Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Angiebot the author of those rights was Eleanor Roosevelt.
I know! She was the President of the Comission, together with 8 people who were extermination witnesses. I'm studying to become a public servant to my country's Ministry of Justice (the equivalent to the Department of Justice in USA, I guess), and this is one of the subjects. ;)
We were entitled to autonomy ever since we became a self aware species. Socialists arbitrarily declaring things rights with no rational basis doesn't make it so.
So I ask the more relevant question to the topic of the thread. Does an objective morality exist?
It's all well and good we have the UN for this but what stops a minority from complaining that the UN is forcing their version of morality down their throats?
Yes and no.
Yes it can exist. We can even just make it up: people with the letter "A" in their names are bad people. That is an objective moral principle. The key is that any of us (even if we disagree with the rule) can apply that to someone (their name anyway), and we will all get the same conclusion (again, even if we don't agree with the conclusion).
No, the morality that we actually tend to use is not objective, for same reason: that when each of us apply those standards to a situation, we often get different results. So long as that is the case, it will never be objective.
Enable for moral rules to be objective, they must be arrived upon by solid logic and not based on emotions. That which can be rationally proven to be wrong is objectively wrong.
That isn't what the word objective means.
Objective is defined as:
"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
I.e., exactly what I said.
That isn't exactly what you said, clearly.
----------------------------
Consider the following situation:
We both receive the same research on two companies. Then you decide based on that information that company A has the best potential for increasing in value in the next year, so you do that. I do the same thing but choose company B. Were our judgements objective?
So you'll agree that there are things that are objectively good and objectively bad (regardless of whether people agree with it)
Objectively wrong: slavery, infanticide, genocide, experimenting on humans, rape.
So even if a society believes that killing all the Jews would make their society a better place, or if a society thinks that killing sickly children would preserve their strength, or if a society thinks that being raped is the fault of the woman, or if owning slaves can make manual labor cheaper and can benefit the society more if it were practiced, even if they thought it was okay, they would still be wrong to think that.... right?
"Stephen Hawking proved that there is no need for a god"
that's exactly what would happen when you give an idiot a book.
@Peripatetic
What a stupid statement. Your denial of the facts that Stephen Hawking proved is that he reads books? Hawkings is no idiot. He is probably the smartest human being that ever lived.
That was Nikola Tesla
Peripatetic
So your saying that people who read books are idiots? Do you read books?
It is easy to prove god exists with the right set premises:
P1: If dogs exist, god exists.
P2: Dogs exist.
C1: Therefore god exists.
Of course the problem is, that first premise is pretty suspicious.
It is difficult (I'd guess impossible) to prove god with uncontroversial premises; even if god exists! So in defense of the theists: the fact they are unable to prove god doesn't mean he isn't real. I can't prove I ate oatmeal for breakfast this morning, but that certainly doesn't mean I didn't eat it (I did actually eat it this morning). In the realm of language and the real world; you should forget this proof business; it isn't suited for it. Better to make informal arguments instead, because ultimately that is all that is available.
is it because you said that they are controversial so they must be controversial? does being controversial means being false?
"the fact they are unable to prove god doesn't mean he isn't real"
Maybe it's not a fact at all that we are unable to prove god.
"P1: If dogs exist, god exists."
I would not even call this premise controversial, but i would call it False by all means and should be dismissed without having a discussion about it. and yet you are comparing it to the premises the is used for god's existence as if they we're identical.
I thought you don't like dishonesty, since it's your first objection on any argument, so why being dishonest and evasive?
I made no such comparison. I hinted at no such comparison. I did not intend such a comparison. I wanted a simple example of a dubious premise, so I made one that was extremely dubious and simple. However, it is funny that you saw a extremely dubious and simple premise and you thought it was a comparison to yours. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Please stop these ridiculous accusations.
when getting cornered just deny, be evasive.
I'm really sick of these innuendos.
So living a secular lifestyle is objectively superior to living a superstitious lifestyle? If not why do you care that people are religious idiots, and if so, that would be to admit that there is a right and wrong way to behave and live.
On morality -
Relativism changes the rules each culture embraces over time and with succeeding generations, and excuses the differences between cultures. It cannot be judged in retrospect any more than it can be decided for the future. People these days are very vocal with their conceit as to even suggest that they should be afforded the authority to judge the past and the future with no more credence than their self-centered sensitivities for reference. Pretty funny stuff but people do have a rather rich history of obliviously playing jokes on themselves.
