A tip for atheists

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
LostLocke's picture
If you do not believe in God,

If you do not believe in God, then you should have no opinion on his character.

Why? I don't believe Walter White, or The Hulk, or Jar Jar Binks, or Sauron exist. But I definitely do have opinions on their characters.

LogicFTW's picture
@OP by Jordan

@OP by Jordan

So by professing God has abandoned people, is homophobic or likes slaves you claim to know these things are bad, but says who? What’s bad and good?

Oh you think that way? Cool, I will enslave you into hard labor at gunpoint, and you will be okay with that because "what's bad and good?"
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jordan - Whose to say if

Jordan - Whose to say if there is a God he HAS to be kind?

Apparently the believers, since they are the ones preaching omnibenevolence to us.

Peurii's picture
Undoubtedly if there is a god

Undoubtedly if there is a god, it most certainly is an evil god. If I had to pick a religion, I'd pick the Cathar heresy. For them the God of the Bible was literally Satan. God was evil, and so was the material world. The one true good God existed beyond this world and beyond our comprehension. The god of the Bible was basically Plato's Demiurge, who wanted to create the perfect world of ideas, but because the Demiurge was not perfect, it could not create perfection. Makes A LOT more sense than the run-of-the-mill Christian dogma.

Anyway, you are right. There exists no morality in nature. Morality is a relational property. We have it in order to form coalitions with other homo sapiens. Morality is mostly about emotions first, and rationality second. Curiously our capability for symbolism and analogy extends it beyond human relations. If we had evolved out of lions instead of social hominids, our views on morality would be totally different.

Tin-Man's picture
Speaking of morality, I

Speaking of morality, I present to you a wonderful example of the biblical objective morality....

Basically, God says, "Hey, my favorite chosen people! Take your army and your slaves and go slaughter that entire race of people in the next valley, because I don't like them. And while you are at it, feel free to save all the virgin females and have your way with them. You have my blessings. HOWEVER, if I catch any of you fuckers eating shellfish, your ass is headed straight for my favorite eternal furnace! Okay, so run along now. Have fun storming the castle!"

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Cognostic's picture
@TinMan: What a bigoted

@TinMan: What a bigoted representation of God's laws. God moves in mysterious ways. What is Genocide to you is a simple culling of the human race so that the healthy believers can thrive. What you call rape, really isn't rape because it was all part of God's plan. And slavery was not the same as American slavery in Biblical times. Most of it was indentured servitude. And if a slave was treated badly, killed or had an eye removed, he would be freed. If he lived for three days, no problem. Now I regard that as quite fair and even implement it with my own slaves. Well.... I really don't have "slaves'. Not real ones anyway. I have hamsters and I am their master. Still if I kill one or poke the eye out of one or sit on one and crush its spinal cord, I will take it out to the empty lot next door and set it free. It's the very least I can do. If I had people for slaves I would graciously do the same thing... because Jesus loves us.

Now as for your utterly bigoted post. AT NO POINT DOES GOD PICK ON THE HUMBLE LOBSTER. God is quite clear on his demands. "Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you. Leviticus 11:9, 12" All the filthy finless creatures are abominations not just lobsters. Have you ever held one of these evil creatures and looked into their evil little beady black eyes. They deserve abomination. They are bottom dwelling carrion feeders who eat the dead and dying. Lips that touch the cadaverous will never touch mine. And don't go bringing up the fucking communion wafers and wine, it's not the same thing. So, god is not a bigot and he is not just picking on the little lobster. All shell fish and filter feeders are an abomination and rightly so.

I would like to encourage everyone to purchase a set of informational stickers.

GOD SAYS:
"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you."
Leviticus 11:9, 12

These stickers can be used to educate the ignorant sinners of the world by attaching them to shellfish and lobsters at your local supermarket. Each sticker comes with a sticky back and a rubber-band. Help educate the ignorant by informing them of God's way. A pack of 10 stickers can be yours for just $29.99. A small price to pay for doing God's work. Order yours today. Just send me a PM with your contact information and arrangements will be made. Praise the Lord!

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog

@Cog

But lobster is delicious!... *tongue hanging out of mouth*.... *droooool*....

Cognostic's picture
@Tin-Man - Oh FUCK! Owned

@Tin-Man - Oh FUCK! Owned again...... How True! How True! And I am doing my monthly food shopping Tomorrow..... Hmmm... I know they have them and I wonder how much they are?

Randomhero1982's picture
There is no God, grow up.

There is no God, grow up.

The only reason atheists wont come out and strictly say as such is because most will play the game by the rules... I.e. logical argument etc...

That is where theism resides, where once it explained everything within the universe, on our planet, life, morality, death, after life etc...

Now its stuffed in a shitty little box in attic, like an old toy belonging to a long lost relative and you simply cant quite get rid of it yet.

It serves no purpose, it offers no answers...

Its bollocks.

A theistic world view offers nothing other then a safety blanket for those that are petrified of what they cannot truly know.

rat spit's picture
Oh Jordan. I’ll tell you why

Oh Jordan. I’ll tell you why I don’t masturbate to porn on the net.

