NationStates

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:20 am**

Cetacea wrote:
Valrifell wrote:
Mass murder is rather inconvenient for society.

yet governments pay millions to put people in uniforms and train them to do it

Murder is defined as intentional UNLAWFUL killing of people. War isn't necessarily unlawful.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:36 am**

The Portland Territory wrote:Here's a question that I've debated with many others before, but will bring here.

What is the point of morals if there is no higher power to enforce them? I say this because, if you are an atheist, agnostic, whatever, if you have any at all, your morals are subjective.

"God" is actually irrelevant to this problem, because "God" does not resolve it. If morality originates in "God" then it is merely the expression of "God"'s arbitrary subjective preference. More likely, though, they are simply the expression of the arbitrary and subjective preferences of those claiming to hear devine voices in their heads.

Outsourcing your subjective preferences to a "higher authority" does not make them any less subjective.

We can, however, select objectively measurable criteria by which to judge our own behavior, and apply that criteria universally (if not absolutely).

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:57 am**

The Portland Territory wrote:Here's a question that I've debated with many others before, but will bring here.

What is the point of morals if there is no higher power to enforce them? I say this because, if you are an atheist, agnostic, whatever, if you have any at all, your morals are subjective. Morals are not objective because there has never been anything eternal and powerful to support certain ideals. If morals are subjective and are so susceptible to change, then why have any at all?

If morals are decided by a deity, then they are, by definition, subject to potentially constant change. Your deity can change what is right or wrong based on a passing whim. If your morals come only from what a deity decides they are, why have then at all? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong about murder if God could make it morally right tomorrow.

On the other hand, morality derived from reason and logical thought does not change. Humanity's interpretations of logic can change, of course, but logic does not change from day to day. Treating gays like second class citizens was wrong in 2004, it was wrong in 1969, it was wrong in 4 BCE, and it is still wrong today. The view of the majority may have changed, but the logical backbone of equal marriage has not.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:03 pm**

Minoa wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:Why do we need a thread for this? I'm mostly asking as a personal question rather than as a mod because I am atheist and I don't see the point of it.

My personal view is what is the purpose of believing in religion, when so many bad things happen in the world today?

If religion worked, all the bad things should have been resolved by now.

Also, no Christmas for me: there is no purpose of the holiday for me, when there is nothing to hope for as a disabled person trapped in a country hostile to disabled people as a result of the austerity measures, even if the holiday itself was not as heavily commercialised as now.*

*Extra: also add on the likelihood that our generation faces a life of debt, low-paid jobs and little to no hope of ever owning a home (due to the monstrous starting prices), despite many of them putting a valiant effort to avoid it.

One reason I like Taoism, even though I don't believe that Tao literally exists, is because it's good for learning how to cope when the world doesn't go the way you want. In Taoism, keeping your cool and finding peace is more important than fighting for justice.

All things in moderation, though. Fighting for justice is fine if you're not making yourself miserable in the process. But sometimes people fight too hard and set their standards too high, and the frustration of fighting it is worse than the injustice that they're fighting.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:04 pm**

Collatis wrote:If morals are decided by a deity, then they are, by definition, subject to potentially constant change. Your deity can change what is right or wrong based on a passing whim. If your morals come only from what a deity decides they are, why have then at all? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong about murder if God could make it morally right tomorrow.

Indeed, the only thing "objective" about devine command is the fact of it's vapid and pointless underlying nihlism.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:06 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:Is atheism a religion?

No.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:12 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:Is atheism a religion?

No but then neither is theism.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:13 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:
Ashlak wrote:I made this thread to talk about things like atheism/agnosticism, criticism of religion, skepticism, separation of church and state issues, living as a non religious person in a religious culture or family, and things of that nature.

As an atheist, Is ompletely support this thread idea. However, it needs much more of an opening post to avoid being locked. For example, a conversation starter like "Do you think evolution should be the only method of creation taught in schools?".

'Creation'
Evolution is not a 'method of creation' it is the observed way that life changes over time.
Mythological stories don't get a free pass into the science classroom because some parents get butthurt.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:13 pm**

USS Monitor wrote:One reason I like Taoism, even though I don't believe that Tao literally exists, is because it's good for learning how to cope when the world doesn't go the way you want. In Taoism, keeping your cool and finding peace is more important than fighting for justice.
.

