Free-will and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Hardly know if that matters.

Even the devil and his angels - are they something that a supposedly omniscient being created? Check. Is it unethical for him to charge them with doing all of his dirty work and punishing them for his commands? Check.

Once again driving home your bigoted opinion that Atheists are fundamentally immoral you obviously don't know, or do not acknowledge, secular humanism which requires no belief in God, and which most people, atheist or not, proscribe to, since there are values that are universally deemed "good" that have no religious attachment. Belief in God/s does not make one a good person. In fact, history seems to show otherwise. "Atheism" is not a monolithic institution, one does not base their morals and life around the most convenient way to describe a non belief or disinterest. "Thousands of years of social experience"... one does not need to be an atheist to question irrational beliefs that interfere with the lives of other people over trivialities that would be non-issues without the "supernatural"

If you think about it, doing good out of fear of punishment implies that most theists like you are themselves profoundly immoral since I and many others live good, peaceful, productive lives without fear of eternal damnation. Would you kill and rape if given the chance, or is it only fear of God that stops you?

... The problem with secular humanism is the assumption human rights and morals are given by man, but if those rights and morals are given by man, they can be taken and or twisted by man.

...Religion puts those rights and morals on a higher ground...

The idea is to strive to a level of positive morality which is humanly impossible, but that's the benchmark.

Where's is the benchmark for Atheistic Secular Humanism?

I ask you these silly seemingly obfuscating questions in an attempt to get you to think which apparently is something you have trouble with.

Personal attacks seem to be part of the Religious morality.

Merely an observation.

Merely an observation.

"One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential “intellectual elite” of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting – including the sexual molestation of children.

No doubt, this assertion will appear preposterous to some atheists, and will spark outrage. Yet the logical and philosophical consequences of atheists’ belief systems are inescapable. When asked by journalist William Crawley if he thought that pedophilia was “just wrong.” Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University – a world-famous philosopher of “ethics” – responded as follows:

I don’t have intrinsic moral taboos. My view is not that anything is just wrong…You’re trying to put words in my mouth.” (http://www.youtube.com/watchv=gAhAlbsAb ... re=related)

Singer went on to explain that he is a “consequentialist.” For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain “consequentialism” in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it’s ethical, if you don’t like the consequences it’s unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it’s ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it’s unethical. In an article entitled “Heavy Petting,” Singer likewise gave his stamp of approval to bestiality. As a reward for producing such pearls of wisdom, he has been granted the privilege of teaching our children “ethics” at an Ivy League university. Moreover, he is by no means the only atheistic philosopher industriously engaged in greasing the precarious slope on which Western society totters. Hence, my “plea” to atheists, for the philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of pedophilia has already been put in place by such philosophers."

So, the opinion of good is deemed to be a moral fact? Or is both morality and good opinions?

The problem with secular humanism is the assumption human rights and morals are given by man, but if those rights and morals are given by man, they can be taken and or twisted by man. Religion puts those rights and morals on a higher ground. The idea is to strive to a level of positive morality which is humanly impossible, but that's the benchmark.

Where is the benchmark for Atheistic Secular Humanism?

I ask you these silly seemingly obfuscating questions in an attempt to get you to think which apparently is something you have trouble with.

...No wonder that Christian churches are losing members - once they realize that much of the doctrine is intended to shame people into tacit compliance, congregants leave the snide comments and veiled insults inside those monuments to self-righteousness and find more compassionate company among free-thinkers and secular humanists.

It's an insult, hiding behind "observation" in a religious context.

No wonder that Christian churches are losing members - once they realize that much of the doctrine is intended to shame people into tacit compliance, congregants leave the snide comments and veiled insults inside those monuments to self-righteousness and find more compassionate company among free-thinkers and secular humanists.

You don't get that "God-given" is the exact same as "Man-given". Religion does not impart the morality you describe, nor has it prevented it being twisted by individuals. Its like you are unaware of the entire history of the human race.

C'mon, Vig ... we're better than that. Let's not stoop to their level.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T MAN-GIVEN. This is the reason why there's an United States of America, to run away from religious persecution from people like you who just don't get it.