NationStates

Tule wrote:Add "Apatheist" to the poll.

I really don't care about this religion stuff.

Seconded. If this poll has atheist and agnostic, it should have apatheist as well. For those who simply don't care.

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:What up? Not an atheist, I am a pretty fervent southern Baptist who recently finished reading the new testament... up to chat though

Are you protestant? What is the difference between you and other Christian groups?

-Ocelot- wrote:

Tule wrote:Add "Apatheist" to the poll.

I really don't care about this religion stuff.

Seconded. If this poll has atheist and agnostic, it should have apatheist as well. For those who simply don't care.

Note that technically apatheism is a subform of atheism.

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.

Well, technically - so do non-atheists. Atheists are being persecuted, imprisoned and killed for being atheists for instance - regardless of what kind of person they are.
Or, less serious, stand no chance whatsoever to become president of the USA

"Not believing in anything" apparantly is a grave sin.

The Alma Mater wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:
Seconded. If this poll has atheist and agnostic, it should have apatheist as well. For those who simply don't care.

Note that technically apatheism is a subform of atheism.

Are you sure? According to Wikipedia, Apatheism "is the attitude that one should be apathetic towards the existence or non-existence of god(s)". It seems to me that it's not a subcategory of atheism.

Jormengand wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:"Do you think evolution should be the only method of creation taught in schools?".

I still cannot fathom how the answer to the question "Do you believe that the truth should be taught in schools" is a controversial one, honestly.

Some agnostics believe that all differing systems of creation should be taught, but evolution should be prioritised. Personally, I think this makes about as much sense as teaching three different methods of solving algebra, but saying that only one is actually correct. Besides, it was just a suggestion as something to initiate discussion.

The Alma Mater 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.

Well, technically - so do non-atheists. Atheists are being persecuted, imprisoned and killed for being atheists for instance - regardless of what kind of person they are.

"Not believing in anything" apparantly is a grave sin.

Yep. People can construct identities around all sorts of aspects in life - ethnicity, race, sexuality, belief, non-belief, whatever. It's what you do with it that counts.

-Ocelot- wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
Note that technically apatheism is a subform of atheism.

Are you sure? According to Wikipedia, Apatheism "is the attitude that one should be apathetic towards the existence or non-existence of god(s)". It seems to me that it's not a subcategory of atheism.

Atheism is no more than not actively believing and or worshipping deities. If that is because you do not give a damn (apathy), believe it is impossible to know if deities exist or not (agnostic), think believing in god is retarded (anti-theism) etc. does not actually matter

This poll hasn't been well designed in my opinion. What if I'm a humanist who also happens to be an agnostic atheist?

Darussalam wrote:

Aellex wrote:Yeah, yeah, we're having it so rough compared to the peoples a couple hundred years ago when the average life expectancy was 40 years, one out of three child died before reaching adulthood and a slight cut could mean death or amputation among many, many other fun things.
Poor us, truly.

Not seeing how this is relevant, honestly. Supposedly under the same logic it just makes religion even more ineffective in alleviating suffering. Not that it's really the purpose of religion, though.

If I recall correctly, religion heavily promotes the idea of hope, even in the toughest of situations: which is not necessarily a bad thing in principle, but I believe that believing in a supernatural force doesn't translate into reality: realistic action needs to be taken too.

Any devout atheists here, or are you all nonpracticing?

What do you think atheism's greatest contribution to our culture has been?

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?

The Parkus Empire wrote:Any devout atheists here, or are you all nonpracticing?

What do you think atheism's greatest contribution to our culture has been?

Hmm. The Greatest happiness principle ?
And possibly the resulting concept of animal rights.

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?

Mass murder is rather inconvenient for society.

Valrifell 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?

Mass murder is rather inconvenient for society.

But morals are subjective, aren't they? What if I though jihad was moral, and a lot of people do? Does that make me right?

The Portland Territory wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Mass murder is rather inconvenient for society.

But morals are subjective, aren't they? What if I though jihad was moral, and a lot of people do? Does that make me right?

There are certain things that people are under broad agreement as "bad," since encouraging these things makes it really hard for civilization and stable society to form. Murder, theft, etc. Some people can twist things to make things like jihad seem justified, but that isn't a humanist, atheist, or agnostic argument.

The Portland Territory wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Mass murder is rather inconvenient for society.

But morals are subjective, aren't they? What if I though jihad was moral, and a lot of people do? Does that make me right?

Maybe. But you'd be forced out of a society that disagrees with you.
A few generations later we will then see which system worked better - the "let us work together for the greater good taking eachothers feelings into account" or the "let us kill and rape to our hearts content" society.

