Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[Elioenai26]

I love how the theists are saying "who sez" like it's some kind of draw card on atheism, when that's what their entire moral system is based on as well.

I know where I get my sense of right and wrong from.

Just because it's someone more powerful doesn't mean it's not a load of "who sez" as well - and that means the only appreciable difference is, in fact, "might makes right".

Skavau is talking like there is some sort of morality that we are all supposed to be aware of and follow....

I am simply asking him....who says?

 

[Gadarene]

I know where I get my sense of right and wrong from.

As do atheists.

 

[Elioenai26]

It is part of the necessary social contract that enables us all to have personal liberty. It does not derive its validity from tradition nor authority but necessity.

Who says? You?

Everyone, actually.

Actually I don't so that means you are wrong.

It is in all of our interests whether we know it or not.

You now speak for others. The same thing you said I should not do.

Then you disagree. Presumably if you do you have or will inflict upon the liberty of others and then you'll discover how society treats those who do such things.

Societies vary.... in some societies you would be killed for your views.... you do understand that right?

So who says? and who is right?

 

[Elioenai26]

As do atheists.

Where?

 

[Gadarene]

Where?

Depends on the atheist.

 

[Elioenai26]

Depends on the atheist.

Rofl....

That encapsulates the whole dilemma of atheism...

That is so hilarious!

 

[Skavau]

Who says? You?

Yes, me. Are you just going to play the petulant child and go "Who sez" each time I give a reply? My opinions are mine and derive from my understanding. Argue against them by all means and ask for supporting arguments if you like but to reply in such a way demonstrates pettiness above all else.

So on point: Do you think a society would work in absence of that social contract?

Actually I don't so that means you are wrong.

You don't think people should live their lives without causing harm towards others?

You now speak for others. The same thing you said I should not do.

That's not speaking for others. I would be speaking for others if I said they think that. If I were to preface that with "They think" or "Secretly, they believe" or something like that then you'd be correct. I was stating however that it is in everyone's interest that the social contract does not collapse and remains so whether they agree or not.

Societies vary.... in some societies you would be killed for your views.... you do understand that right?

Yes.

So who says? and who is right?

The ones that do not kill others for their views.

 

[Skavau]

Rofl....

That encapsulates the whole dilemma of atheism...

That is so hilarious!

Perhaps if you knew what "dilemma" meant, it would be. It is hilarious that you think you have a point. Atheism is not a coherent system of morality (as you have been well and consistently informed). It professes no overarching system of morality that all atheists must abide by. It is merely a descriptive view that refers to people who do not believe in God. That this is so makes this as much a "dilemma" as it is to non-golf players.

 

[Elioenai26]

You don't think people should live their lives without causing harm towards others?

No.

There are literally thousands of scenarios in life when it is actually necessary to harm someone.

So no.

I was stating however that it is in everyone's interest that the social contract does not collapse and remains so whether they agree or not.

Who says? You?

Others disagree. Who is right?

The ones that do not kill others for their views.

Who says? You?

Others disagree....who is right?

You see my point?

There is no right or wrong but mere opinions....you can no more condemn me for acting a certain way than I can condemn you....on an atheistic view of reality.

There is no right or wrong that we are all held accountable to...right and wrong varies from atheist to atheist under atheism...

 

[Gadarene]

Rofl....

That encapsulates the whole dilemma of atheism...

That is so hilarious!

Yeah, because Christians have a long and proud history of agreeing with each other consistently on what's right and wrong, don't they?

Again, you are kidding yourself if you think you are in any better a position than us. Worse, in fact, as we are not kidding ourselves about the situation. But as ever, your incompetence will ensure you remain stuck in this intellectual rut.

 

[Gadarene]

Perhaps if you knew what "dilemma" meant, it would be. It is hilarious that you think you have a point. Atheism is not a coherent system of morality (as you have been well and consistently informed). It professes no overarching system of morality that all atheists must abide by. It is merely a descriptive view that refers to people who do not believe in God. That this is so makes this as much a "dilemma" as it is to non-golf players.

And just for the record, the original claim was that he "knew" where his sense of right and wrong come from.

