Its pointless arguing with these people ,they deluded beyond the pale..They are insane.
BULLYBOYXXX 3 years ago
Christian belief in God = blind faith = similar to blind faith in Santa Clause by a section of the population:
Atheist = no blind faith due to non evidence:
Blind being the key word suggesting unreasonable
BTW assuming from your posts that you are a Christian, did you know that you too are an atheist in so far as all current god's, except one. We just believe in one more god less than you.
tantrai 3 years ago
my particular faith is evidence-based or I would not believe it, therefore not blind
NadNareek 3 years ago
you must be special, no one has been able to provide evidence in the past 2000 + years..
Why don't you introduce us to "your god" in your video: the whole world would like to see him.
tantrai 3 years ago
the transcendent source is a spirit, not physical, there is no proof of anything, but rather preponderance of evidence; evidence of my god is hundreds of detailed messianic prophecies given hundreds of years before the birth of the messiah
NadNareek 3 years ago
What are you talking about? None of this has anything to do with atheism. All atheism means is "lack or no belief in a deity/deities." That's it, nothing more. You state that there can be no true atheist and then stumble about creating your own idea of what an atheist is supposed to be so that you can show that nobody is that. That's a straw man.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
There is no consistent atheist as all are compelled to believe in numerous things: morality, unique human value, compassion, meaning of life, time, memory to name a few
NadNareek 3 years ago
What does any of that have to do with whether or not you do or do not believe in a god? Atheism doesn't even make a statement about why a person doesn't believe. All it says is that they don't. What you've created is a straw man.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
"What you've created is a straw man."
Atheism always contains claims of why one does not believe in a god. That's what humans do: ask why and say why. To say god does not exist because god is not observable leads to numerous logical problems: not a straw man.
NadNareek 3 years ago
People, individuals, have individual reasons. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all religious belief systems that carry with it philosophies and codes of conduct. Atheism is a statement that someone does not believe in god. It's a non-belief, not a belief system. What you've created is a straw man.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
"Atheism is a statement that someone does not believe in god."
It is impossible for an atheist to avoid beiefs: morality, unique human value, compassion, meaning of life, time, memory to name a few. There is no consistent atheist.
NadNareek 3 years ago
Those beliefs have nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. You can't structure a belief system off of a non-belief. Any belief system used to interact with the world outside or inside can't be structured from atheism. Atheism is not a philosopy, it's not a belief system, it's not even a belief. It is a lack of belief. What you've created is a straw man.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
"Atheism is not a philosopy, it's not a belief system, it's not even a belief. It is a lack of belief."
Atheism does not exist, or at least by itself. As an idea, it only exists in the human mind. Therefore, atheism is inextricably related to innumerable beliefs that humans by nature, must hold in order to live each day. No strawman here.
NadNareek 3 years ago
That's not true at all. In fact, if it were not for the predominance and power of theists atheism would not even be recognized at all. It's not a belief, it's not inextricably linked to anything, it's not a philosophy or system of beliefs, it is merely a lack of belief. What you've created is a straw man.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
"it's not a philosophy or system of beliefs, it is merely a lack of belief. What you've created is a straw man."
No straw man. The idea of no god, has necessary implications; e.g. without a transcendent source, then there is also no objective morality, unique human value or meaning of life, beyond human fantasy.
NadNareek 3 years ago
That argument rests on two very poor assumptions, the first of which you've already detailed, and the second of which is that a transcendant source would somehow bring about objective value, unique human value or meaning of life, etc. Judging from the course of history, however, I would have to say that the belief in deities has brought little in the way of new or objective morality, and has belittled the value of human life, which was determined often by irrational criteria or whim alone.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
Someone said: "It is not that Christianity been tried and found wanting. It is that Christianity has not been tried."
NadNareek 3 years ago
Yes it has. It has been found wanting. It has been found flawed and irrational. It has been found lacking of internal consistency. The Bible has been interpreted to mean anything that anyone needs or wants it to mean, which shows a lack of cohesive meaning. Christian dogma has been used as the backbone of ignorance for well over a thousand years, and continues to play that role through the supposed Young Earth Creationist Controversy. It has been tried, and has been found wanting.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
No it has not. The real Christianity of Jesus has been distorted by many people over many centuries. To comment, go to the video "Christian Warrior"
NadNareek 3 years ago
The "real Christianity" of Jesus, eh. A man whose taught nothing new. His moral teachings had been well known before, and he did them up rather poorly. His only claim to fame is the miracles he supposedly performed. Jesus was style, but no substance. His words were rhetoric, but had no real meaning. More importantly, he didn't found the religion. Paul did. He made Christianity into a true religion, and he added a great deal to it that Jesus never spoke. Interesting, original things at that.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
This is the type of comment I might remove as not useful because: 1)it contains no examples 2)it is not on the topic of this video.