Yesyes. I know it is the latter. Throughout history it has always been the latter.

Valrifell wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:But morals are subjective, aren't they? What if I though jihad was moral, and a lot of people do? Does that make me right?

There are certain things that people are under broad agreement as "bad," since encouraging these things makes it really hard for civilization and stable society to form. Murder, theft, etc. Some people can twist things to make things like jihad seem justified, but that isn't a humanist, atheist, or agnostic argument.

That's your subjective view though. If a majority of people believe something is right or wrong, it doesnt automatically make it right.

The Alma Mater wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:But morals are subjective, aren't they? What if I though jihad was moral, and a lot of people do? Does that make me right?

Maybe. But you'd be forced out of a society that disagrees with you.
A few generations later we will then see which system worked better - the "let us work together for the greater good taking eachothers feelings into account" or the "let us kill and rape to our hearts content" society.

Yesyes. I know it is the latter. Throughout history it has always been the latter.

What if the latter people are content with that? And what if their ideals spread? I mean, most leftists are saying that the far-right is growing with their bigotry, racism, and misogyny. And theyre growing within a free western society. What of that?

The Portland Territory wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
Maybe. But you'd be forced out of a society that disagrees with you.
A few generations later we will then see which system worked better - the "let us work together for the greater good taking eachothers feelings into account" or the "let us kill and rape to our hearts content" society.

Yesyes. I know it is the latter. Throughout history it has always been the latter.

What if the latter people are content with that? And what if their ideals spread? I mean, most leftists are saying that the far-right is growing with their bigotry, racism, and misogyny. And theyre growing within a free western society. What of that?

Then their morals were superior from an evolutionary viewpoint. As religious morals are.

Valrifell 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?

Mass murder is rather inconvenient for society.

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

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 feel exceptionally sorry for anyone who does not understand that morality, that is, not being a dick to your fellow human being, is fundamentally a good thing, or what the point is of it, intrinsically.

I say this because, if you are an atheist, agnostic, whatever, if you have any at all, your morals are subjective.

They most certainly are not. There's no arguing that whether genocide is helpful or harmful to our fellow being is a mere matter of opinion.

Morals are not objective because there has never been anything eternal and powerful to support certain ideals.

What is more eternal or powerful than good for good's own sake?

If morals are subjective and are so susceptible to change, then why have any at all?

They are neither.

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.

Barrack Obama was wrong, and now he is right. It has always been the case that same-sex marriage provides benefit to people and to society.

Why should beliefs that are so fundamental in your life, change?

If you had asked me ten years ago, I would not have believed many of the other fact statements that I believe today - I would not have believed that certain technological capabilities would ever be invented, I would not have believed that certain things that have come to pass were going to come to pass, and I would not have believed certain statements of science which we now know to be true. To refuse to change one's beliefs on such topics is a blight which sadly afflicts many people, but I try to do my utmost to avoid it. So it is with morality.

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?

Moral truth is no more "Changed" than scientific truth. It was not decided that light should both be a wave and a particle: it was discovered by experiment. Similarly, we can discover moral truth via a modicum of thought.

-Ocelot- wrote:

Tule wrote:Add "Apatheist" to the poll.

I really don't care about this religion stuff.

Seconded. If this poll has atheist and agnostic, it should have apatheist as well. For those who simply don't care.

File it under "other" I guess.

The Alma Mater wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:What if the latter people are content with that? And what if their ideals spread? I mean, most leftists are saying that the far-right is growing with their bigotry, racism, and misogyny. And theyre growing within a free western society. What of that?

Then their morals were superior from an evolutionary viewpoint. As religious morals are.

Morals should not evolve, though. What is good and bad must be set in stone, otherwise they are pointless

Morality in a nutshell: don’t hurt people.

There, that’s it. That’s all we need to know.

The Portland Territory wrote: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.

Quite not. Ethics allows to build a universal (that is, valid for every person) moral code (that is a code of behaviour) without resorting to higher power. Just imagine having to answer "is this behaviour beneficial or detrimental to most people?"

Morals are not objective because there has never been anything eternal and powerful to support certain ideals.

Morals don't need a reference to anything eternal and powerful. Morals are about the behaviour of people, and people aren't eternal, or especially "powerful".

If morals are subjective and are so susceptible to change, then why have any at all?

Because boundary conditions change.

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?

Who says that supporting or opposing same-sex marriage is so fundamental in Obama's life?

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?

Universal ethics.