Well, it's that time again! Our post counts are not high enough, and our masochistic tendencies are not satisfied! Let the September Flame War/ Debate begin!

There is one rule: No useless posts that quote a post and just say: “Wow that’s stupid” Also, all posts must be read before responding. This could boost efficiency by almost 500%. *Makes note to read more than the first sentence of posts*

I’d like to re-touch on a subject that I didn’t argue very well before. Dun-dun-dun-DUN!:
Moral responsibility of atheists! We’ve argued this before but I still don’t understand why an atheist should believe in moral responsibility. I know that there are many atheists who have a strict and very benevolent moral code. My question is, why would it be bad for an atheist to have a moral code that hurts other humans?

its nice to be nice, no matter what you believe.

alternatively, you could be nasty, religious people can be nasty too.

Wow that's stupid.

What manner of question is that? If your neighbour, the Atheist, has a moral code that allows him to hurt you, how can it not be bad? It's bad for you, and ultimately it's bad for him, because if he hurts you, it will turn a good portion of the society against him. Any moral code should exist to enhance the chances the individual succeeds in the current environment. In that sense it has nothing to do with religion.

But what makes it bad? If he's willing to take that chance what diffrence does it make? Define "bad"

You seem to suggest that the only reason to do good is through fear of God.
That's just silly.
People do nice things for each other all the time for no better reason then the warm fuzzy satisfied feelign you get from helping out a fellow human being.
I don't steal because I know what it's like to be robbed, I don't kill because I can imagine how that would affect the family and freinds of the victim.
I am an atheist who follows the rules not from fear of God or even the police, but because (most of) the rules are there to keep society functioning well (or at least not get worse too quickly)
I know people say not having a religion is like missing out, but I feel that if you don't understand the concept of morales without religion, then you're missing out too.

I doubt it could of been said better, I agree with you 100% deadman

Maybe we have laws and punishment?

Yes, Deadman said it very well. I suppose the only real difference between us and Religious folk is that we can go on a case-by-case basis without fearing for our eternal souls. We don't have to follow a strict set of rules, so we have a bit more freedom. So, we can say...eat pork whenever we feel like eating pork. That kind of thing. Plus, I imagine that there could be an instance where we'd ahve to do something bad in order to do something good, and we wouldn't feel bad about doing it because the result is so good. I can't think of an example right now, but there could be one.

If it made a person feal warm and fuzzy to kill people, is there some kind of a reason he shouldn't?

Neither do Christians, according to the Bible anyway. Sadly, most don't understand that, and even worse, those that do understand may abuse what's given (like me, apparently).

Anyway....
There are different types of athiesm, Obi (in regard to moral beliefs). Generally, their beliefs are based on experiences and hard logic, the most obvious being that there are consequences for every action, both immediate and/or delayed, and both positive and/or negative.

Which were defined by religion. That's irrelevant.

It's not about feeling warm and fuzzy, Obi_Kwiet. It's about empathy (ha! I actually typed apathy the first time, good thing I proofread my posts!), actually giving a crap about your peers. This has nothing to do with religion. Deadman pretty much hit the nail on the head. And, infact, whether you're religious or not, the whole 'do unto others...' thing pretty much sums it up. My personal philosophy is that everyone should be able to do what they damn well please if it doesn't harm anybody else. The fact that plenty of religious and publicly revered people go directly against that is one reason I have such utter contempt for society.

Why shouldn't we harm any one else?

Obi, are you reading any of these posts?

Don't do as you will, do as I tells you.

Just wanted to repeat this bit incase the dictionary wasn't clear enough, and also add a personal example.

Stealing - I have had things stolen from me, it's not a nice thing to have happen, hence, I don't steal from others. However in most corporations (the big ones, anyway) a vast amount of their profit goes to a very few, very rich, bosses. Therefore, I generally have little problem with the idea of people taking things from them. I had a friend when I was growing up, single parent family, her mum couldn't get work, they lived solely on benefits. This amounted to a total of about £50 a week, to support two people. As a result, my friend stole clothing for herself (not to make a profit or anything, simply to ensure she had clothes), which personally, I have little problem with. Once she was old enough, she got a job and funded herself that way, but when she had no choice, she did what she had to. I know for a fact she would never have stolen anything from a single person, but desperate times, etc. If the government... (ok, woah. I'm going somewhere entirely different now!)