To provide comments on Christianity and what Jesus really taught, go to "God's Christian Warriors."
NadNareek 3 years ago
1) You brought it up. 2)Kinda' difficult to get a lot of examples into 500 characters. 3) It's all related.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
I agree with you. An atheist rejecting deities on lack of proof must reject all things subjective to be intellectually honest.
Atheists are rife with subjective belief for which there is no proof. They act on these every day. This requires faith.
The subjective is what sets us apart from objects. We still demand to be the center of the universe. lol
Twicebakedtaters 4 years ago
Perhaps you can provide us with a few examples of these subjective beliefs that you assert are rife in Atheists.
ForteanJo 4 years ago
morality, unique human value, compassion, meaning of life, time, memory to name a few
NadNareek 3 years ago
Well morality and compassion, while not being universal in value, are not subjective beliefs. Time, while subjective, is part of our reality and does not form part of an individual belief system. Time exists and passes whether you believe in it or not.
Unique human value, what's that when it's at home? Memory, do you only believe you have memories or do you indeed have memories?
ForteanJo 3 years ago
Morality and compassion depend upon one's beliefs, as does the idea of unique human value and what one remembers. Time cannot be observed and relies totally on belief; e.g. the past and future cannot be observed nor the present that is always moving into the past. These are all beliefs, and everyone including atheists believes them without absolute proof.
NadNareek 3 years ago
Morality and compassion might depend on one's beliefs but are not, in themselves, subjective beliefs. I already said that.
Time can be observed (try looking at a working clock) and doesn't need to be taken on faith. The past is easily observed (magic box called TV displays the past all day long if you want it too). Photos also capture fragments of the past.
There is no such thing as absolute proof but that doesn't mean everything is just a belief.
ForteanJo 3 years ago
"There is no such thing as absolute proof but that doesn't mean everything is just a belief."
Not everything is JUST a belief, but there is an element of belief in everything accepted as fact. When you see a clock, you must rely on memory of the second hand having moved from the previous second. Certainly morality and compassion are subjective and in fact non-existent fantasies, unless derived from a transcendent source.
NadNareek 3 years ago
Except animals have been observed to exibit compassion, if not morality. Chimps empathise with each other and how many times have you been feeling low, only to have your spirits lifted when your faithful dog comes up and puts her head on your knee. The dog is deeply aware and has total sympathy for your suffering.
Now, you may claim that is a total illusion, that I only believe the dog is displaying compassion but any dog owner will tell you how real it is.
ForteanJo 3 years ago
"Except animals have been observed to exibit compassion, if not morality."
Animals lack the ability to choose between alternative behaviours and must be conditioned with food rewards, etc., and/or have traits bred into/out of them. It's not "compassion" for dogs but pack behaviour.
NadNareek 3 years ago
Pack behaviour is the basis of morality. The ability to empathize with others motivates defense and support networks that improve the survivability of the group. Leadership structures, the alphas, form the basis of a political system that determines who gets what when. Territorial behaviour forms the basis of concepts of property and ownership. These traits all improve the survivability of both individual and group, form the basis of morality, and are hardly subjective.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
So morally speaking, humans are no different than dogs, etc.? That which proves too little, proves too much.
NadNareek 3 years ago
Actually, I have no problems equating the morality of a dog and the morality of a human. In fact, with their far more limited capability for abstract thought, they are far less capable of working around their instictive morality which, in a sense (a twisted one, mind you), makes them more moral than humans.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
I like your honesty and logical consistency.
NadNareek 3 years ago
I've just avoided, or purged perhaps, our tendency to become emotionally invested in the idea that we are somehow superior. If you'd like I could go even further and show you how much of our immorality is also genetic. Take racism, for example. Racism is an outgrowth of tribalism, which is the instinct to protect and support those like yourself. It creates an us against them mentality, but is also necessary for pack structures to work and for societies to form.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
"Racism is an outgrowth of tribalism, which is the instinct to protect and support those like yourself." So racism is "also genetic" and you have "purged... the idea that we are somehow superior." These ideas have serious logical problems.
