If when we die....

[Gadarene]

Why should I apologize for speaking the way I see it. You would do the same no?

I would endeavour to have a little more tact than you if I was actually serious about convincing people.

If in this life only we have hope of fulfillment, then a hedonist is no less wise than a politician who derives fulfillment from speaking for the people he represents. A rapist is no less honorable than a soldier who dives on a grenade in combat to preserve the life of his comrades. They both are living according to what makes them most happy.

Right! So why not presume that instead of doing something that most Christians get really snooty, preachy and judgemental over - partying, drinking, drugging, raping - why not presume that atheists might seek happiness from more honourable sources instead?

This is bigotry - pure and simple - and you are repeating it utterly uncritically.

One derives satisfaction from degrading and ravishing women, the other from self-sacrifice. In the end they all go to the same place, the grave, to be eaten of maggots and worms, to rot and lie stinking in the earth. The terrorists and the 2,000 plus victims they killed all go to the same place. They all cease to exist, to know, to feel, to love, to think, all is nothing, all is meaningless.

Or they could rape and blow up people - and then get saved and get a free ticket in happy-gumdrop land with Jesus and everyone else. Hardly much better. And if their rape victims aren't Christians, then they get burnt alive forever. Splendid.

Like I said - I'm fine with nothingness being my end. I've made my peace with it a long time ago, and it makes life precious. It means I want to do something with myself in the short time I have left.

And frankly, I would much rather not exist than be sent to hell by some sadistic tyrant of a god like yours who couldn't be bothered to do even remotely enough to save us from a dilemma he imposed on us in the first place.

Incidentally - you believe in a god who holds your hand through life, then you get sent to a city where the buildings are made of gold and jewels where you get to live for eternity with literally nothing bad or unpleasant happening - and you're saying we're the ones pleasure seeking? Yes, I'm sure you chose the belief system with the eternity of bliss because it was just the right thing to do, didn't you?

So I say live and let live! Why trouble yourselves witht the petty, imbecilic, childish notions of morality. Why trouble yourself and worry your pretty little head over gods or a god who does not exist to judge you. "EAT AND DRINK FOR TOMORROW WE DIE!"

My morality is consequentialism-based.

I don't think it's right to go drinking to excess, because I make a fool of myself and hurt my body and my friends.

I don't think it's right to take drugs to excess, because ditto.

I don't think it's right to rape, because the thought of inflicting that much pain on someone is disgusting.

Does that clear it up? Or do you want to make any more daft assumptions about what atheists should be doing?

 

[quatona]

Thanks for the replies. I see from the posts that the majority of atheists/humanists/naturalists generally agree that death is the "end" or the cessation of all life.

The end of all life? No. I think of death being part of permanent transformation.

It gathers from the above view, that one's main purpose while they are alive would simply be the pursuit of life, liberty, prosperity and happiness. Is this generally how you all feel?

Basically yes (although I don´t think this follows as necessarily as you make it out to follow) - to pursue this for all that is conscious.
What in contrast - if I may ask - is man´s purpose, in your opinion?

 

[quatona]

If death is the final end, if there is no judgment or time for accounting of the things that one has done in this life, then it stands to reason that one should try to live life to the fullest does it not? It seems you agree with me, no? The whole idea of: "hey, whatever floats your boat, do what you feel" kind of attituide would flourish under this view. The idea of: "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" mentality would obviously be more desirable right? If there is nothing, and if there is no ultimate meaning, then a strong case could be made for saying: "to each his own", right?

For someone who´s not gifted with empathy (which is a disorder that affects - as far as I know - roughly 1-2% of all individuals) this may be true.
For everybody else - not so much.

 

[Skavau]

Why should I apologize for speaking the way I see it. You would do the same no?

You should apologise for smearing atheists under a broad generalisation (that you did not back up) and then with great sanctimony bleating at others about how compassionate and moral your beliefs are.

If in this life only we have hope of fulfillment, then a hedonist is no less wise than a politician who derives fulfillment from speaking for the people he represents.