It's been a while since I last read a translation of Laozi, but the impression I got was less pacifistic, and more activist with efficiency. The point of being like the water is not to be limpid and passive, but rather because the water's natural relaxation allows it to move mountains and carve valleys with no intentional effort.

The other illustration I've heard was Bruce Lee, who by incessant training and activity mastered his skill so completely that he could fight aand win against an adversary with almost no effort.

So the point is not not fighting, so much as its knowing how to fight without effort.

Or "Tao." Which exists because it doesn't

**one hand clapping**

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:14 pm**

USS Monitor wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:Is atheism a religion?

No.

It really is to some.

Like how "bald" is not a haircolour - but it definitely is something some people deliberately choose as a hairstyle- just like purple hair or braids. It can even be an expression of beliefs and/or political alignment.

Others otoh are simply bald "because it is easier" , "because they are old" or "because they are sick".

So: not "no", but not "yes" either

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:15 pm**

Recently heard about Apatheism, which if I had to label myself, would probably be what I labeled myself as.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:19 pm**

USS Monitor wrote:One reason I like Taoism, even though I don't believe that Tao literally exists, is because it's good for learning how to cope when the world doesn't go the way you want. In Taoism, keeping your cool and finding peace is more important than fighting for justice.

In my view, only those who have cultivated self-control in themselves can bring positive change to others and the world. Finding peace and fighting for justice should go hand in hand.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:21 pm**

Dejanic wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:Why do we need a thread for this? I'm mostly asking as a personal question rather than as a mod because I am atheist and I don't see the point of it.

It's kind of weird how some don't believe in religion and are quite anti-theistic, but make a personal identity and belief system (almost like a religion?) out of their non belief.

And some of them get into this thing where they think being atheist means you have to worship science and logic and meticulously avoid anything sentimental or touchy-feely. Even though I don't believe in God or practice a religion, I don't feel like I have anything in common with people like that.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:24 pm**

The Alma Mater wrote:It really is to some.

What are the tenets of Atheism? What teachings does atheism have, apart from the obvious one? What are its doctrines? What are its scriptures or holy traditions? How does one practice Atheism, as opposed to just believing in it?

Atheism is a simple statement of fact, much like "Dragons don't exist" and "Homœopathy doesn't work." It's not a system of belief or a religion in any sense, nor can it be.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:27 pm**

USS Monitor wrote:
Dejanic wrote:It's kind of weird how some don't believe in religion and are quite anti-theistic, but make a personal identity and belief system (almost like a religion?) out of their non belief.

And some of them get into this thing where they think being atheist means you have to worship science and logic and meticulously avoid anything sentimental or touchy-feely. Even though I don't believe in God or practice a religion, I don't feel like I have anything in common with people like that.

It would be sufficient to note that atheism is not the claim that all beliefs are false, but merely the claim that one specific belief is false.

Ergo, atheists are entirely free to hold other beliefs as they wish, and comiserate with the likeminded as they wish.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:27 pm**

What is everyone's view of New Atheism and antitheism?

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:30 pm**

Collatis wrote:What is everyone's view of New Atheism and antitheism?

I endorse Hitchen's general viewpoint - when the theists choose to leave me in peace, I will wholeheartedly and enthusiastically return the favor.

In the meantime, I will wholeheartedly and enthusiastically return the disfavor.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:35 pm**

The Portland Territory wrote:Here's a question that I've debated with many others before, but will bring here.

What is the point of morals if there is no higher power to enforce them? I say this because, if you are an atheist, agnostic, whatever, if you have any at all, your morals are subjective. Morals are not objective because there has never been anything eternal and powerful to support certain ideals. If morals are subjective and are so susceptible to change, then why have any at all? For example, in 2004, Barack Obama said that he does not support same-sex marriage. Ten years later, with his support, same-sex marriage becomes legal in the United States. Why should beliefs that are so fundamental in your life, change? Morals, in the secular sense, are meant to make you a good person. If you keep changing them, because they are subjective, then what keeps somebody from forming their own dangerous beliefs which are "moral" to them?

Obama's not an atheist.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:41 pm**

Methodological Individualism wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:One reason I like Taoism, even though I don't believe that Tao literally exists, is because it's good for learning how to cope when the world doesn't go the way you want. In Taoism, keeping your cool and finding peace is more important than fighting for justice.
.