Do you want to know why?

Guilt.

Guilt is a feeling that helps us learn from our mistakes; so not as to repeat them.

The US and A felt guilty about slavery a few years back and the north decided it was wrong. A whole civil war was fought to free black people from slavery to the white man of the south.

It is based on guilt that we strive for higher morals.

Does your God feel guilt?

Rohan M.'s picture
Wow. Yet another apologist

Wow. Yet another apologist who thinks that they own morality. An apologist who is masquerading as an atheist on his profile page (see the "my view" section here: https://www.atheistrepublic.com/users/jordan/50231

And in response to your childlike plea for me to leave your precious little friend in the sky alone: nope. As others on here have said, we can say whatever we bloody well like about any character we damn want, regardless of whether or not our opinions make you sad.

And to answer the "unanswerable question" that I'm pretty sure you feel very clever asking us: Morality is not something that comes from a 2000-year old storybook written by uneducated desert people, or something that needs to be conditioned and suggested into you from an early age or whilst in a weakened emotional state. It comes from our inborn social instincts that drive us to care for each other; these are present not only in us, but in many other intelligent social species. For example, did you know that elephants mourn their dead? Did you know that humpback whales protect other creatures from sharks and killer whales? AFAIK, elephants and killer whales do not believe in supernatural beings, because while intelligent to some extent, they do not have the mental capacity to dream up superstitions as a means of explaining phenomena they don't understand, like ancient humans did in the millennia before we had the ability to use science and technology to formulate more evidence-based explanations for said phenomena.

But how, may you ask, did these instincts come to be? Well, ever heard of this wonderful thing called "natural selection"? These altruistic instincts are found by intelligent social creatures like you and me to be favorable in terms of increasing their chances of surviving due to the repulsion to the concept of constant, needless murdering caused by any sane person viewing such acts as being morally reprehensible. And so the trait is passed down to their offspring. And that, my friend, is why I'm not going on a killing/raping spree because "it's fun". No supernatural beings needed. Nice try, though.

(Although knowing the type, as well as some of the things I've seen you write on this thread, you probably think that "natural selection" and "evolution" are just elaborate lies cooked up by evil secularists to mislead children.)

Jordan's picture
Not sure why but Like many

Not sure why but Like many atheist on this forum you resort to talking about the God of the Bible.

And I do believe in evolution. I belive most likely God is a programmer and we are an algorithm playing out. Nature is only made up of mathematical properties, reality (as seen in quantum physics) is made up of pixels, dna is a language of instructions for our Cells, experiments have shown cells “making decisions”, the fine tuning of the universe , I believe irreducibly complex cells evolved with intention

Knowing what we know about reality, computer programs, nature and information believing in a creator is much more probable than a random explosion..

Rohan M.'s picture
"I believe in evolution and

"I believe in evolution and science"

In same comment: "DNA absolutely MUST be a program for reasons I refuse to explain blah blah blah more baseless assertions blah blah blah Irreducible Complexity™ creation by divine magic is the most likely cause of the universe because I said so"

Self-discrediting much? I hope you do realize that those exact same arguments are used by creationists all the time.

Cognostic's picture
@Jordan: What "random

@Jordan: What "random explosion" are you talking about? Are you perhaps referring to the expansion of the universe? No. You aren't that illiterate are you?

Sheldon's picture
"I do believe in evolution"

"I do believe in evolution"

Evolution is an objective scientific fact, denying it is no different to denying the rotundity of the earth.

Jordan's picture
Also you miss the point. I

Also you miss the point. I get why we don’t murder. Heck even I don’t commit murder. The point is just because you BELIVE it’s wrong doesn’t mean it is in a reality where our only goal is survival. Whose to saying killing off the individuals who do not contribute to society would be more beneficial to our species survival?

Rohan M.'s picture
I'm sorry, I'm the one

I'm sorry, I'm the one "missing the point"? I'm the one who is arguing that just because I believe something is so makes it automatically so? Just look in the mirror. You are the one who clearly didn't read all of that paragraph of what I said. Unlike you and your "who's to say, who's to say, who's to say" assertions that, as I have noticed, you repeatedly refuse to back up, I actually gave demonstrable examples of non-murderousness in other social species. And also, please do explain how killing everyone who doesn't "contribute to society" (at least be more specific) would benefit humanity... again, as others have said, your views on morality are very troubling indeed; I sincerely hope that you never get elected into any kind of position of power, seeing as you seem to think that were you to get elected after, hypothetically, ceasing to believe in your invisible friend, you would pretty much become the next Hitler, going from your absurd logic.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh look, another

Oh look, another supernaturalist purports to be in a position to lecture us on the conduct of discourse. this is going to be good.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

Stop bringing up the fact that you don’t think There is a God becasue [sic] of the evil that exists in the world or that God is cruel, oppressive and vengeful.

Well here's your first error. Namely, thinking that being an atheist means asserting that a god type entity doesn't exist. It doesn't. That's because atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. It simply means we don't accept uncritically assertions by supernaturalists, that their favourite mythologies are anything other than mythologies.