'Wise' is a word with specific human meaning. It generally refers to someone who acts or tends to act with good judgement. We can to a good degree measure objectively how wise someone was and predict how wise a decision is our could be. That said, the feeling of fulfillment is entirely subjective. Indeed if someone derives fulfillment from hedonism then that's up to them. So long as they are not hurting anyone - why do you or why should you care?

A rapist is no less honorable than a soldier who dives on a grenade in combat to preserve the life of his comrades.

Now this is utter nonsense. In what context are you even using honourable here?

They both are living according to what makes them most happy.

I daresay that someone who takes a grenade for another is not doing so for purposes of enjoyment but for reasons of self-sacrifice born out of a feeling of duty. A rapist is not allowed by society to live by that because it hurts others. Simple as that. It inflicts upon the rights of others.

One derives satisfaction from degrading and ravishing women, the other from self-sacrifice. In the end they all go to the same place, the grave, to be eaten of maggots and worms, to rot and lie stinking in the earth.

Yes, they do.

Or all evidence seems to point to that anyway.

The terrorists and the 2,000 plus victims they killed all go to the same place. They all cease to exist, to know, to feel, to love, to think, all is nothing, all is meaningless.

Yes, they do.

That the reality may be unpleasant does not mean it does not exist, nor does it mean it is endorsed.

So I say live and let live! Why trouble yourselves with the petty, imbecilic, childish notions of morality.

Because without it we would all suffer. We would all get murdered, have our property stolen, raped, attacked, tortured, whatever. The rules and legislation we have are designed to ensure we all maintain our liberty and safeguard our security. They exist not just because but because we all need them whether or not we realise it or not. That you would even try this childish line of reasoning speaks ill of your character.

Are you seriously suggesting that the sole reason you are moral is because of the promise of the afterlife? That all your compassion and concern for others is entirely tied up in your yearning for a favourable position in the afterlife? If so, you are not and were never moral.

Why trouble yourself and worry your pretty little head over gods or a god who does not exist to judge you.

I don't care about your God. I care about society and judgement within that society.

 

[quatona]

But a case could be made for having that attitude though, right? I mean you have your idea of what a virtuous life is like and endeavor to live it. Others may have their idea of what a life to the fullest would be. Others may think like you, others may not.

I´m not sure I see how that´s any different when you believe in the god of your concept: You have your idea of what´s the (god-edicted) meaning of life, others may agree or disagree (with your god concept as well as the moral prescriptions you ascribe to the god of your concept).

 

[quatona]

For you, living a "virtuous" life, (this must remain completely subjective and open to interpretation by each person by the way) brings you fulfillment. For others living a hedonistic lifestyle would be their choice.

For you, living a god fearing life (this must remain completely subjective and open to interpretation by each person by the way) is your goal. For others living a hedonistic lifestyle would be their choice.
What the heck is your point?

 

[Elioenai26]

I would endeavour to have a little more tact than you if I was actually serious about convincing people.

Just in case you did not recognize my literary use of satirical whit and rhetoric to illustrate a point, I was speaking as one who had concern only for his own selfish interest.

Right! So why not presume that instead of doing something that most Christians get really snooty, preachy and judgemental over - partying, drinking, drugging, raping - why not presume that atheists might seek happiness from more honourable sources instead?

I am sure many atheists do seek happiness by seeking to live a "virtuous life" whatever that may mean to him or her, this is not in dispute. Our dear friend Eudaimonist has made it clear that this is how he receives satisfaction.

It also must be remembered that there is no shortage of infamous characters who have used atheism as their grounds for living hedonistic, lascivous lifestyles. Does the name Oscar Wilde, Jeffrey Dahmer, Michael Onfray, Ted Bundy ring a bell?

This is bigotry - pure and simple - and you are repeating it utterly uncritically.

Bigotry? If a bigot derives satisfaction and pleasure from being a bigot, who are you to say that it is wrong?

Or they could rape and blow up people - and then get saved and get a free ticket in happy-gumdrop land with Jesus and everyone else. Hardly much better. And if their rape victims aren't Christians, then they get burnt alive forever. Splendid.

You said that when we die, thats it. So why even mention hell? Stick with the topic and please refrain from digressing into tangents and things of that nature.

Like I said - I'm fine with that being my end. I've made my peace with it a long time ago, and it makes life precious. It means I want to do something with myself in the short time I have left.

