Atheists are having it too easy.

[Gadjodilo]

You don't understand the argument. It's about the Christian claim that morality comes from God. Atheism doesn't claim to have moral authority, but religions/religious people often do.

All we want is for you guys to admit that we're on a level playing field, with neither side having some sort of moral monopoly. Atheists have already admitted it. Now it's your turn.

Probably I agree but I'd like to see a more precise definition of "moral monopoly". Sorry to be pedantic.

After that we can move into the related but separate questions about whether or not Christianity gives good moral instruction or whether Christians are more likely to be moral.

I think Christianity does give good moral instruction - more than atheism anyway.

[Gadjodilo]

Well, what I said - note the 'publicly'. That's why I asked you whether you were the Pope, because I'm not interested in your private and personal opinions such as vegetarianism. Pat Robinson is implicitly claiming to be delivering the judgement of God.

Okay, I see the point you're making. I interpreted your use of the word 'publicly' in a different way.

I can't see why. You're supposed to have a shared moral code in common with your fellow Christians. No such requirement applies to atheists at all.

This is about the doings of Stalin et al. Theists could quite convincingly claim that the lack of moral code led to such excesses.

You don't seem to be willing to answer the question about the impact of your atheism with respect to Ptah or other gods. You seem, instead, to want to discuss mine in respect of the Christian God. As far as I can see, it's the only atheism we don't share.

God, I don't know. I don't worship cats or burn sal ammoniac on an altar. Or something. Does that answer your question?

Ibis, the distinction I'm interested in is between theists and atheists and I don't think atheism can be grouped (from, for example, a Christian-centric point of view) as being just another form of non-belief in Jesus as the son of God like Islam. I'm sure other atheists would reject such a stance.

[Gadjodilo]

If all atheists were cannibalistic genocidaldist it still wouldn't make a difference. If there is no deity they are still right on that point. Until you sucessfully make the argument against the non-existence of a deity all you are really arguing is that yoiu condition yourself into believing a falsehood to make you behave better

..... and if all Christians were like Pat Robinson, that would not necessarily make Christianity wrong. So, what I'm saying is using the likes of Pat Robinson to attack Christianity is kind of pointless, really.

[Garland Names the Planets]

Okay, I see the point you're making. I interpreted your use of the word 'publicly' in a different way.



This is about the doings of Stalin et al. Theists could quite convincingly claim that the lack of moral code led to such excesses.



God, I don't know. I don't worship cats or burn sal ammoniac on an altar. Or something. Does that answer your question?

Ibis, the distinction I'm interested in is between theists and atheists and I don't think atheism can be grouped (from, for example, a Christian-centric point of view) as being just another form of non-belief in Jesus as the son of God like Islam. I'm sure other atheists would reject such a stance.

OK I repeat:

This moral code thing is a load of nonsense as an argument unless you ask them condition themselves to believe any lie just so it gives them a moral code. There either is a deity or there isn't. All else is masturbation. How palatable humanity might find reality or what they might do because of it is irrelevant. If all atheists were cannibalistic genocidaldist it still wouldn't make a difference. If there is no deity they are still right on that point. Until you sucessfully make the argument against the non-existence of a deity all you are really arguing is that yoiu condition yourself into believing a falsehood to make you behave better

Are you getting it yet?

[Gadjodilo]

Precisely. I feel sorry for the OP having put so much effort into his essay only for it to be based on a false premise. Atheism is not about providing a moral code. That is not to say that atheists do not have one, just that their atheism is not the source for it.

I'm well aware that atheism has no moral code and if you read the original post with more care, you'll see that's a major part of my argument. So when atheists attack other moral codes, perhaps in future they could specify what moral code they live by.

Atheism just means that we dont want your moral code being the one that governs over the rest of us.

No problem with this.

[Garland Names the Planets]

..... and if all Christians were like Pat Robinson, that would not necessarily make Christianity wrong. So, what I'm saying is using the likes of Pat Robinson to attack Christianity is kind of pointless, really.