There is no (single) right that can be defined. That would be a utopian standard that cannot be applied in the current global diversity of culturalism and nationalism. People are predestined by the conventions and customs, of enduring societies and countries, to conduct their lives in deference to people outside their own. What's so hard to understand about that? What's so hard to accept about it? It defines humanity.
There's a (semi) consciousness afoot that despises culturalism and nationalism as the barrier to homogenizing a global population into a single ethical and moral system; a utopia. If the system works and you aren't getting results, change the people. If the people work but you aren't getting results, change the system. That's the thinking being applied and it assumes the people's choice for diversity should be legislated away from them to suit the proposed system. It's not only crazy to think it will work, it a sad thing to know that it is the utopian ideal running around in the heads of the liberal think tanks cavalierly calling anyone a racist or bigot for not thinking like them. The reality? If you disbelieve in a heaven in the sky why in the name of all (atheist) logic would you pretend you can create one on Earth? We already have Hambone playing Noah and god. Pretty transparent stuff to atheists but that sort of thinking usually is.
Morality is conditioned by man's changes in sensibilities and never remains an idle notion.
--------------------------------
Regarding mykcob4's message to theists attempting to prove god, it's a call out to renew their fight in the face of adversity. Nothing wrong with that. I won't carry that torch but it is good to get the pulse of passers-by here for their current strength of commitment to their beliefs. Perhaps there's some new twist atheists haven't had the chance to dismiss yet.
True-
The religious have had the upper hand in this world for thousands of years, yet they still have to prove their dieties exist.
People who "believe in" instead of 'believing because' and 'to the extent that' have been claiming there's a god (or gods) of all varieties for far longer than 2,000 years. The difference today is that there is no excuse for it in the 21st Century. Gods, fairies, witches, are obviously man-made, like morality. Human morality obviously must be determined by humans. The more educated humans involved and the fewer gods, religions and tribal divisions, the better the morality.
Perhaps the issue is that atheists are gaming the problem. For example, if God came down himself and did miracles in front of you and you recorded it, how many atheists would be convinced by that recording? Probably not many. Let's gather all the atheists together in one place so God can come down and put on a show. But what happens in a hundred years after they have died. No one will believe again.
Jesus did a lot of miracles that were seen by many, but you refuse to believe them. What about Bible prophecies that have come true? Don't believe them. No matter what has happened or what will happen, you just won't believe them. That's gaming the problem, and unsurprisingly, atheists keep winning the debate.
Here's one prophecy from the Bible that just might come true in the next year or two: The nuclear obliteration of Damascus, Syria. There are several prophecies about it in the Bible. They describe an event that appears to be nuclear blast. If it comes true, will you believe in God and the Bible? No, you will not.
Yeah, I think I saw a video about that. Yeah here it is!
HAHAHAHAHA Nyar that knocked me off my chair. Fucking hilarious!
Lmfao
Some people are so willing to believe... Every religion claims its own fantasy stories and miracles... You can search for other religions's prophets... christians, jews, mormons, jehova's witnesses, hindus... they all claim to have seen miracles (always, of course, in accordance with their own imagery), but they are basically the same bs over and over again. The same tricks, same amount of gullible people who sometimes even travel or pay lots of money to scammers...
For example, the "blood" tears on virgin's carvins were a very popular fraud when I was a kid, and since then, they have been debunked over and over again, but from time to time (when a scoundrel needs money) they take advantage of naïve and mostly elderly pople and do it again.
If you don't want to be decieved, remain always skeptical and think that if there's no science (I mean a serious investigation based upon facts conducted by scientists) behind it, then there's probably a falsehood.
@Matt
1) There is nothing in the bible about anything nuclear. That is just you shoe fitting the myth to fit your narrative.
2) Predictions are always purposely ambiguous so anyone can attribute whatever they want to fit their narrative to them. Prophecies are the same as predictions.
3) Atheists require proof, not myths and folklore. There have been many things recorded in history that Atheists believe to be true. They have all been verified, tested, independently substantiated, and peer reviewed. The jesus myth has not.
4) The bible was written in 325ADE by people that had a political motive, taken from old folklore stories and myths that preceded even the jewish culture and attributed to jesus.
5) Gaming the problem? What the hell does that even mean? That is just jibberish and nonsense. It's you just apologizing for a myth that has no basis in fact.
Let's gather all the christians in one place and hold them factually accountable for their myth. Put them on trial with their life at stake. I'd bet they wouldn't be so cavalier with the facts. I bet that they would want verification and corroboration for every detail if their life depended on it.
Pages