NadNareek 3 years ago
No, I've worked on removing my emotional investment. It's not like I've gone and removed pieces of my genetic code, 'cause that's just silly. Also, racism is an outgrowth of tribalism, but it is also a conditioned behaviour as well. But, this is starting to sound like the old nature vs. nurture or both debates that raged for quite a while, and still do in some circles.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
You believe in the equal worth and dignity of all life forms?
NadNareek 3 years ago
Oh, I see your confusion. I was simply talking about equivalent morality. I still eat, after all.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
in this sense there are no theists/deists/atheist. You need to go to a library and take out a couple philosophy books. I assure you if you did you too would be perplexed about your conclusions.
ZacK77k77 4 years ago
What I am trying to say is that atheists are too often hung up on the judeo-christian definition of god. E.g. because of their spiritual nature, any subjective "meaning" or "value" one assigns to life, becomes one's spiritual core and in a sense god, even e.g. the self as god. The nihilist who denies meaning and value is the only true and consistent atheist.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Ok, I had a much longer response, but I'll shorten it to this. Atheism simply means a lack of a belief in god. We are not an organized group, you can't assume any more of an Atheist other than his or her lack of belief in a supreme deity(s). Now, there are belief systems - not attached to a god, mind you - that are generally compatible and often fit together nicely such as Humanism (BTW, that would be secular humanism, not "atheist humanism").
mjmr89 4 years ago
What are the assumptions (beliefs and values) of secular humanism? How do you know they are true?
NadNareek 4 years ago
This video is solipsism in its worst form.
Gridfire 4 years ago
I think you must be fanatically obsessed with the survival of your particular chemical organization.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Solopsism is the idea that there is no reality outside of my own mind since I can only be aware of my own existence. However, since my existence cannot be objectively scientifically verified by observation of others, even my own existence being subjective, must rely on faith or belief. In addition, my self-awareness relies upon memory as the basis of my identity, and since my memory is past and possibly inaccurate and fading, my own existence must again rely upon considerable faith and belief.
NadNareek 4 years ago
In your video you claim that there is no evidence of the past, however light takes time to travel from one place to the next, thus every thing you see is an image of the past. Furthermore, if you start thinking as if everything could just be your imagination (a preponderance of evidence as you put it) then there is no point to anything. obviously there is very little that we can actually prove exists, but science seeks to define what we perceive to be the world around us.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
There is evidence but no PROOF of anything. Therefore a degree of faith is required for everything. 1) All light that one sees depends upon subjective memory. 2) The past cannot be directly observed, only a reflection of light. I accept matters of faith only if there is observable evidence, and in the case of god, there is vast preponderance of evidence. Science by logical necessity is a mixture of evidence and faith.
NadNareek 4 years ago
The difference between Religion and science is that science only relies on belief when it has no other choice, If we truly cannot prove the world around us in the way you suggest it wouldn't be for a want of trying. Religion, however, does not try to prove the world around them, in many cases it is even required to rely on faith alone to be a good religious subject.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
In order for faith to be valid, it must ultimately be based upon science. i.e. observable evidence. This is abundantly and pre-eminently true of Christianity.
NadNareek 4 years ago
I'm glad you think that, but that statement contradicts at least 90 percent of religious people. If you ever listen to people who preach about religion they will almost always say not to doubt or question god, and scrutinizing the bible by searching for evidence is doing just that.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
Those Christians are mistaken. My wife was converted from atheism because of evidence that supports claims of faith, and my firm conviction is that faith without evidence is vulnerable falsehood.
NadNareek 4 years ago
The message of the video is that atheism is a religion because fundamentally spiritual assumptions are made about ultimate reality, human value, meaning of life, and morality.
NadNareek 4 years ago
As an Atheist I do hold beliefs, but belief need not be from any Religion. My morals are mostly common sense, beating a person over the head with a bat with the intent to cause injury is wrong, basic common sense tells me this. Atheism is a freedom from Religion. Religion asks obedience above all else and thus I see it as a form of control.
veryverybadwolf 4 years ago
"Religion" is just a word for a set of "beliefs," and humans by nature cannot escape "beliefs." Whether or not a belief is believable depends upon the quality of the evidence. If someone were attacking you physically, you probably believe it would be OK to beat them over the head. Whatever you "believe," will "control" your behaviour. So the real distinction is between organized "religion" and customized religion.