However, whilst regarding the question of the existence of a god type entity in its most general form as an unanswered question, what we do reject, is the idea that mythological assertions purportedly constitute fact, and as a corollary, we regard the fatuous and absurd candidates for the 'god role' presented in those mythologies as null and void. no least because those mythologies demonstrate the incompetence of their authors repeatedly, by presenting assertions about the universe and its contents that are not merely wrong in the light of modern scientific knowledge, but fatuous and absurd in that light. Any genuine fantastically gifted entity purportedly responsible for the requisite text, would not allow discoverable crass errors to feature in that text.

Indeed, you'll find, if you exercise a certain level of diligence, that I've already posted here some musings on this matter that should prove enlightening here.

If you do not believe in God, then you should have no opinion on his character.

Poppycock.

First, an elementary concept you manifestly neglected to understand with your above assertion, is that it is perfectly apposite to subject the nature of an asserted entity to scrutiny, as a matter of proper discourse, not least because most of us would like to know what sort of entity we are dealing with, if it transpires that assertions about the existence thereof are actually true. Would you not want to be informed beforehand about this?

Second, when supernaturalist assertions about their pet magic men, lead said supernaturalists to engage in abuse of discourse, or conniving to force policy making, education and the fabric of civil society to conform to those assertions, then the nature of said pet magic men is entirely apposite to discuss, especially if we have evidence that supernaturalist assertions in this vein are wrong. This becomes particularly apposite whenever supernaturalists peddle the tiresome assertion that we purportedly cannot be "moral" without their pet magic men, or that our ethical thinking depends necessarily upon those pet magic men, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Evidence such as, for example, assertions in the requisite mythologies that said pet magic men purportedly ordered acts to be committed, that are presently regarded as crimes against humanity. Numbers 31 provides a particularly odious example from one of those mythologies, and refutes wholesale supernaturalist assertions about the purported "moral perfection" of the requisite magic man.

Indeed, it is precisely because supernaturalists continue to assert that morality is purportedly impossible without their mythological magic men, and that said mythological magic men are purportedly "morally perfect", that refutation of those assertions goes a long way toward rendering said mythological magic men superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. That you do not understand this elementary concept, again speaks volumes about the quality of the apologetics you are peddling here.

Because whether he was good or evil would not determine his existence. God could be evil, so what? Whose to say if there is a God he HAS to be kind?

Try, as I have expounded above, that this is precisely what supernaturalists assert. As a corollary, refuting said assertion impacts upon the existence assertion, because they are the ones tying that existence assertion to the "moral perfection" assertion. This is a particularly prevalent line of apologetics emanating from Opus Dei neo-Thomists, though they're not the only ones peddling this line: it also appears from time to time in certain strands of Protestant presuppositionalism.

Furthermore, if we are just a product of random and natural unguided processes, then there is most likely no such thing as objective moral values outside of our own perception and what one might consider “evil” another might consider moral.

Oh, not this canard again ...

What part of "ethical precepts are judged on the basis of observable harm or benefit disseminated thereby" do you not understand? Indeed, as I cover at length in this post, an exposition of the scientific literature covering the evolutionary and biological basis of our capacity for ethical thought and the motivation to act thereupon, it's noteworthy that the principle of reciprocity not only pre-dates every human religion ever invented, but is observed to be in action in non-human organisms.

In short, all the actual data on the subject points to ethical decisions being a matter of empirical test.

So by professing God has abandoned people, is homophobic or likes slaves you claim to know these things are bad, but says who?

Not "who", but what. Namely, the observational data to the effect that harm is disseminated to the recipients of the requisite actions.

What’s bad and good? After all we are supposedly just evolved bacteria whoseonly objective is surviving.

I refer you to that large body of scientific literature I covered in the post I linked above.

Moving on ...

Who’s to say? What makes your morals right and mine bad? Where’s your proof that slavery and murder are wrong?

Not "proof", as this is the remit of formal axiomatic systems, not empirical observables. The evidence that these are wrong, is the observable harm endured by the victims thereof (or in the case of the murdered, their surviving relatives).

Here's a tip for you. Don't post apologetic fabrications that will be torn apart with ease by anyone who has paid attention in class, and don't purport to be in a position to lecture those of us who paid in class if you never bothered to do so yourself.

In Spirit's picture
Hi Jordan

Hi Jordan

Just my 2 cents...

1) If you believe that wisdom or a specific God has revealed itself to you, be happy with that and preach it not to anyone, for if the same wisdom or specific God has any need to reveal itself to others or in this case atheists, I am sure it can do so without you. Even if it is a programmer as you say, then everything in life is just the way it is meant to be; theists to be theists and atheists to be atheists and any changes that happen are the programmers codes.

2) You ask atheists to listen to your beliefs with an open mind but have you taken the time to try and understand why people are atheist. In the few months that I have been here I have taken that time and have come to appreciate them. I respect their reasons and have no further need to preach them any of my woohoo beliefs.

EDITED to add the word woohoo

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.