Post here if you think atheists can't be good people

[headheart]

“Creep”!!!!

Conspiracy theory:

1. A theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

2. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...spiracy+theory.

‘headheart’:

#32 “…new brand of atheist in town….they just don't give a hoot about any opinion but the one which they are ramming down our throats …..It's a disease and it's not getting better, it's only design it to evangelize, propagate and destroy every memory of religion on this planet”.

#34 This new breed of atheist (if one can even call it atheism) is a deliberate and calculated program…..”

See the similarities Eric, between your views and the mind-set of a conspiracy theorist?

Crickey I'm not paranoid just using exaggeration to make a point. You are so touchy. Please get over it. You lost a round now relax, dude.

[Tassman]

Crickey I'm not paranoid just using exaggeration to make a point. You are so touchy. Please get over it. You lost a round now relax, dude.

Well let’s get this straight: You do NOT think that there is “a new brand of atheist in town” that doesn’t “give a hoot about any opinion but the one which they are ramming down our throats”.

NOR:

That this is “a disease and it's not getting better, it's only design it to evangelize, propagate and destroy every memory of religion on this planet”.

NOR:

This new breed of atheist (if one can even call it atheism) is a deliberate and calculated program…..”

You deny this is what you intended to convey, is that correct? So what point exactly was this “exaggeration” of yours making? Please be specific.

[headheart]

Well let’s get this straight: You do NOT think that there is “a new brand of atheist in town” that doesn’t “give a hoot about any opinion but the one which they are ramming down our throats”.

NOR:

That this is “a disease and it's not getting better, it's only design it to evangelize, propagate and destroy every memory of religion on this planet”.

NOR:

This new breed of atheist (if one can even call it atheism) is a deliberate and calculated program…..”

You deny this is what you intended to convey, is that correct? So what point exactly was this “exaggeration” of yours making? Please be specific.

Let's take it one point at a time. They are not new. They do give a hoot but their hooting is to shrill. Though Richard did a good job of sending a message that he was on such a mission it later became clear that he'd toned it down some. He is a man on a mission but he's learning that there are ways that distance even his allies. Sure there is some degree of calculation as with anything that a group of men do. Hey they could be doing a lot worse things. It's kind cute and nerdy. Did I say white? I was replying to a dead thread and wanted to see if I could liven things up a bit. Result = it worked. I mean it even got you rattled. You are wound up way to tight for this sort of thing. Chill out. Peace, Eric.



'Let me just say ....' Dawkins vs Tyson < take a page from this book.

[headheart]

In fact this really is a video that everyone in apologetic discussions, arguments and debate need to meditate upon.

• Edited by a Moderator •

It's a lesson for ALL of us. Huh?

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Linking to videos with profanity in them is not allowed...you should know that by now HH...

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Tassman]

Let's take it one point at a time. They are not new. They do give a hoot but their hooting is to shrill. Though Richard did a good job of sending a message that he was on such a mission it later became clear that he'd toned it down some. He is a man on a mission but he's learning that there are ways that distance even his allies. Sure there is some degree of calculation as with anything that a group of men do. Hey they could be doing a lot worse things. It's kind cute and nerdy. Did I say white? I was replying to a dead thread and wanted to see if I could liven things up a bit. Result = it worked. I mean it even got you rattled. You are wound up way to tight for this sort of thing. Chill out. Peace, Eric.

So everything was not so much an exaggeration to make a point as you claimed (after a very smart back-peddle) but inaccurate to the point of being deceitful. Got it! That’s’ more than just “kind of cute and nerdy”, it’s deliberately misleading.

Oh, and interesting that you continue to respond even though ‘off-line’!!

[headheart]

So everything was not so much an exaggeration to make a point as you claimed (after a very smart back-peddle) but inaccurate to the point of being deceitful. Got it! That’s’ more than just “kind of cute and nerdy”, it’s deliberately misleading.

Oh, and interesting that you continue to respond even though ‘off-line’!!

You got me there. Exaggeration are often laden with a thousand devils but seeing as you don't believe in those let's say that there are many asps in the tongue. When I'm bad I poisonous but then I'm in good company. Right, Jamie ;)

Crippled Inside - John Lennon (documentary) < master of the poison pen.

[lao tzu]

Oh, and interesting that you continue to respond even though ‘off-line’!!

It's an option in the control panel. Can't speak for Eric, but some do it to stymie board stalkers who are using the who's online feature.

[Tassman]

It's an option in the control panel. Can't speak for Eric, but some do it to stymie board stalkers who are using the who's online feature.

Oh, right. Thanks.

You got me there. Exaggeration are often laden with a thousand devils but seeing as you don't believe in those let's say that there are many asps in the tongue. When I'm bad I'm poisonous but then I'm in good company. Right, Jamie ;)

Well, I wouldn't say I'm poisonous Eric. It's certainly not my intention.

[headheart]

It's an option in the control panel. Can't speak for Eric, but some do it to stymie board stalkers who are using the who's online feature.

It's effective but will not restrain a stinky camel.

stinkycamel.jpg


We have another function which deals with the stinky camel syndrome.

[AlphaBravo]

I think the real questions are something like these:
1. Why do atheists not believe that their tendencies to prefer and do good are contradictory to their humanistic philosophy of origin and development?
2. Why do atheists not believe that the protection of the weak and sick and helpless and allowing them to reproduce is hampering the advancement of the species?
3. What do atheists believe differentiates good from evil? Is there anything that will always be good? Is there anything that will always be evil? Or is it entirely a function of societal evolution?
4. Why do atheists believe that the baser urges and actions of mankind are evil and not simply a normal expression of species selection?

I was going to answer these questions, until I realised that all four are loaded with unjustified assumptions about what atheists do or do not believe.

