Most vile concept/aspect of atheism.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm always amazed at how easily Atheists use words like 'love' and 'special' and 'meaning' without realising the philosophical implications of this. If 'love' is just an illusionary (evolutionary) fantasy then how can it really mean anything in real terms to anybody? Theists are always being asked to come face to face with the difficult implications of way to giving Theism a try but until then is it just have your cake and eat it ?

To paraphrase John McEnroe, You cannot be serious....
You are suggesting the feelings of love people emote towards on another have to a priori be tied to a religion or to some probably non-existant deity without whom nothing has meaning? That has to be utter rot. You denigrate actual feeling of love because they may happen to be atheistic and therefore true feelings of love can only come from religious people? Talk about bigotry. You, sir, are a philosophical bigot. What about the love a three year old feels for his mom, there can be no conscious feeling of being religious in such a person, its way too young for that. But you would be suggesting the love a dog feels for his owner, perhaps to the point of saving the owners life from a threatening situation and losing its own, the love the dog feels is somehow tainted because it does not nor could never by its limited nature, have religious feelings, therefore the dogs feelings are bogus?

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is a big differance between the actions of an insane despot and the philosophy behind atheism. There are no books of atheistic dogma demanding the deaths of non-atheists. Those despots you mentioned are the same as the religious bigots, using some concept to justify their killings. This has nothing to do with atheism per se.
The killings of christian ...[text shortened]... cientology, is from the dogma of the leaders, as a built in feature of each of those insanities.

I would agree that there are no differences between a despot who claims to be religious in origin or those who are secular. Their ultimate goal is self centered in nature. This is what we christians refer to as "sin nature". I suppose you are refering to the Mosaic era when the Israelites conquered their way to the Holy Land when you refer to religious despots. I suppose you can label Moses as a despot if you like. I, however, am not of the same opionion. Nor do I think that Moses acted according to his own will. In fact, the Bible says that Moses was the meekest man to ever live. He did not want the role of the "deliverer" thrust upon him. This is why God chose him. Moses's will was such in opposition to his God's mission that his own will would not interfere with God's will. One of his problems was that he stuttered so bad that he had to have his brother Aaron speak for him on more than one occasion. It is my belief that God had a mission to send his Son into the world and part of the equation was establishing his people in the Holy Land to bring this about. Once the Israelites acquired their inheritance they no longer were commanded to continue their conquests. They only defended their conquests as they are trying to do today. After the Messiah came into the world, no longer has christianity sought the use of physical violence. You may argue that people such as the Crusaders are the exception, but I would argue that the Crusaders are no better than the Atila the Hun and acted according to their own wants and desires and were severly misdirected. In regards to Islam, I have to reason to defend their aggression either. In my opinion, they are no better than the crusaders.

Originally posted by whodey
Who is to say that treating your fellow human being with compasion and respect is always "good" or necessary?

Because then maybe they will be compassionate to you. Also, see Plato's "the republican". It explains the rudiments for any society. You will find that society functions for the mutual gain of the individual and for a society to perform well we need morals. No mention of God anywhere.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Because then maybe they will be compassionate to you. Also, see Plato's "the republican". It explains the rudiments for any society. You will find that society functions for the mutual gain of the individual and for a society to perform well we need morals. No mention of God anywhere.

Very good, my friend.

One could also ask whodey why animals show hierarchal organisation of communities, and why chimpanzees know all about why it's bad to steal (because other members of the group will punish and ostracise it). Yet, they have no concept of god.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Very good, my friend.

One could also ask whodey why animals show hierarchal organisation of communities, and why chimpanzees know all about why it's bad to steal (because other members of the group will punish and ostracise it). Yet, they have no concept of god.

You of coarse assume that animals have no concept of God. At least that was the last impression you got the last time you talked to one perhaps. I happen to think that animals have an innate sense of who their creator is.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Because then maybe they will be compassionate to you. Also, see Plato's "the republican". It explains the rudiments for any society. You will find that society functions for the mutual gain of the individual and for a society to perform well we need morals. No mention of God anywhere.

Indeed. Therefore, the purpose of doing "good" is purely a self-serving endevour. You are attempting to create a stable society in which you personally can flourish. There is nothing noble in your efforts. All action is self centered. Thus forms the evolutionary concept of love. Love is purely self seeking and has evolved for the sole purpose of self preservation. You atheists just warm my heart. In fact, I think I am getting goose bumps.

Actually this is what the sin nature of man is all about according to the Bible. We were created to love but we have a sin nature. Therefore, fallen man loves only those who love him back or loves those in whom there is some personal gain attached. Christ said that even evil men love those who love them back. He then asked the question what reward is there in this? Your motivation is self serving. Christ said that we must also love our enemies and love those who persecute and ridicule us. This my friend is a supernatural kind of love. In terms of evolution, this makes no sense at all. On an evolutionary plane we should fight and kill those who seek to do the same to us in the name of self preservation. This is truely the most noble of all endevours to love.

Originally posted by Starrman
Give me one reason why I cannot act morally and be an atheist.