NadNareek 4 years ago
There may come a day when science uncovers something which our minds are too primitive to understand, but we have seen no indication of this as of yet. There is nothing stopping us from some day understanding everything so no we are not bound by beliefs, and certainly not by blind faith. most people, when in the absence of absolute fact, use the information available to believe in the most probably possibility, while awaiting further investigation.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
My faith is NOT blind but requires observable evidence that is observable in the hundreds of messianic prophecies written hundreds of years before Jesus' birth and that give details of his birth, life, and death. The record of fulfillment is credible (not contrived) because of its thoroughness. Historical method also supports the credibility of the New testament documents.
NadNareek 4 years ago
This will be my last post on this topic because at this point it becomes hard to debate since it's basically a comparison of evidence, I personally feel the evidence for atheism is far greater and far more logical then for theism, but you obviously disagree. I would suggest learning as much as you can about the science which contradicts religion and then decide whether you still believe in god.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
Science does not contradict religion, and atheism offers no evidence of any kind. On the contrary, all logic provides clear and obvious evidence that the transcendent is a necessity. As scripture says, "The person who lacks reasons says in his heart that there is no god." (Psalms 14:1)
NadNareek 4 years ago
Good thing we have the bible to tell us what logic and reason is, right? by the way when I said the science which contradict religion I did not mean all science, I meant the science which contradicts religion. Also there is evidence to support atheism, if took my advice and looked at the aforementioned science you would know this.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
The bible is not needed to know what logic and reason are. Logical necessity is just that. The bible does not say the earth was created in 6 days as we now know them.
NadNareek 4 years ago
If you going to start talking like that then everything in the bible must be discounted, how for example do we know that when they said "thou shalt not kill" it wasn't assumed in their society at the time that certain people were below others and were thus excluded from this rule. the fact is you don't, so if you start twisting what the bible says and say that it doesn't define 6 days as six days as we know them, then you may as well forget the whole thing.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
Read the book of genesis chapter 1 referring to the days. The "day" existed before the sun and moon. Therefore the length of a day was not determined by the sun and moon. The bible also says 1000 years is as one day and one day as a 1000 years.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Science has proven the earth is older than that. If the bible says the earth is that young it just supports atheism because of the sheer volume of evidence that supports a much older earth then the one described in the bible.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
The bible does not say how old the earth is. Humans were created during the final period (last day) of creation. Read Genesis 1.
NadNareek 4 years ago
if you read the bible literally, then it pretty much flat out says the earth was created within the last ten thousand years. This is one of the main reasons why science and religion originally clashed. Scientists discovered evidence of the that the earth was older then theists of the day believed it to be, because of this the church began rejecting science, the same thing happened when scientists suggested the earth was round, and again when a heliocentric model was proposed.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
The bible and archaeology indicate humans and their civilization are relatively young. E.g. the oldest cities are about 5-6,000 years old. The age of the earth is a different matter and not possible to know from biblical sources.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Thats your interpretation of the bible, and that is fine. However I know that plenty of christians (all of them before the real age of the earth was determined by science, as I said before) do think the bible tells the approximate age of the earth.
TheRealSife 4 years ago
There are plenty of atheists who think......
NadNareek 4 years ago
I really don't have any problem with people believing what they want to believe. But only when it crosses the line and religion is imposed upon me even in a passive way I don't like it. For example if people of a particular religion want to believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, then I would ask them to keep it to themselves and out of the science class.
veryverybadwolf 4 years ago
Sounds like a great topic for a "critique of evolution" video, not allowed in public classrooms since only selective science is allowed.
NadNareek 4 years ago
There are true atheists. Atheism is simply the belief that there is not a god. You can not be an atheist with regards to morality or generally accepted historical truths. Atheism does not apply to those things. Atheism only applies to god. I believe in many irrational things that haven't a thing to do with science. The belief that people have the right to their own life is an irrational belief of mine, but I am still an atheist because I don't believe in god.
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
Do you define god in a judeo-christian sense or in a broader sense? I think most atheists are hung up on the definition of god and think it can be defined only one way. So they label themselves atheists rather than for example avaluists,or ameaningists, or amoralists.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Ameaningist? Avaluist? Perhaps the word you are looking for is Nihilist? No, I do not believe in anything that could in any contemporary sense be considered "god." I am not a Deist. I am an Atheist and I also happen to be a Nihilist. Why do you ask? Is it difficult to believe there are people out there who do not believe in god?
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
I respect you for being a consistent atheist. Indeed, atheism requires also belief in no objective morality, value, or meaning. I can understand why people would be atheists, and I believe it is because they do not know the scriptures. They do not try to read and understand perhaps because of fear.