I take it you want to do something meaningful?

And frankly, I would much rather not exist than be sent to hell by some sadistic tyrant of a god like yours who couldn't be bothered to do even remotely enough to save us from a dilemma he imposed on us in the first place.

You reject the belief in gods or a god. So you are speaking of a hypothetical situation no?

My morality is consequentialism-based.

I don't think it's right to go drinking to excess, because I make a fool of myself and hurt my body and my friends.

I don't think it's right to take drugs to excess, because ditto.

I don't think it's right to rape, because the thought of inflicting that much pain on someone is disgusting.

Does that clear it up? Or do you want to make any more daft assumptions about what atheists should be doing?

How marvelous for you to take so much thought and care about a body that will one day be consumed by maggots and worms and dissolved into dust.

Inflicting pain upon people and having it inflicted upon themselves is very pleasurable and exciting to some. Ever heard of sadomasochism?

 

[quatona]

How marvelous for you to take so much thought and care about a body that will one day be consumed by maggots and worms and dissolved into dust.

Are you saying you would treat your fellow being carelessly if you knew there would be no afterlife?

Inflicting pain upon people and having it inflicted upon themselves is very pleasurable and exciting to some. Ever heard of sadomasochism?

Yes, and quite obviously it occurs with your god existing or not existing - unless you would accept its existence as evidence that your god doesn´t exist.

 

[Elioenai26]

For you, living a god fearing life (this must remain completely subjective and open to interpretation by each person by the way) is your goal. For others living a hedonistic lifestyle would be their choice.
What the heck is your point?

Would you not agree that life should be lived according to one's own desires and dictates? That is all I am saying. If when we die, we die and are no more, then why not live for the moment? Why not live however we want to? Who is to judge us. That is my point. I am speaking from the point of one who holds that death is death, and after that there is nothing. I am speaking as one who knows that to put constraints upon another is to put constraints upon myself, and that is the very thing I do not want to have happen. I am speaking as one who does not believe that life has any intrinsic value or eternal purpose. I am speaking as...

 

[Skavau]

Just in case you did not recognize my literary use of satirical whit and rhetoric to illustrate a point, I was speaking as one who had concern only for his own selfish interest.

And you project that onto atheists suggesting that they do or should concern themselves only with hedonism. (Odd that you think that people can gain only fulfillment solely from hedonism. I myself find intellectual and knowledge driven tasks more fun).

It also must be remembered that there is no shortage of infamous characters who have used atheism as their grounds for living hedonistic, lascivous lifestyles. Does the name Oscar Wilde, Jeffrey Dahmer, Michael Onfray, Ted Bundy ring a bell?

Can you citate their reasons in their own words please?

Bigotry? If a bigot derives satisfaction and pleasure from being a bigot, who are you to say that it is wrong?

Someone who can judge the value in saying statements. Someone tends to be acting the bigot when they attribute incorrect pejorative claims towards others - which you have a track record of doing. I presume you at least do not want to come across towards others as appearing bigoted.

You said that when we die, thats it. So why even mention hell? Stick with the topic and please refrain from digressing into tangents and things of that nature.

Heaven and hell are completely relevant on this topic actually. For starters you appear to think that rejecting and/or disbelieving in a supernatural paradise after life is warrant or justification enough for all kinds of hedonism.

Secondly it also brings light into the hidden yet apparent for those who read between the lines the unstated hedonism amongst those who emphasis the importance of entering heaven in the first place. Why sir, do you place so much importance on heaven if you are unconcerned and above hedonism yourself?

I can think of no greater possibility for it myself.

You reject the belief in gods or a god. So you are speaking of a hypothetical situation no?

Hypothetical yes. Evil also as well.

How marvelous for you to take so much thought and care about a body that will one day be consumed by maggots and worms and dissolved into dust.

Curious isn't it.

You seem surprised. We are a social and intelligent species. More than you make us out to be and we certainly don't require permission from a deity to achieve it.

Inflicting pain upon people and having it inflicted upon themselves is very pleasurable and exciting to some. Ever heard of sadomasochism?

Yeah. It is a minority activity. That's fine if all parties involve consent. None of mine nor your business.