A) Why moral absolutes should be held as opposed to an evolving set of morals which reflect the changing world views.
Without an absolute launching point, all standards are equal. What is accepted today is eschewed tomorrow, and it would be thus 'wrong' to hold anyone to any standard if the standard is subject to change. Perhaps the trespasser is merely visionary.

B) Why it is self-contradictory in nature should it be non-absolute.
Not sure I follow this one.

C) How the theistic worldview can defend moral absolutes where atheism cannot.
Atheism holds to no absolute standard, theism does, and is therefore able to defend the same.

The fact that some follow without God's guidance, and some claiming God's guidance fail does not prove anything other than the results of individuals. Their varying degrees of agreement with the standard only reveal their position in relation, without affecting the standard.

Man has not always known the laws governing nature, and has attempted various endeavors which contradict the same. The laws did not change, but certain societies gradually developed respect for them.

You are able to act morally as an atheist, insofar as you act in accord with laws already on the books. But one need not go far in finding the self-contradictory nature of an atheist worldview, morality-wise. Without absolutes, who is to say one atheist's morals are preferred over another atheist's morals?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]A) Why moral absolutes should be held as opposed to an evolving set of morals which reflect the changing world views.
Without an absolute launching point, all standards are equal. What is accepted today is eschewed tomorrow, and it would be thus 'wrong' to hold anyone to any standard if the standard is subject to change. Perhaps the trespa absolutes, who is to say one atheist's morals are preferred over another atheist's morals?[/b]

No, all standards are not equal. Someone who claimed that murder was a good thing would be ostracized. You don't need an absolute standard to know that murder is wrong. But it's not wrong because god says so, it's wrong because people do not like to get murdered and will therefore take measures to oppose its occurance.

If you want to talk about standards that are accepted one day and eschewed the next, then look at the bible. Slavery is a common and accepted practice in the bible, but now is condemned. What are we to conclude except that our concept of morality has changed over the years?

You seem to think that moral standards can be changed on a whim on a moment's notice, and then changed back again. This is nonsense. Moral codes do change over time, but do so very, very slowly. It takes generations to make a society-wide change in reaction to various ethical dilemmas.

The laws governing nature do not change, but the laws governing man do. It is a simple matter to trace the evolution of mankind's moral compass over the passing millenia. The morality of the ancient Egyptians is very different from today's in many respects. But it is similar in many others. Certain basic moral guidelines will always be in effect. Murder and theft will always be illegal in every human society. But exactly what constitutes murder and theft will always be open to interpretation.

Originally posted by whodey
My faith has straightened me out on many different levels. It has redirected my paths from many destructive avenues. My faith has also strengthened the relationships that I have and I have noticed my love for others is not as narcissistic in nature as it used to be before my conversion. My faith has also given me an inner peace that I never had before and ...[text shortened]... y that I feel compelled to share with others what has worked for me. Would you not do the same?

Well, my studying philosophy has done the same for me. No God required.

Originally posted by whodey
The problem with morality from the atheistic viewpoint is that it is purely self righteous. Who is to say that treating your fellow human being with compasion and respect is always "good" or necessary? From the atheistic point of view things that we consider good, such as love are merely mutated chemical reactions that have evolved in the pursuit of self in ...[text shortened]... itself is the most vile aspect to the atheistic point of view that I have unearthed as of yet.

You're confusing atheism with reductive materialism. But even if all atheists were reductive materialists, it still wouldn't follow that if X is merely some conglomeration of chemicals (or is X is the result on an evolutionary process) then X can't be valuable. If you have an argument for this, I'd certainly love to hear it. What would your first premise be?

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, my studying philosophy has done the same for me. No God required.

Fair enough. I guess this means you are a better man than I.

Originally posted by whodey
...[snip]or loves those in whom there is some personal gain attached. [snip] Your motivation is self serving.

Unlike, say, those altruistic Christians who profess a love for Christ because...what, again? Oh, yes...everlasting life. No contradiction there.

Originally posted by bbarr
You're confusing atheism with reductive materialism. But even if all atheists were reductive materialists, it still wouldn't follow that if X is merely some conglomeration of chemicals (or is X is the result on an evolutionary process) then X can't be valuable. If you have an argument for this, I'd certainly love to hear it. What would your first premise be?

Forgive me for my ignorance but I am not familiar with reductive materialism. Can you explain?

Originally posted by whodey
Forgive me for my ignorance but I am not familiar with reductive materialism. Can you explain?

Basically it is the view that all mental states are identical to (nothing over and above) some material state (or process) or other. Atheism is completely silent on the nature of mental states, including robust emotional states like love.

Originally posted by whodey
Indeed. Therefore, the purpose of doing "good" is purely a self-serving endevour. You are attempting to create a stable society in which you personally can flourish. There is nothing noble in your efforts. All action is self centered. Thus forms the evolutionary concept of love. Love is purely self seeking and has evolved for the sole purpose of self pr ...[text shortened]... us in the name of self preservation. This is truely the most noble of all endevours to love.

Has it occured to you that love from God remains self-centered. We love God so that we dont go to hell or to experience soem higher self. Nothing more. It still remains trivial whether from God or not.

Also, evolution would not be self-centered exactly, it would be perhaps more gene-centered.

Whats so good about love for God?