Oh look, a couple of redneck atheists are having a fight over who is more moral. How funny is that?
Considering that atheism, especially the scientific empirical kind, is completely incapable of providing any ethical base whatsoever--I'd say it's very funny.
You can't sense morality, and so it can't be verified (ouch!). And, no matter how hard you try, you can't deduce an "ought" from an "is" (ownage!).
You chumps need to take a basic class in logic, for you fools don't have a clue.
Atheism is atheism. What you refer to as scientific atheism does not exist. That would be like me claiming that there werre theists... and also 'scientific empirical' theists. Utter garbage. You are also making a tired and ridiculous argument when you say atheists can't be moral because their atheism disallows them from having an ethical base to operate on. I'm an atheist and do not perfect, at least no less than your self I condider myself for the most part to be a kind and considerate person
"What you refer to as scientific atheism does not exist."
LOL--you might want to read the history of philosophy. Let me introduce you to Spinoza. He was NO empiricist, and he did NOT believe in God.
It is logically possible to be an atheist, while rejecting scientific method.
For your information, there are empirical theists, and there are theists who reject any empirical epistemology. Read Gordon H. Clark, for example. You are simply uneducated in basic philosophy.
''you might want to read the history of philosophy. Let me introduce you to Spinoza. He was NO empiricist, and he did NOT believe in God.''
Huh? all your doing is validating my point that atheists don't justify there world view because of scietific empiricism but rather on the grounds that holy books, especially the Bible, works supposed to be ffom an all knowing deity are inherently flawed, cotradictory and outragiously discrimitory and immoral to the point where it is immpossible to ...
believe they have come from an allpowerfull, all loving deity. Science is in no way a qualifying ingredient for atheism... just as been able to cook a good bolognaise is not a necessary qualifying agent for theistic belief. Atheism has no dependency on scientific empericism.
And as for my justification for non theistic morality I would strongly advise you to read Richard Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene''. I could make an argument but it would be a bit stupid to do so in the confines of a 500 character comment box. I have two words... 'Natural Selection'.
"I'm an atheist and do not perfect, at least no less than your self I condider myself for the most part to be a kind and considerate person."
First, your spelling and grammar is terrible. Second, I could care less what you "condider." You claim to believe in morality, but you will have to use your epistemology as a basis for your ethics. In Calvinism, we don't accept blind faith. How do you sense justice, morality, kindness, or consideration? Got Proof?Have fun, redneck.
I'm a vegetarian, but I can't stand this douche. He gives us all a bad name. He just doesn't seem to accept that humans are omnivores. All his points are that we're not carnivore.....so we must be herbivores. He's never even heard of omniverous animals??? People are built to digest meat and non-meat foods. I don't eat meat because I personally don't feel right about it, I don't think it's wrong, but I'm not going to push my opinion on other people! Militant vegetarians make the rest ashamed!
Oh look, a couple of redneck atheists are having a fight over who is more moral. How funny is that?
Considering that atheism, especially the scientific empirical kind, is completely incapable of providing any ethical base whatsoever--I'd say it's very funny.
You can't sense morality, and so it can't be verified (ouch!). And, no matter how hard you try, you can't deduce an "ought" from an "is" (ownage!).
You chumps need to take a basic class in logic, for you fools don't have a clue.
CalvinistChurch 2 years ago
Atheism is atheism. What you refer to as scientific atheism does not exist. That would be like me claiming that there werre theists... and also 'scientific empirical' theists. Utter garbage. You are also making a tired and ridiculous argument when you say atheists can't be moral because their atheism disallows them from having an ethical base to operate on. I'm an atheist and do not perfect, at least no less than your self I condider myself for the most part to be a kind and considerate person
ndjm00 2 years ago
ndjm erred:
"What you refer to as scientific atheism does not exist."
LOL--you might want to read the history of philosophy. Let me introduce you to Spinoza. He was NO empiricist, and he did NOT believe in God.
It is logically possible to be an atheist, while rejecting scientific method.
For your information, there are empirical theists, and there are theists who reject any empirical epistemology. Read Gordon H. Clark, for example. You are simply uneducated in basic philosophy.
CalvinistChurch 2 years ago
''you might want to read the history of philosophy. Let me introduce you to Spinoza. He was NO empiricist, and he did NOT believe in God.''
Huh? all your doing is validating my point that atheists don't justify there world view because of scietific empiricism but rather on the grounds that holy books, especially the Bible, works supposed to be ffom an all knowing deity are inherently flawed, cotradictory and outragiously discrimitory and immoral to the point where it is immpossible to ...
ndjm00 2 years ago
believe they have come from an allpowerfull, all loving deity. Science is in no way a qualifying ingredient for atheism... just as been able to cook a good bolognaise is not a necessary qualifying agent for theistic belief. Atheism has no dependency on scientific empericism.
ndjm00 2 years ago
And as for my justification for non theistic morality I would strongly advise you to read Richard Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene''. I could make an argument but it would be a bit stupid to do so in the confines of a 500 character comment box. I have two words... 'Natural Selection'.
ndjm00 2 years ago
ndjm writes:
"I'm an atheist and do not perfect, at least no less than your self I condider myself for the most part to be a kind and considerate person."
First, your spelling and grammar is terrible. Second, I could care less what you "condider." You claim to believe in morality, but you will have to use your epistemology as a basis for your ethics. In Calvinism, we don't accept blind faith. How do you sense justice, morality, kindness, or consideration? Got Proof?Have fun, redneck.
CalvinistChurch 2 years ago
I'm a vegetarian, but I can't stand this douche. He gives us all a bad name. He just doesn't seem to accept that humans are omnivores. All his points are that we're not carnivore.....so we must be herbivores. He's never even heard of omniverous animals??? People are built to digest meat and non-meat foods. I don't eat meat because I personally don't feel right about it, I don't think it's wrong, but I'm not going to push my opinion on other people! Militant vegetarians make the rest ashamed!
bobble12221 2 years ago
Its good to hear the voice of reason from the vegetarian side and I have no quarrel with you!
ndjm00 2 years ago