Atheists are able to know where their sense of right and wrong comes from, even if the answers differ.

So I'm not entirely sure what Elio is hooting about. Small minds amused by small things, I suppose.

 

[Elioenai26]

Perhaps if you knew what "dilemma" meant, it would be. It is hilarious that you think you have a point. Atheism is not a coherent system of morality (as you have been well and consistently informed). It professes no overarching system of morality that all atheists must abide by. It is merely a descriptive view that refers to people who do not believe in God. That this is so makes this as much a "dilemma" as it is to non-golf players.

Gadarene said that atheists get their morality from their own views of what is moral and what is not....

That is the dilemma...

There is no way to adjudicate between opposing opinions....there is no standard of morality one can appeal to...

So there goes your tripe about God being this and God being that....who says God is evil and immoral?

You? Ok, but since there is no standard by which to measure God's acts under atheism, all you're left with is your opinion.

 

[Elioenai26]

And just for the record, the original claim was that he "knew" where his sense of right and wrong come from.

Atheists are able to know where their sense of right and wrong comes from, even if the answers differ.

So I'm not entirely sure what Elio is hooting about. Small minds amused by small things, I suppose.

I am hooting because you two are really unaware of what your denial of God entails....

there is no right or wrong, don't ya know? only opinions....

 

[Gadarene]

Gadarene said that atheists get their morality from their own views of what is moral and what is not....

That is the dilemma...

Excuse me, I said nothing of the kind. I said WHERE they get their morals from depends on the atheist. No more was said than that.

Perhaps you would get somewhere if you actually paid attention to what is being said.

There is no way to adjudicate between opposing opinions....there is no standard of morality one can appeal to...

So there goes your tripe about God being this and God being that....who says God is evil and immoral?

You? Ok, but since there is no standard by which to measure God's acts under atheism, all you're left with is your opinion.

As ever, if you are a Christian you are working with your opinion about an opinion about an opinion. So I know which I prefer.

 

[Gadarene]

I am hooting because you two are really unaware of what your denial of God entails....

there is no right or wrong, don't ya know? only opinions....

Yes, all moral systems contain subjective elements. So do yours.

As I said, you are not in any better a position than us in that regard, but you are in a worse position given that:

(a) you are in denial of this
(b) you are basing your morals on one of the flimsiest bases possible.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, all moral systems contain subjective elements. So do yours.

As I said, you are not in any better a position than us in that regard, but you are in a worse position given that:

(a) you are in denial of this
(b) you are basing your morals on one of the flimsiest bases possible.

And the shifting sands of individual opinion is a firm base?

Rofl....please....you are too much!

 

[Skavau]

Gadarene said that atheists get their morality from their own views of what is moral and what is not....

That is the dilemma...

Is it?

Seems to me that all of us do that, just that theists attribute their views to mesh with God.

There is no way to adjudicate between opposing opinions....there is no standard of morality one can appeal to...

Yes there is. Reason. It exists. Morality is about what one ought and ought not do in the context of considering the welfare and interests of others. It does have a meaning and a basis. People who disagree and think it allows them to just do something contemptible don't understand it and are using it for their own agenda.

So there goes your tripe about God being this and God being that....who says God is evil and immoral?

I do.

Under your system, who says God is right?

You? Ok, but since there is no standard by which to measure God's acts under atheism, all you're left with is your opinion.

I don't measure anything "under atheism". I measure it based on the welfare of others. Under almost every criteria, God fails in some fashion.

 

[Elioenai26]

Excuse me, I said nothing of the kind. I said WHERE they get their morals from depends on the atheist. No more was said than that.

And where do you get yours from?

 

[Gadarene]

And the shifting sands of individual opinion is a firm base?

Rofl....please....you are too much!

Deja vu all over again. You have learned nothing since coming here.

Again - just because a moral system is subjective or contains subjective elements does not mean consensus on topics cannot be reached.

Pay attention.

 

[Gadarene]

And where do you get yours from?

The objective facts that humans have pain reflexes and a sense of reciprocity, and the objective facts about the distribution of particular outcomes for a given situation. My moral system is utilitarianism, which is arguably subjective but can make neat use of the objective facts mentioned above.