It's been a while since I last read a translation of Laozi, but the impression I got was less pacifistic, and more activist with efficiency. The point of being like the water is not to be limpid and passive, but rather because the water's natural relaxation allows it to move mountains and carve valleys with no intentional effort.

The other illustration I've heard was Bruce Lee, who by incessant training and activity mastered his skill so completely that he could fight aand win against an adversary with almost no effort.

So the point is not not fighting, so much as its knowing how to fight without effort.

Or "Tao." Which exists because it doesn't

**one hand clapping**

2nd part of the post that you cut out would be relevant here.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:42 pm**

Collatis wrote:What is everyone's view of New Atheism and antitheism?

Given that theistic religion, in general, has little purpose but to mislead and control, antitheism is certainly justified. Given that theistic religion's actual effect on the world varies between a warm fuzzy feeling in moments of doubt and the ruination of civilisations, antitheism is the only sane option. Opposing the spread of religion and religious teaching the same way that we'd oppose the spread of any other pseudoscience or magical nonsense is the duty of anyone who can pretend to be a protector of the truth. To watch nations warring over the worshippers of one imaginary friend building on land belonging to another imaginary friend, while remembering that time when the worshippers of a third imaginary friend invaded that country, multiple times, and then go "Yeah, theism is okay and we don't need to do anything about it" is absurd.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:43 pm**

USS Monitor wrote:2nd part of the post that you cut out would be relevant here.

Not seeng it, but I'll cede anyway.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:46 pm**

Collatis wrote:What is everyone's view of New Atheism and antitheism?

I find the term "New Atheism" to be pointless. Criticism of religion didn't begin with Dawkins or Hitchens.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:47 pm**

The Portland Territory wrote:Here's a question that I've debated with many others before, but will bring here.

What is the point of morals if there is no higher power to enforce them? I say this because, if you are an atheist, agnostic, whatever, if you have any at all, your morals are subjective. Morals are not objective because there has never been anything eternal and powerful to support certain ideals. If morals are subjective and are so susceptible to change, then why have any at all? For example, in 2004, Barack Obama said that he does not support same-sex marriage. Ten years later, with his support, same-sex marriage becomes legal in the United States. Why should beliefs that are so fundamental in your life, change? Morals, in the secular sense, are meant to make you a good person. If you keep changing them, because they are subjective, then what keeps somebody from forming their own dangerous beliefs which are "moral" to them?

Why are you using a Methodist as an example of 'secular morals changing' ?

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:47 pm**

Collatis wrote:
The Portland Territory wrote:Here's a question that I've debated with many others before, but will bring here.

What is the point of morals if there is no higher power to enforce them? I say this because, if you are an atheist, agnostic, whatever, if you have any at all, your morals are subjective. Morals are not objective because there has never been anything eternal and powerful to support certain ideals. If morals are subjective and are so susceptible to change, then why have any at all?

If morals are decided by a deity, then they are, by definition, subject to potentially constant change. Your deity can change what is right or wrong based on a passing whim. If your morals come only from what a deity decides they are, why have then at all? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong about murder if God could make it morally right tomorrow.

On the other hand, morality derived from reason and logical thought does not change. Humanity's interpretations of logic can change, of course, but logic does not change from day to day. Treating gays like second class citizens was wrong in 2004, it was wrong in 1969, it was wrong in 4 BCE, and it is still wrong today. The view of the majority may have changed, but the logical backbone of equal marriage has not.

Morality devised from "rationality" is subject to change. It's ludicrous to say "rationality" was always for equal marriage when that stream of thought didn't become prevalent until the 20th century. You can't claim moral objectivity through the ages when you're a product of those previous ages.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:50 pm**

Methodological Individualism wrote:
Collatis wrote:If morals are decided by a deity, then they are, by definition, subject to potentially constant change. Your deity can change what is right or wrong based on a passing whim. If your morals come only from what a deity decides they are, why have then at all? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong about murder if God could make it morally right tomorrow.

Indeed, the only thing "objective" about devine command is the fact of it's vapid and pointless underlying nihlism.

You're going to need to explain why belief in one God, and therefor one morality, is in anyway nihilistic.

NationStates

Irreligious Discussion Thread: Welcome to the Nonery!