 

[Gadarene]

Just in case you did not recognize my literary use of satirical whit and rhetoric to illustrate a point, I was speaking as one who had concern only for his own selfish interest.

And attributing it to atheism.

Even though not a single atheist present recognises this.

I am sure many atheists do seek happiness by seeking to live a "virtuous life" whatever that may mean to him or her, this is not in dispute. Our dear friend Eudaimonist has made it clear that this is how he receives satisfaction.

It also must be remembered that there is no shortage of infamous characters who have used atheism as their grounds for living hedonistic, lascivous lifestyles. Does the name Oscar Wilde, Jeffrey Dahmer, Michael Onfray, Ted Bundy ring a bell?

Why presume they're the majority? This is no less bigoted or offensive than presuming that Christians should be paedophiles because some Christians were paedophiles.

Bigotry? If a bigot derives satisfaction and pleasure from being a bigot, who are you to say that it is wrong?

Did you look up what consequentialism meant?

Because bigotry causes harm.

You said that when we die, thats it. So why even mention hell? Stick with the topic and please refrain from digressing into tangents and things of that nature.

I'm addressing your view, not mine - and I'll respond to the topic how I please. I have already responded to your points on my view, now it's time for yours. Kindly respond to the points I raised, instead of being evasive.

I take it you want to do something meaningful?

Bingo.

You reject the belief in gods or a god. So you are speaking of a hypothetical situation no?

Yes, as indicated by the word "would".

Conditional tense - you tend to learn it in primary school.

How marvelous for you to take so much thought and care about a body that will one day be consumed by maggots and worms and dissolved into dust.

Yes, I know it won't last forever. What is your point?

I hate to point out more of the obvious to you, but it does seem to be eluding you. You are of course aware that even if your existence is finite, a world where everyone goes around NOT killing and raping as they please is generally more enjoyable than one in which they do? Killing and raping people, not to put too fine a point on it, causes harm.

Inflicting pain upon people and having it inflicted upon themselves is very pleasurable and exciting to some. Ever heard of sadomasochism?

Yes. What about it? Consensual sadomasochism is fine. Nonconsensual sexual behaviour is not.

 

[quatona]

Would you not agree that life should be lived according to one's own desires and dictates?

Yes, I would not agree with that.

That is all I am saying. If when we die, we die and are no more, then why not live for the moment? Why not live however we want to? Who is to judge us. That is my point. I am speaking from the point of one who holds that death is death, and after that there is nothing.

No, you are speaking from the point of a psychopath.

 

[Skavau]

Would you not agree that life should be lived according to one's own desires and dictates?

That depends rather on what "one's own desires and dictates" are.

If your desires and dictates harm no-one, knock yourself out.

If they do harm others, then no.

That is all I am saying. If when we die, we die and are no more, then why not live for the moment?

Who are you to say that others are not? To some to "live for the moment" is to read an epic series of novels and to others it is to party.

Why not live however we want to?

We do. That's the whole basis behind human rights. To allow people to live how they want without fear of retaliation or oppression upon their person.

Who is to judge us. That is my point.

Other humans will judge us, and unless you are of a 0.1% personality defect most people value the judgement of their peers, their family and their friends and react to it. We are an intelligent social species. Recognise it.

I am speaking from the point of one who holds that death is death, and after that there is nothing. I am speaking as one who knows that to put constraints upon another is to put constraints upon myself, and that is the very thing I do not want to have happen. I am speaking as one who does not believe that life has any intrinsic value or eternal purpose. I am speaking as...

...yourself if you had no belief in a deity?

Revealing.

 

[Elioenai26]

Are you saying you would treat your fellow being carelessly if you knew there would be no afterlife?

According to atheists, this is a matter of personal preference. Some would, some wouldnt.

Yes, and quite obviously it occurs with your god existing or not existing - unless you would accept its existence as evidence that your god doesn´t exist.

Sadomasochism is practiced in the world by various peoples. So yes it exists whether you believe in god or not.

I would not accept the existence of Sadomasochism as evidence that God does not exist. The choice of a finite human being to practice sadomasochism has no bearing on the existence of an infinite being. If God is God, He existed before sadomasochism became a practice and shall exist long after it is not. That is if you believe in God of course!