Basically, I don't see that her stealing would have drastically affected anyone else, but it did make a big difference to her, and so I don't look down on her for it. This is somewhere I see a big difference with religion. If you take it as stealing = wrong, there's no room for grey areas.

1) Because 99% of people don't want to be harmed. Both the golden rule and the U.S. constitution put a stop to this (for infringing on others' rights).

2) It's against the law. It's illegal.

3) Cultural/environmental reasons. Our culture has conditioned us to believe that murder is detestable. If you were raised in a vacuum to believe that murder is benevolent, then I'm sure you wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

4) For the majority of people who are religious, fear of god, etc.

5) Personal morality.

If you take away, say, #4 for example, how can you honestly tell me that there are no other factors that will prevent a person from comitting murder.

Obi, I NEED you to respond to that ^^^^^^^^^^ You ALWAYS ignore EVERYONE. If you don't want me to think you ignore everyone, then respond to this: "If you take away, say, #4 for example, how can you honestly tell me that there are no other factors that will prevent a person from comitting murder. "

I honestly want to know what you think.

Yes, "Do unto others" sums it up very well. Just because its in the bible doesn't mean I don't beleive it

exactly. I may not agree with the reason it came to be there, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Three passed their lives doing good works.

The first chose to do good works because of belonging to a religion that promised everlasting damnation to those who failed to do good.

The second chose to do good works because of belonging to a religion that promised eternal pleasures of paradise after death to those who did good.

The third chose to do good works because of a considered decision that it was the right thing to do.

Which of the three was indeed good?

Let me appeal to what you believe in, Obi:
Why does God say not to kill?
Just because He can?

If you can start seeing and questioning the motives of God, you will also begin to understand why most people feel the same way. It's the same logic.

When you take the Bible apart, it makes things more difficult. "Thou shalt not steal." Pretty basic, seemingly. But using other passages in the Bible, we see that we are also told to give to those in need. If we did, there would be no need to steal, yes?
Many people seem to be unaware that churches or church-like organizations will provide to people in need, regardless of what they believe in. (Some of the more arrogant organizations may not, however, but the majority will. That seems to be consistent across many denominations.)

You're saying that people can't do good if they're religious?

If it made a person feel like they were gonna go to Heaven if they crashed a plane into a building, is there any reason he shouldn't?

He's saying that the motivation behind being good is not selfish for the last person. There is no reason that someone religious cannot want to do good for the sake of doing good, but doing it in order to benefit yourself in the long run is not the same.

That's not what he's saying. Not exactly. Most people who do it for religious reasons ALSO do it for the reasons that atheists do it (as far as I know). But simplified, the atheist HAS to do it for that reason, otherwise he wouldn't do it.

I did say all three did good works, didn't I?

It's just better to do good because you know it's right rather than because you expect something in return or fear punishment.

That's an interesting saying, I'll be sure to remember that.

According to the Bible, people actually do not find favor with God by their good deeds (or more specifically, not in the New Testament). True, many Christians believe they do, but that's not what's written. Just as you cannot make it to heaven by your works, you are not automatically condemned to hell by doing wrong (or else we'd all be screwed).
The greatest commandments are (paraphrased) "Love God" and "love your fellow man." For love to truly exist, it must be expressed (as in helping others in need).
Salvation gets you into heaven. Good deeds demonstrate your faith and love of God. But we cannot acquire favor with God by good deeds.

post count +1

Cha-ching!

We have a winnar! This is pretty much the way I see things. Religious motivation must parallel with personal motivation, or else you infer that religious people just do good things and don't think why; but atheists/agnostics have no religious motives, so just (kinda) do things off their own back, and for their own reasons.