NadNareek 4 years ago
If you are referring to the Judeo-Christian bible than yes, I have read the "scriptures." I was born into a Christian family. I still do not understand the contradiction between atheism and morality. Why must a person must believe in god to be "moral." Atheists may not believe in objective morality but many may believe that although no absolute morality has been dictated by a higher power there is a human obligation to respect the lives of other human beings and that is also morality.
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
Atheists are capable of being "moral" in a christian sense or altruistic if if makes them emotionally happy. But this is beside the point that without a transcendent source, being a nice person is irrational unless it serves one's own self-interest. If this life is all there is, one should live only for ones own pleasure and use others to that end.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Yes, without a transcendent source mandating a particular social behavior no rational incentive to be "moral" exists, however since when have people exhibited a willingness to act rationally? People act irrationally all the time. In fact Sigmund Freud himself said that most of our actions are irrational. The logical decision for an atheist would be to consistently exploit others for your own personal gain but obviously I'm sure you could find at least one atheist who does not act this way.
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
There are atheists who have morals, and they do not receive their morals from "god."
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
They probably get their morals from public schools, TV, and family upbringing under influences of judeo-christian and other religious values underpinning society.
NadNareek 4 years ago
What of the population of Sweden. The vast majority of Sweden is atheist, there is little Christian influence yet crime in Sweden is at a minimum. What of Anarchists or Marxists? Anarchists are the most peaceful people you will ever meet and I personally have never met a religious one.
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
I am an anarchist, so now you have met one. Swedish society was formed out of strong Christian teaching: Christian, Catholic, then Lutheran. It is quite possible to be prosperous and forget god, as scripture says.
NadNareek 4 years ago
It is true that atheism provides no incentive to act compassionately towards others, but does our religious or philosophical position really govern all of our actions? No. The incentive to be "moral" is derived from our consciousness as human beings as to the repercussions of our actions.
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
We, unlike any other animal, are aware of the effect our actions have on others and I believe that many of us, or those of us intelligent enough to realize this simple truth, are born with a general disposition that being "nice" is simply what we should do. If you look back to man in his earliest of states, before the development of religion, he had a natural tendency to look after his own tending to the wounded and providing food for his family.
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
How about Buddhists. Buddhism is a very peaceful religion yet Buddhists by definition are atheist and nowhere in Buddhist religious dogma does Buddhism state that there is a reward for good behavior other than the self satisfaction that comes from helping others. Kindness is a universal phenomenon not restricted to only the religious.
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
Buddhists are not true atheists. They believe in reincarnation and karma and cosmic consciousness. In other words, strong ideas about transcendence. If there is no transcendence, there is nothing especially good or bad about helping or hurting others whether human or beasts great and small. Protozoans are people too!
NadNareek 4 years ago
So you see although religion can provide a strong incentive to be "moral" it is not the only one. The creation of religions, other than of course the "true religion," that advocate peace are testament to the fact that "goodness" is something that at least some of us naturally strive for.
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
Perhaps yes because man is created in the image and reflection of God who blesses us with all things generously. One might carry on these qualities yet forget or deny God.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Comment pending approval? Who is doing the approving? Are you in the business of censoring opinions that do not meet your standard?
EgoArguoArguendo 4 years ago
My standards are very minimal. Comments that are way off topic, that try to de-rail, or that contain vulgar and obscene terms will be removed. Thanks for asking.
NadNareek 4 years ago
Are you Santa Claus? You sure look like him.
666iconoclast 4 years ago
Are you suggesting that the evidence for god is the fact that humans are able to make moral judgments? Why not examine morality without the theistic drivel?
diqnikson 4 years ago
If no transcendent source, then there is no moral standard. Otherwise extermination of humans as parasites of earth would be a moral obligation.
NadNareek 4 years ago
There are many more practical atheists than philosophical atheists; people who may not describe themselves as atheists but who choose behaviours based on their lack of real conviction that god exists. Then there are philosophical atheists who choose behaviours as if god does exist, based on beliefs and values from society derived from judeo-christian beliefs. These are practical theists who would describe themselves as atheists.
