Atheism and religious hate

[Ostroeuropa]

Music is amoral, duh

Ethics is the field where we discuss good and evil
And there is NO EVIDENTIARY basis for ethics

Yeh there is. You just have to decide what good and evil are.
Once you define your terms, it's very easy to have evidentiary based morality.

[Shadowlandistan]

I do not hate atheists, I disagree with them sure, but the only cause I've been given to hate on certain atheists is when a certain group of atheists (I'm referring to the Anti-Theist crowd) decide to hate on religion, to call it's proponents stupid, to claim that it is a disease, to claim it is a cancer on the Earth, that it must be fought with a Secular Crusade (oxymoron?) and completely annihilated or in the case of the some big wigs in the U.K. merely most public displays of religion should be annihilated. I have no problem with the atheists that say "I do not believe in God because I find there is no proof of God". I do however harbor a passionate dislike for someone who says, for example, that by funding my local catholic church, helping in St. Vincent de Paul, ect. that I'm stupid, ignorant, blind, and diseased, that if I do not forsake my religious beliefs that I should be put to death or ostracized from society.

This scares me to be quite honest. While I am very aware that the past several thousand years have not been Religious Tolerance Bonanza, I feel very comfortable with the current US position of Religion, and it scares me when I hear people, an increasing minority say such things. It's not that I feel hurt by their words, it's that I fear what may happen when this group becomes such a large hate group that they begin backing up their philosophy with violent action. I have no fear of Secularism, I have a fear of extreme Secularism which is currently going on in Great Britain where Christians are being told they cannot wear the cross on the job and are told they must remove it or face punishment. NSG hasn't exactly assuaged my fears either. I have heard some Atheists cry that since they have been oppressed for the past several thousand years that it is only fair that they get their turn to persecute others and to take revenge on religion. As I said, I am not claiming that they are wrong about being persecuted, but it makes me fear for the safety of my 90 year old self, and my grandchildren and their children if they continue to remain Christian in a time when a hate against Christianity is rising in the world, both from radical Islam and from radical Anti-Theism. I fear what physical harm might befall them from a band of stupid radical teenagers.

By now I am sure you are wondering what the purpose of this thread is. My question to you is have you seen this coming tide? do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing? why or why not?

I'm one of those anti-thesists you speak of. No anti-theists are calling for the death penalty for being religious, that's simply a lie. We do however believe religion is stupid, yes. It is, in all honesty. You can believe what you want, but in America ESPECIALLY there has been confusion over what seperation of church and state means. NO religious organization should be tax exempt, period. NO religious organization should be allowed to contribute money to the political process, period. If you cannot prove you're religion is true, we can't have that blind faith be on the public stage.

Policy is about proof, science, and sociology. Religion is about myths and fairy tales. If you're offended at ANY of what I just said, sad day for you. I haven't said anything untrue.

[Ovisterra]

Russia and Ukraine are even worse off.

Russia: $13,000 GDP per capita.
Ukraine: $7,200 GDP per capita.

and again russia and ukraine gave more populatin than sweden so the result is that russia has more gdp than sweden.

Per capita means per person. Still.

Anyways, GDP growth last year:

Poland: +3.8%
Sweden: +4.4%
Russia: + 4.3%

[Mavorpen]

No, atheists just don't believe in a god.
Is Not Believing in the pink unicorn an act of faith?
Is not believing that elvis is still alive "Just your opinion and equal of value since it's faith based"?
No ofcourse not.

Your being ignorantly wrong. You choose your faith so if you believe Elvis is still alive or that a pink unicorn then you can choose to believe it. Some people believe the Holocaust didn't happen, yes they are dumb and ignorant to facts but guess what. It's a faith because they believe in that being the truth no matter how idiotic it is. Im not gonna bother with re-explaining things to the NS community because it seems that most of you don't under stand what religion truly is. Faith is one thing you people are skipping over for one.

Atheism is lack of belief. This entire post is pointless.

[Grimlundt]

So if I could get ahead by laying and murdering, that would be fine with you? ostoeuropa?
For millions of years killing and raping was glorious -- if done to other tribes
Is that natural?

[The Emerald Dawn]

and again russia and ukraine gave more populatin than sweden so the result is that russia has more gdp than sweden.

Per capita means per person. Still.

Anyways, GDP growth last year:

Poland: +3.8%
Sweden: +4.4%
Russia: + 4.3%

And 4.3% of shit is still shit.

[Ovisterra]

Per capita means per person. Still.

Anyways, GDP growth last year:

Poland: +3.8%
Sweden: +4.4%
Russia: + 4.3%

And 4.3% of shit is still shit.

Exactly.

This person is just wrong on every front.

[New Sapienta]

Music is amoral, duh

Ethics is the field where we discuss good and evil
And there is NO EVIDENTIARY basis for ethics

Yeh there is. You just have to decide what good and evil are.
Once you define your terms, it's very easy to have evidentiary based morality.

Except you can't define them without making a ridiculous claim.

[Ostroeuropa]

So if I could get ahead by laying and murdering, that would be fine with you? ostoeuropa?
For millions of years killing and raping was glorious -- if done to other tribes
Is that natural?

The consent of the rape victims was violated. So no, it isn't alright.