But most religious people are cool. I randomly stayed up till about half one last night with a friend who I didn't know was Christian, just talking about stuff like this. It was wierd yet satisfying!

Religions are interesting, indeed. I <3 my religion class.

1) We’re not talking about what other people want. As an atheist, what makes hurting people who do not want to be hurt, *bad*, besides the retribution of a government? Who says we shouldn’t besides the government? Does the government say what is right or wrong? (If so refer to next post) From an atheistic perspective, should we not hurt people just, “because”?

2) It was legal to hurt Jews, under the 3rd Reich. It was legal to persecute Christians under Roman law. Besides, what if you are the government? Does that make what Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, ect right?

3) Is good just what your society thinks? What make that good? For examples of society gone wrong look at 2).

4) I’m a Christian, I’m asking why certain things would be right or wrong is if I were an atheist. I think this form of argument is called the Socratic Method? From an atheist perspective, I don’t really see how a “bogus” religion could make any difference.

5) What would an atheist say morality is? Like I said before, couldn’t his idea of morality be say, for example, hurting other for personal gain?




How do you know what is right? Please tell me. I want to know.

oops NT

Obi... so the only reason you don't kill people is because God said no? Because that's the way you seem to be arguing.

You don't need to have religion to be nice.

Actually, they really stem more from the basic need for order and cohesion in any form of stable society- without basic ground rules all you have is anarchy. For any kind of civilisation to form you need to have lots of people together, and without the establishment of societal rules (whether formal or not) then the whole thing decends into chaos (of course, you could say that the whole thing wouldn't decend into chaos as people, being social/political animals, would naturally create these rules without consciously planning them, purely as a by-product of living with others).

It could even be argued that the placing of the basic rules of structured society (the main ones really being the ownership of property and right to life) in religious context is nothing more than an attempt to make their implementation easier (It's easier for many to follow laws if they're "divine" rather than ones some bloke just came up with. i.e. eternal damnation is a scarier prospect than "normal" punishment) and merely to strengthen their power in people's minds.


Or not.


Do rules beget society and/or religion or does society and/or religion beget rules? Or does society beget rules which beget religion? (Of course religion isn't purely devoted to perpetuating the order of society; other causes/influences might/might not include things like explaining the unexplained, providing meanings to life, fulfilling man's natural need for spirituality and a bunch of other stuff.)


Not really sure where I was going with the last paragraph there. I mean, the last sentence is needlessly parenthisised (which dictionary.com tells me isn't even a word, but I think it should be), but that's really because I felt it gave it a nice "aside" quality. Or something.


Basically Obi (assuming you've actually read this far, which given your previous posts, is not something I hold much hope of), if the only thing stopping you from going on a murderous rampage is the fact that you believe you'd go to Hell after you died if you did, then I'm very, very worried about you. I mean, you're essentially saying that if you ever stopped believing in God, you'd have no problems committing genocide.
It's rather hard to describe in words, but the reasons atheists aren't all committing mass murder is pretty much a mixture of empathy, guilt (we don't want to have to live with it- whether that's a natural human emotion or something conditioned by society's values is up for debate), fear (of reprisals from the law/people you've just pissed off by doing whatever it was you just did- essentially all a religious perspective does is strengthen this by making it spiritual, rather than physical) and some other stuff that I can't really define without making as much sense as "it feels a bit like purple would taste if it were orange".

1) Pretty much. Well, that and even if he said I could I probably wouldn't feel like it. We're not arguing about weather you HAVE to kill some one as an Atheist. We’re arguing about weather you have a moral responsibility not to do something that hurts another person outside of what you choose to do.




Once again were not talking about having to go on a murderous rampage. We’re talking about weather it would be wrong if some one decided to go kill people. Say an atheist was offered a million to go kill some one. Logically he wouldn’t have to accept. But he also wouldn’t have to decline. I’m sure the you personally would decline, but would an atheist that accepted be a bad person? What makes him bad? Would you consider him bad?

Why?
I think you answered your own question.

There is no good, there is no bad, everything is gray. Nihilism.

There is no good or evil, only power.