NadNareek 4 years ago
the argument you state here is what I call the "what if 1+1 really = 3 argument" indicating that because we belive 1+1=2 this takes a certain amount of faith. The differnce is everything based on human logic, reasoning suggests 1+1=2 and this what we use to structure our "beliefs". there will always be the what ifs, what blue is really yellow. but billions of trail an errors would indicate it is safe to BELIEVE that when I drop a ball it will fall to the ground.
neorevel09 4 years ago
Yes, so-called atheist do believe in many things that are not absolute fact (especially since it does not exist). We usually fall back on "preponderance of evidence" since that's all that's left, of which there is ample for god.
NadNareek 4 years ago
"preponderance of evidence" since that's all that's left, of which there is ample for god.
Can you give me an example?
neorevel09 4 years ago
Hundreds of messianic prophecies giving details of jesus' life and death hundreds of years before his birth. To see, type in browser "360.yahoo" then ".com" then "/dankeeran" then at my blog click on "more"
NadNareek 4 years ago
Have you considered the possibility that the writers of the new testement fabricated the jesus story to concide with Old testement stories. And are you aware of how much the jesus story resembles the egyptian gods horus and Osiris stories created 2000 years before christ. almost identical eg - born of virgin on 25Dec, 12 Disciples, star ine the east, 3 wise men, crucified on a cross, reseructed after 3days.
neorevel09 4 years ago
There are too many details for the story to be fabricated to line up with OT prophesies, added to the fact the writers had nothing to gain but persecution. If the horus and osiris and many other prior religious stories are accurate reflections, then they are perhaps ways god was preparing ancient peoples for the messiah and thus constitute remarkable evidence, added to the fact no other figure has followed in the same pattern since Jesus of nazareth.
NadNareek 4 years ago
the writers had alot to gain by fabricating prophecies, this gave their new religon alot of substance. and as we know religon is power especially in those times.
neorevel09 4 years ago
it is true the new religion attracted many in Israel because many Jews who witnessed the events were convinced by the fact Jesus fulfilled the prophets
NadNareek 4 years ago
what events? which jews witnessed the events?
and if the bible is a eyewitness account of jesus life why is written in the style of a ancient pagan sun god myth?
neorevel09 4 years ago
"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also..." (I John 1:1-3)
NadNareek 4 years ago
again, that is a biblical passage, it all comes down to matter of faith whether it is true. and for me the fact that something was written down in a book does not make it true.
neorevel09 4 years ago
The fact remains we have an early document from the period written by someone who claims to be an eye-witness.
The historical method helps to determine whether or not something written is credible and reliable. Do other sources corroborate an early date for the writing? Yes. Did the writer have something materially to gain by making such claims? No.
NadNareek 4 years ago
which early document is this?
what does it say?
neorevel09 4 years ago
The early church writings after the New Testament verify that the New testament is of an earlier date and accurately transmitted because they quote much of it just as we have it.
NadNareek 4 years ago
transmission does not mean much if all they are transmitting is a ancient pagan sun god myth.
neorevel09 4 years ago
The ancient myths point to the messiah; Paul recognized this and used pagan myths to reach the Greeks for example when he said "I want to tell you about the Unknown God you worship in ignorance" and "even as your own poets have said 'we are his offspring' " (Acts 17)
NadNareek 4 years ago
if you wan't to believe Jesus is the messiah, son of god thats up to you. for me im not going to spend my life worrying about something that cannot be confirmed 100%.
neorevel09 4 years ago
no fact is 100% but only probable based on abundance of evidence. this is true in science, history, and judicial matters.
NadNareek 4 years ago
I do not think it is even probable. the bible was written decades after the time of jesus based on a few transcripts of paul who refers to jesus in the pagan diety sense not as a actual man.
neorevel09 4 years ago
Paul speaks of Jesus in the Jewsih Messiah sense, not the pagan deity sense. Remember that Paul was a zealous persecutor of Christians, then was converted after he claimed to have had a close encounter with Jesus while on his way to conduct more persecution.
NadNareek 4 years ago
as i understand this is what the bible is based on a mystical experience of paul. everything else was made up after this with a mixture of pagan sun god stories.
neorevel09 4 years ago
this is not just your ordinary claim, you are claiming jesus is the son a god that has never been proven, this is an extrodinary claim which requires extrodinay evidence, so far i have seen none. I have never heard of any of these eye witness accounts you are talking about.
neorevel09 4 years ago
The eyewitness accounts are in the New Testament. Those who witnessed the amazing events of Jesus' life became his followers and wrote down what they saw. Even the Jews of the period who wrote the Talmud and who opposed Jesus, spoke of his existence but said he was a fraud who is now sitting in hell in boiling excrement.
NadNareek 4 years ago