"The policy which maintains and encourages a healthy, happy, and flourishing species." - good
"That which goes against the above." - evil

[Divair]

Per capita means per person. Still.

Anyways, GDP growth last year:

Poland: +3.8%
Sweden: +4.4%
Russia: + 4.3%

And 4.3% of shit is still shit.

And GDP growth has no connection to religion.

[Sailsia]

As an anti-theist, I hate your religion, not you. (not even hate, really. it's just frustrating to see a so many people believe in such an irrational outlook of the world)

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh there is. You just have to decide what good and evil are.
Once you define your terms, it's very easy to have evidentiary based morality.

Except you can't define them without making a ridiculous claim.

Sure you can. You just have to define them. You are welcome to disagree with the definition and provide your own, which can equally be used for evidentiary based claims.

[Grimlundt]

Don't get me wrong, ostoeurpoa
I agree that religious bigotry should be opposed
I disagree with your epistemology and your feeling that everything YOu think is well-founded in evidence ... LOL

[New Sapienta]

So if I could get ahead by laying and murdering, that would be fine with you? ostoeuropa?
For millions of years killing and raping was glorious -- if done to other tribes
Is that natural?

The consent of the rape victims was violated. So no, it isn't alright.

"The policy which maintains and encourages a healthy, happy, and flourishing species." - good
"That which goes against the above." - evil

Why is maintaining a healthy, happy, or flourshing species meet that definition?

[Ovisterra]

And 4.3% of shit is still shit.

And GDP growth has no connection to religion.

Yes, that's the hilarious thing. Even if irreligious countries were in the shit economically, you'd still have to prove a link between the two.

[Ostroeuropa]

The consent of the rape victims was violated. So no, it isn't alright.

"The policy which maintains and encourages a healthy, happy, and flourishing species." - good
"That which goes against the above." - evil

Why is maintaining a healthy, happy, or flourshing species meet that definition?

Because I've chosen to define good as that.
You are welcome to use your own definition.
good is just a by-word we use for behaviour we consider desirable.
I consider behaviour which promotes a healthy, happy, and flourishing species to be desirable behaviour. Thus, I consider it good.

[New Sapienta]

Except you can't define them without making a ridiculous claim.

Sure you can. You just have to define them. You are welcome to disagree with the definition and provide your own, which can equally be used for evidentiary based claims.

Nope.

I'm simply asking for evidence that proves these definitons to be true.

[Ovisterra]

Why is maintaining a healthy, happy, or flourshing species meet that definition?

Because I've chosen to define good as that.
You are welcome to use your own definition.
good is just a by-word we use for behaviour we consider desirable.

Moral relativism is the way to go.

[New Sapienta]

Why is maintaining a healthy, happy, or flourshing species meet that definition?

Because I've chosen to define good as that.
You are welcome to use your own definition.
good is just a by-word we use for behaviour we consider desirable.
I consider behaviour which promotes a healthy, happy, and flourishing species to be desirable behaviour. Thus, I consider it good.

And I find that a ridiculous claim.

So therefore, I can ridicule you, by your own logic.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sure you can. You just have to define them. You are welcome to disagree with the definition and provide your own, which can equally be used for evidentiary based claims.

Nope.

I'm simply asking for evidence that proves these definitons to be true.

I'm not saying the definitions are true. I'm saying that good and evil are bywords for "desirable" and "undesirable."

I have a firm foundation to claim whether or not I find behaviour desirable or undesirable.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because I've chosen to define good as that.
You are welcome to use your own definition.
good is just a by-word we use for behaviour we consider desirable.
I consider behaviour which promotes a healthy, happy, and flourishing species to be desirable behaviour. Thus, I consider it good.

And I find that a ridiculous claim.

So therefore, I can ridicule you, by your own logic.

It's actually the entire foundation of moral thought but sure, if you want to flat out state it's ridiculous and provide no actual argument as to why that's the case then go ahead. The thing is, you are the one who will look stupid for doing so since i'll be supplying actual arguments while you do

[Grimlundt]

Human Rights are founded in VALUES, deontologically forumated.
There is NO evidentiary basis to these values.
Quite the opposite!
But HUman rights are a wonderful, wonderful invention

[New Sapienta]

Nope.

I'm simply asking for evidence that proves these definitons to be true.

I'm not saying the definitions are true. I'm saying that good and evil are bywords for "desirable" and "undesirable."

I have a firm foundation to claim whether or not I find behaviour desirable or undesirable.

So, the meanings are made up, or synonyms for other words, where we reach the exact same start we began at.

You are making an unfounded claim, that this is what the definitions mean.

[Ostroeuropa]

Human Rights are founded in VALUES, deontologically forumated.
There is NO evidentiary basis to these values.
Quite the opposite!
But HUman rights are a wonderful, wonderful invention

Why the fuck do you think they are called values.
Because we value them.
We find them desirable.
THATS THE POINT.

Desirable = Good

[New Sapienta]

Human Rights are founded in VALUES, deontologically forumated.
There is NO evidentiary basis to these values.
Quite the opposite!
But HUman rights are a wonderful, wonderful invention

Why the fuck do you think they are called values.
Because we value them.
We find them desirable.
THATS THE POINT.

Desirable = Good

Why should we find them desireable?