Atheists are having it too easy.

[stringjack]

Yes yes, I've said stuff to that effect over and over. Atheism is a single opinion on a single subject. If there is any argument against atheism on moral grounds it would have to be framed that theism offers something to the theist that is unavailable to the atheist would it not?

You seem to mean one of two things here. First, you could mean that there might be instrumental arguments against atheism. A consequentialist, for example, might argue that it is an empirical fact that people will behave more morally if they believe in god, and therefore they ought to (be brought to) believe in god, irrespective of whether or not the belief is true (or something like that).

Second, you could mean that there are metaethical advantages for theism, because the existence of god is a necessary condition of any viable moral system, and atheism therefore implies that there is no viable moral system. That claim looks like it's not only false, but actually the reverse of the truth, as theists can have a harder time defending the viability of their moral systems than atheists do (they have to avoid the conclusion that god could ordain evil).

[Garland Names the Planets]

You seem to mean one of two things here. First, you could mean that there might be instrumental arguments against atheism. A consequentialist, for example, might argue that it is an empirical fact that people will behave more morally if they believe in god, and therefore they ought to (be brought to) believe in god, irrespective of whether or not the belief is true (or something like that).

Second, you could mean that there are metaethical advantages for theism, because the existence of god is a necessary condition of any viable moral system, and atheism therefore implies that there is no viable moral system. That claim looks like it's not only false, but actually the reverse of the truth, as theists can have a harder time defending the viability of their moral systems than atheists do (they have to avoid the conclusion that god could ordain evil).

I mean neither. You seem to be assuming that my post made reference to why an atheist(or theist) might assume theism to be more moral a position than atheism or even the reverse. Mine was that in order for "God" as opposed to "belief in God" to have any role at all in questions of morality, morality must have a source that lies beyond ones own mind which is impossible because you rely on ones own mind to interpret these things

[Gadjodilo]

As has been pointed out by a number of contributors in the course of the thread, the premise on which the thread is based is somewhat confused.

No, it's not. The premise on which this thread is based is quite clear and is described in the original post. What has happened is that it has evolved into a general debate on theism vs. atheism and I agree that it can be difficult to relate this to the heading of the thread.

[Garland Names the Planets]

We could but we won't. Watch the language btw.

I did so you can go f*ck yourself

[ibis]

No, it's not. The premise on which this thread is based is quite clear and is described in the original post. What has happened is that it has evolved into a general debate on theism vs. atheism and I agree that it can be difficult to relate this to the heading of the thread.

It might be less kindly said that the original premise has long since been dismissed - there is no general atheist credo or other intellectual coherence beyond the simple statement "non credo". If one wishes to have a go at atheists in general it is necessary either to base the attack on that statement or to traduce us by claiming an intellectual coherence we don't have - usually, the latter.

[stringjack]

I mean neither. You seem to be assuming that my post made reference to why an atheist(or theist) might assume theism to be more moral a position than atheism or even the reverse. Mine was that in order for "God" as opposed to "belief in God" to have any role at all in questions of morality, morality must have a source that lies beyond ones own mind which is impossible because you rely on ones own mind to interpret these things

So:

In order for "gravity", as opposed to "belief in gravity", to have any role at all in questions of mechanics, mechanics must have a source that lies beyond one's own mind, which is impossible because one relies on one's own mind to interpret these things.

[stringjack]

No, it's not. The premise on which this thread is based is quite clear and is described in the original post.

It's certainly described with commendable clarity.

[Mouroux]

I did so you can go f*ck yourself

That's the spirit!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ELleCQvew"]YouTube- Network - Mad as hell[/ame]

[Gadjodilo]

It might be less kindly said that the original premise has long since been dismissed - there is no general atheist credo or other intellectual coherence beyond the simple statement "non credo". If one wishes to have a go at atheists in general it is necessary either to base the attack on that statement or to traduce us by claiming an intellectual coherence we don't have - usually, the latter.

If that's a position everyone agrees on, then this has consequences for atheists too.

I've seen here and on other discussion boards how atheists have a go at religions on the basis that they can inspire racism, misogyny, homophobia, violent fundamentalism and God knows what else.

Given that atheists can also be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, violent fundamentalists and God knows what else, then there really is no huge difference between atheism and theism except for the "credo/non credo" dichotomy. So, it does seem a little self-serving when the attacks on these social ills are limited to manifestations of them that are theistically inspired and when the arguments are rooted in the religious background of the racist/misogynist/homophobe/violent fundamentalist (as opposed to their cultural background, for example).

How about attacking these extremisms solely on the basis of their being utterly evil rather than using them as a tool to attack religion? Religious people are no more likely to be extremist than atheists and - as already mentioned in the original post - some of the worst examples of them took place under atheist rule.

PS. I kind of regret using the level playing field analogy in the original post. I thing "comparing like with like" would have been a better term to use.

[sondagefaux]

It might be less kindly said that the original premise has long since been dismissed - there is no general atheist credo or other intellectual coherence beyond the simple statement "non credo". If one wishes to have a go at atheists in general it is necessary either to base the attack on that statement or to traduce us by claiming an intellectual coherence we don't have - usually, the latter.

Which is why atheists don't tend to resort to the 'no true' argument that theists use (as in 'no true Christian would say/do X').

It might be less kindly said that the original premise has long since been dismissed - there is no general left-hander credo or other intellectual coherence beyond the simple statement "sinister sum". If one wishes to have a go at left-handers in general it is necessary either to base the attack on that statement or to traduce us by claiming an intellectual coherence we don't have - usually, the latter.