Pat Robertson determines reality no more than you do. Your job is to provide evidence as to why you are right and why me and Pat Robertson are wrong

[MauriceColgan]

Everytime I switch on the TV, Radio, Computer. Read a newspaper or magazine my disbelief is being questioned.

It may be hard to be a cowboy in Rochdale, but the singer should have tried being an Atheist in Ireland.

(I know Rochdale fairly well)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6S7agOnOTE"]YouTube- Rochdale Cowboy[/ame]

[Kev408]

I think that you are being a little unfair. Most of the atheists on this site's main argument against religion is not based on the hypocrisy of believers but rather is based on the total lack of any evidence for the existence of 'god', or for many other religious beliefs. We pick out the instances of hypocrisy as examples of more crazy activities by already deluded people.

It is not up to atheists to prove that there is no 'god', as it is logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is entirely on the side of the theists and polytheists. There is no evidence for the existence of god. None.

I am completely in favour of toleration and will always the defend the rights of others to hold whatever views they wish. However, toleration implies a certain disrespect; I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Toleration only calls on us to tolerate views we know to be absurd and foolish: the truth requires no such toleration.

There is no common moral of ethical system common to all, or even most, atheists. After discarding the 'god' comfort blanket we atheists then have to find a rational basis for our ethical system. My ethical system is Stoicism, but I doubt that that choice is shared by many. The key word here is choice. There is no one 'final solution' answer to the question "what is the good life?" or to the question "how is society to be organized?" There is a plurality of possible answers which are not harmonious. The danger comes when people deicde that they have found some such final solution; be it in a religious book or in an ideology such as Marxism.

The evil that Stalin, Lenin, or Pol Pot did was not done because of their atheism. Atheism, being content free (beyond the assertion that there is no 'god') mandates no such action. They did that evil because of the teleological elements in their ideologies. Religion also has those similar teleological elements. For me, the belief in a teleology has been the source of much evil in the word, be it religious, fascist, communist etc.

Atheism is on the side of reason and between the forces of religion and reason there can be no leveling of the field: one is either reasonable or one is not. One either looks at the evidence reasonably and dispassionately or one chooses to continue in the pernicious errors of religion.

Absolutely superb post in its entirety.

(I merely highlighted one paragraph to remind Gadjodilo that comparing the burdens of proof of theists and atheists is disingenuous in the extreme - another trait of organised man-made religions.)

[Garland Names the Planets]

I'm well aware that atheism has no moral code and if you read the original post with more care, you'll see that's a major part of my argument. So when atheists attack other moral codes, perhaps in future they could specify what moral code they live by.


No problem with this.

To paraphrase from another thread that's rather like attacking Burger King for not being Brown Thomas. They are in different businesses.

[FrankSpeaks]

Becoming an atheist in this country is difficult mainly because you have to use your brain to firstly come around to the belief that there is no god. This comes about slowly because they have to stand up to years of indoctrination by our parents, family, school, friends and the church. It is difficult to change what has been bred into you from an early age.

Probably starts by not going to mass and slowly one discovers it does not make one whit of a difference, you are still the same person whether you go or not, slowly you rise beyond the guilt you feel and then you start thinking maybe there is no god and if there is, it soon becomes apparent that it make no difference.

When one then uses their brain to think logically about the existence of god, one cannot but come to the conclusion that the existence of one is very doubtful to say the least. If one does any bit of research at all then one will find out that there a lot of people out there who are like minded. It does not take much brain power to figure out that there are billions of people in Japan, China and India who get along fine without believing in the god you were brought up to believe in.

Then one picks up a book like the God Delusion and finds that it articulates what has been in the back of ones mind all along. It gives one the arguments to fight against your upbringing which is not easy.

The only way that atheists have it easy is in the arguments they have with those who believe in a god, there existence is easily rubbished. The hard bit is for the atheists to make the bold move and become a non believer.