Atheists are having it too easy.

[SideysGhost]

So there is no such thing as belief either? Only believers?

That has to win an award for one of the dumbest posts ever to grace this site.

[ibis]

So there is no such thing as belief either? Only believers?

Ha. No, the equivalent would be "there is no such thing as Christianity, only Christians". While that might work as some kind of Zen meditation on Christianity, it's not the literally true point it is for atheism.

There is no "atheism" because atheism isn't anything other than not being a theist, something you do quite a lot of yourself. What moral principles or doxology follows, for example, from our (I assume) mutual atheism with respect to Wotan? From our joint non-belief in Ptah?

[Almanac]

That has to win an award for one of the dumbest posts ever to grace this site.

You are turning into a regular sidewindbag.

[Gadjodilo]

Well, no, but it tends to be religions that mandate a particular moral stance on an issue from their adherents. Atheists are entirely free to take whatever personal moral stance on an issue they choose, and those stances usually cover the whole available spectrum. On abortion, for example, I know atheists that are as just as opposed to it as any gun-toting fundie, and I also know atheists who don't regard it as any more morally significant than taking a dump. The relevant point here is that none of those positions are mandated by "atheist central", and none claim to be authoritative - they're just people's personal stances.

Okay. The point I'm trying to get across is that it's a bit rich for atheists to attack believers whenever they're shown to be hypocritical when atheists themselves don't have any correspondng set of values against which they can be measured. It's as if there's only a goal at one end.

The essential differences between atheism and all the theisms are:

1. Atheism says there is no god(s). Theisms say there is/are. The point is pretty much unprovable.
2. Theisms have a large set of behavioural codes and values which their adherents are meant to follow. Atheism doesn't.

Yet (following one from point 2), atheists still use these codes as a means to attack the theists.

Just because atheists can prove hypocrisy etc. in religion does not make atheism superior because essentially, it's a different thing. It doesn't do values so arguments based on point 2 are invalid.

[Almanac]

Ha. No, the equivalent would be "there is no such thing as Christianity, only Christians". While that might work as some kind of Zen meditation on Christianity, it's not the literally true point it is for atheism.

There is no "atheism" because atheism isn't anything other than not being a theist, something you do quite a lot of yourself. What moral principles or doxology follows, for example, from our (I assume) mutual atheism with respect to Wotan? From our joint non-belief in Ptah?

None but if there is no ultimate transcendent source of morality, then we ultimately have no grounds for deciding what's right and wrong. I mean, by whose authority?

How do we decide what's right? Is it what the majority says? But, as you know, majorities can be fallible (eg Nice 2 /Lisbon 2).

[ibis]

Okay. The point I'm trying to get across is that it's a bit rich for atheists to attack believers whenever they're shown to be hypocritical when atheists themselves don't have any correspondng set of values against which they can be measured. It's as if there's only a goal at one end.

The essential differences between atheism and all the theisms are:

1. Atheism says there is no god(s). Theisms say there is/are. The point is pretty much unprovable.
2. Theisms have a large set of behavioural codes and values which their adherents are meant to follow. Atheism doesn't.

Yet (following one from point 2), atheists still use these codes as a means to attack the theists.

Just because atheists can prove hypocrisy etc. in religion does not make atheism superior because essentially, it's a different thing. It doesn't do values so arguments based on point 2 are invalid.

Sucks to be you, so. Seriously, though, the difference would be that it's very rare for a religious person to publicly take a moral stance that isn't "god-backed" according to that person. Atheists obviously cannot do so, so in attacking that "god-backed" stance we're doing nothing more than continuing the central argument on a level playing field. If the Pope, or Pat Robinson, stands up and says "of course I condemn the wearing of funny hats, but, hey, that's just a personal thing, and I doubt God gives a toss", then he's on the level playing field - and atheists will, I suspect, simply say "fair enough".

The only thing that makes a moral comment from someone like Pat Robinson of interest is the implicit or explicit claim that the person is delivering the judgement of a god. Hubris may not always breed nemesis, but it can't avoid snide comments.

[EvotingMachine0197]

Ha. No, the equivalent would be "there is no such thing as Christianity, only Christians". While that might work as some kind of Zen meditation on Christianity, it's not the literally true point it is for atheism.

There is no "atheism" because atheism isn't anything other than not being a theist, something you do quite a lot of yourself. What moral principles or doxology follows, for example, from our (I assume) mutual atheism with respect to Wotan? From our joint non-belief in Ptah?

Nope. Because Almanac (it's very difficult to think of the right word with ACDC blowing my ears apart) altered the sentence from a statement to a question. By adding question marks.

Therefore, under the rules, what Almanac asked was a fair question.

One can believe some, and not believe the rest.

It's the some and rest which are debatable.

[ibis]

None but if there is no ultimate transcendent source of morality, then we ultimately have no grounds for deciding what's right and wrong. I mean, by whose authority?

The answer is that you have to decide your morality yourself, following on from whatever ideal of the good you have chosen to adopt - as opposed to shopping around for a god who authorises what you'd like authorised or blindly accepting your parents' moral beliefs (although that is also open to atheists, obviously, and the old joke about "Catholic or Protestant atheist" actually has a good deal of value in it).

How do we decide what's right? Is it what the majority says? But, as you know, majorities can be fallible (eg Nice 2 /Lisbon 2).

Some people - indeed, probably most people - do exactly that, whatever their 'religious' belief or lack of it.

[SideysGhost]

None but if there is no ultimate transcendent source of morality, then we ultimately have no grounds for deciding what's right and wrong. I mean, by whose authority?

How do we decide what's right? Is it what the majority says? But, as you know, majorities can be fallible (eg Nice 2 /Lisbon 2).

Are you seriously suggesting that no code of ethical and societally benign behaviour is possible without a slavish reference to supernatural authority?

[Almanac]

YouTube- Down With Atheism