 

[Skavau]

According to atheists, this is a matter of personal preference. Some would, some wouldnt.

No. This is a matter of reality. Some people do treat others carelessly and some people do not. What we ought to do is separate from that.

Sadomasochism is practiced in the world by various peoples. So yes it exists whether you believe in god or not.

I would not accept the existence of Sadomasochism as evidence that God does not exist. The choice of a finite human being to practice sadomasochism has no bearing on the existence of an infinite being. If God is God, He existed before sadomasochism became a practice and shall exist long after it is not. That is if you believe in God of course!

What's wrong with sadomasochism morally if all parties are consenting?

 

[quatona]

According to atheists, this is a matter of personal preference. Some would, some wouldnt.

You haven´t answered my question, and I suspect we both know why that is.

Sadomasochism is practiced in the world by various peoples. So yes it exists whether you believe in god or not.

So neither god´s existence nor belief in god prevents these things from being done. What was your point against atheism, again?

 

[Elioenai26]

That depends rather on what "one's own desires and dictates" are.

If your desires and dictates harm no-one, knock yourself out.

If they do harm others, then no.

And who sir are you to tell me what is harm and what is not? You are a man as I am. You cannot pass judgment upon me with regards to anything, especially with regards to what is right and what is wrong. You say tomato, I say tomahto. You say potato, I say potahto. An elightened free-thinker cannot be forcibly bound by any antiquated idea of sublime morality. You do you, and I will do me. Survival of the fittest remember?

Who are you to say that others are not? To some to "live for the moment" is to read an epic series of novels and to others it is to party.

Bingo! Give the man a cigar. My point exactly. To each his own!

Other humans will judge us, and unless you are of a 0.1% personality defect most people value the judgement of their peers, their family and their friends and react to it. We are an intelligent social species. Recognise it.

A real man follows his heart and lives despite what others may think of him no? Who cares? I mean hey, when we die, that's it right? Why not try to exterminate all of the inferior people in our society so that only the strong may survive? This is evolutionally sound no? Propagation of DNA, survival of the fittest species? Heck why does it even matter at all?

 

[Elioenai26]

No. This is a matter of reality. Some people do treat others carelessly and some people do not. What we ought to do is separate from that.


What's wrong with sadomasochism morally if all parties are consenting?

LOL! Where did I say it was wrong?

 

[Gadarene]

Wow, and now you're saying atheists should be social Darwinists?

Put the shovel down, Elioenai

 

[Skavau]

And who sir are you to tell me what is harm and what is not?

Based on whether your actions involve a non-consenting third party or creates a victim through its events. If they do, it is harmful. This is true by definition.

You are a man as I am. You cannot pass judgment upon me with regards to anything, especially with regards to what is right and what is wrong.

Yes I can, as you can. Anyone can judge and be judged for their judgements. This is true of any intelligent species.

You say tomato, I say tomahto. You say potato, I say potahto. An elightened free-thinker cannot be forcibly bound by any antiquated idea of sublime morality. You do you, and I will do me. Survival of the fittest remember?

No. I am not bound by your assumptions upon my person. "Survival of the fittest" is not and has never been a moral term and I have never used it as one myself. So I will kindly ask you to stop talking for me and speaking on my behalf.

Bingo! Give the man a cigar. My point exactly. To each his own!

So I'm not seeing the problem here. I don't mind if people do their own thing. So long as it does not inflict upon anyone else's ability to do their own thing.

Only you seem to think personal liberty is a problem.

A real man follows his heart and lives despite what others may think of him no?

No. A "real man" (I don't care for absurd alpha-male stereotypes) lives with consideration of others and considers others opinions as well.

Who cares? I mean hey, when we die, that's it right? Why not try to exterminate all of the inferior people in our society so that only the strong may survive?

Stop phrasing questions as I agree with them. It is an indirect smear and if you continue acting like this I will report you to the moderators.

At any rate, it is an attack upon other people's own personal liberty. Since I value my own I also by consequence value theirs.

This is evolutionally sound no? Propagation of DNA, survival of the fittest species? Heck why does it even matter at all?

The Biological Theory of Evolution =/= Morality.