How convenient for you. But since you speak for all atheists perhaps you could elaborate.

[pancreasman]

Why shouldn't theists believe atheists capable of being and doing good? From a certain theistic perspective we are all made in the image of God. We are all born innocent. We are all descended from one who possessed the knowledge of good and evil and thereby possess a conscience. If anything their understanding of good is justification for the views of a theist on these matters. Why argue against the ability of an atheist to be or do good just because of a philosophical belief that they hold?

I think the real questions are something like these:
1. Why do atheists not believe that their tendencies to prefer and do good are contradictory to their humanistic philosophy of origin and development?
2. Why do atheists not believe that the protection of the weak and sick and helpless and allowing them to reproduce is hampering the advancement of the species?
3. What do atheists believe differentiates good from evil? Is there anything that will always be good? Is there anything that will always be evil? Or is it entirely a function of societal evolution?
4. Why do atheists believe that the baser urges and actions of mankind are evil and not simply a normal expression of species selection?

If you'd like my personal answers I'll give them to you. They aren't meant to convince you of anything but merely show it is possible to be a non-theist and still have a thoughtful and considered philosophy.

1. I think you might be confusing atheism and humanism. One may be both or either. It sounds like you think atheists ought to conform to a very primitive, ill-informed and outmoded view of social Darwinism. They don't. They have several options open to them. One would be reading Kant.

2. See above. The principle of universality is at least a good starting place to build a set of morals on. That is, one should consider the results of an action if it was performed by everyone. That's a good place to start.

3. I think the exact same question can and should be asked of theists. For all the talk of absolute morality Christians still argue over the morality of particular actions in particular contexts like the death penalty, contraception, pacifism, just war theory, and so on. The reality is that practical application of Ethics is messy and it seems to make no difference what foundation those Ethics are built on, people of good conscience can and do disagree.

4. Social Darwinism again which nobody thinks is the basis of an ethical system. As social organisms one could argue that humans evolved pro-social behaviours and became more successful because of that. There is some evidence in other primates that this might be so. Proof of anything? No. But certainly feasible.

I think if you're going to criticize a point of view it would be wise to know what that point of view entails at its best and most sophisticated. At least, that's the way Christians believe I should respond to Christianity. Seems fair to me.

[ZackMartin]

I think the real questions are something like these:
1. Why do atheists not believe that their tendencies to prefer and do good are contradictory to their humanistic philosophy of origin and development?
2. Why do atheists not believe that the protection of the weak and sick and helpless and allowing them to reproduce is hampering the advancement of the species?
3. What do atheists believe differentiates good from evil? Is there anything that will always be good? Is there anything that will always be evil? Or is it entirely a function of societal evolution?
4. Why do atheists believe that the baser urges and actions of mankind are evil and not simply a normal expression of species selection?

I don't think there is a single unified atheist position to morality (or I should say metaethics to be more precise). There are a few different approaches.

Some atheists are subjectivist - there is no objective morality. I think the untenable thing about this position, is when it comes to issues like Iran hanging 15 year old rape victims for "adultery" - if you believe in subjective morality, all you can honestly say "I think that's wrong, but that's just my personal opinion which is not in any way more objectively valid than theirs, and my saying they are 'wrong' is just a roundabout way of saying 'I don't like what they do' - but hey, they don't like things I do either." Whereas, those who believe in objective morality can say "That is wrong, and its wrongness is entirely independent of theirs or my personal views on the issue - it would be wrong even if I thought it was right." Ethical subjectivism neuters our power of ethical judgement and persuasion.

Then some atheists are objectivist about morality. Some of them believe that moral objectivity has some non-natural basis, other than God. For example, they might be Platonists and believe in Plato's "Form of the Good". I think (contrary to some theists), this is a consistent position; however, once you admit the existence of non-physical entities such as Platonic forms, you are maybe not far off accepting God as just another non-physical entity.

Then there are those who claim to believe in objective morality yet claim that objective morality has a purely naturalistic basis. I honestly don't see how this can work. You can define "good" in some naturalistic manner, e.g. "good is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" - but how can you justify your definition as right and the others wrong? If others define "good" differently, how can you justify the belief they are wrong in purely physical/naturalistic terms? Aren't words just arbitrary sequences of symbols that mean whatever we want them to mean? But if that is so, and "good" is just a definition, then this is really a subjectivist approach rather than an objectivist one.

Zack

[headheart]

I think some ex-Christians who decovert sometimes go a little wild to begin with but once they get past the rebound and begin re-entry they start to find their place in the world again. At least that was how it was for me. It lasted a decade and I'd say that I was less hung up than I'd been as a Christian. I think the experience allowed me to see that people are the same. Like that song by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. I think it also helped me to be a better human being and in the long run a better Christian.

Peace to all creature great and small.
Eric

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'm not sure you can avoid theological abstraction. How can we possibly know if atheists are 'good people' without some sort of definition of what it means to be 'good?'

However I will go on record that I dont think atheists are depraved headonists who do all manner of wicked things just for their own self-gratification. In fact I'll go so far as to say that most atheists are well-meaning people who genuinely want to do the right thing most of the time. Does that make them good people? Well all I can say to that is....what does it mean to be 'good?'

[Hamster]

I'm not sure you can avoid theological abstraction. How can we possibly know if atheists are 'good people' without some sort of definition of what it means to be 'good?'

However I will go on record that I dont think atheists are depraved headonists who do all manner of wicked things just for their own self-gratification. In fact I'll go so far as to say that most atheists are well-meaning people who genuinely want to do the right thing most of the time. Does that make them good people? Well all I can say to that is....what does it mean to be 'good?'

"Good" can mean a lot of things - God is good, chocolate ice cream is good. I'm talking about the relative good that we use to describe moral people, not the kind of good that's reserved for God