Atheists: Why don't you steal, rape, pillage, etc?

[keith99]

Well I don't accept evolution anyway, so it's silly of me to get into an argument, but out of curiosity how do you know they're not programmed to advance?

When talking Evolution unless otherwise specified the assumption is one is talking about Darwin's theory and its refinements. The Theory says no such thing, in fact it is a refutation of that position.

 

[Hetta]

If I was 100% sure He didn't exist. Yes. Of course. Why not?

No, I only don't do it because I have faith. Why resist taking what you want, if not for religion?

I hope you never lose your faith then because you sound like a very scary person waiting to happen. I'm glad to say that even when I stepped away from my faith I still didn't think it was okay to commit immoral or illegal acts.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well I don't accept evolution anyway, so it's silly of me to get into an argument, but out of curiosity how do you know they're not programmed to advance?

What do you mean by "programmed?"

 

[katerinah1947]

That is not what defines an atheist. Some atheists do feel this way, but you don't have to create a positive assertion about the non-existence of gods to be an atheist. All you need is to not belief in the existence of gods.

Hi,

Nice to see/hear you from you again.

Some background on this work. I started this work, to see if I could find one person who matched the word as it is commonly used. It started when I was working in the Advanced Physics Lab at Hewlett Packard, and it was pretty much an accidental project. It was personal, and yes they actually task us with a minimum of 10% of our time spent on personal projects.
This one did not start that way. I was agnostic in those days. I had zero clues if God was real, or a figment of man's imagination, then. One of the researchers, who I might use occasionally in my work was a adamant and vocal atheist. It bothered me from a logical point of view. I was concerned if I had to check on this man's work or not. I set some time aside, and asked him that question. (I had no project on this yet.) "Can you personally say, that there is no possibility that a god exists out there, who is responsible for all of this." Please remember, I am anti Jesus at this point, anti religious at this point and would be for several more years, as no valid proof had ever been done, on the existence of God.
He answered me. NO. I then asked him then, as he kept telling me and everyone else this: "You mean Dog? You mean Maddog?", each and every time some one spoke of God in his presence, what was the reason for him saying he is an atheist? He told me. It wasn't pleasant. His mother who was a staunch religious person treated him horribly. I understood and left, and used the man without reservations when ever I needed to.
Eventually I looked looked, even after I found out By Proof, that God exists, if I could find anyone who fit the description of that word. After about 10 years, I found no one. Each person instead was some version of being hurt, or listening to one liar or another liar, and discarding those lies about God.

Please, I was not attempting to define the word.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[katerinah1947]

Cool story. I'm still an atheist.

Hi,
And your faith icon says Agnostic.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[Cute Tink]

Hi,

Nice to see/hear you from you again.

Some background on this work. I started this work, to see if I could find one person who matched the word as it is commonly used. It started when I was working in the Advanced Physics Lab at Hewlett Packard, and it was pretty much an accidental project. It was personal, and yes they actually task us with a minimum of 10% of our time spent on personal projects.
This one did not start that way. I was agnostic in those days. I had zero clues if God was real, or a figment of man's imagination, then. One of the researchers, who I might use occasionally in my work was a adamant and vocal atheist. It bothered me from a logical point of view. I was concerned if I had to check on this man's work or not. I set some time aside, and asked him that question. (I had no project on this yet.) "Can you personally say, that there is no possibility that a god exists out there, who is responsible for all of this." Please remember, I am anti Jesus at this point, anti religious at this point and would be for several more years, as no valid proof had ever been done, on the existence of God.
He answered me. NO. I then asked him then, as he kept telling me and everyone else this: "You mean Dog? You mean Maddog?", each and every time some one spoke of God in his presence, what was the reason for him saying he is an atheist? He told me. It wasn't pleasant. His mother who was a staunch religious person treated him horribly. I understood and left, and used the man without reservations when ever I needed to.
Eventually I looked looked, even after I found out By Proof, that God exists, if I could find anyone who fit the description of that word. After about 10 years, I found no one. Each person instead was some version of being hurt, or listening to one liar or another liar, and discarding those lies about God.

Please, I was not attempting to define the word.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

Hi.

You asserted before that "By the real defintion of Atheism, nobody fits.". The real definition of atheism does not require that you assert that no gods exist. Just FYI.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hi,
And your faith icon says Agnostic.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

You can be both.

 

[Belk]

Hi,
And your faith icon says Agnostic.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

Indeed. That does not change the fact that I am an atheist as well. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi.

You asserted before that "By the real defintion of Atheism, nobody fits.". The real definition of atheism does not require that you assert that no gods exist. Just FYI.

Hi,
I said, by the real defnition of Atheism, none exist. At least that is what I meant. If that is not a stronger statment than an assertion, then I stand corrected. I have always taken the word Atheisim as absolute. That is not what I discovered. I discovered that lots of people who believe is some form of God, call themselves Atheists.
Sure there can be many defintions of the word. Here are two from Mirriam Webster, online.


a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So, belief is a part of definition a. It appears I researched definition b.

It might not seem to make any sense at first, to research that concept/definition, but I was going on to a bigger project and yes, if that man had proof that no dieties existed, he would have helped on that bigger project.

So what is the issue here. Is it there is no such word, consistent with the phrase of "no possibility that a god exists out there who is responsible for all of this", or is it there shouldn't ever be a word like that, or is it that one can use a word any way they like, and in any circumstances what so ever.
I am actually confused here, for it seems it is now about the definiton of the words, and possibly leaving the concept/idea out of the picture.

One here says atheism and agnosticism can describe the same person. In his case he says it describes him. So, if that style of communication is to be used, where the concept is lost, by haggling over a word definition, then what is the result? It is primarily a refusal to look at the issue, by accident or on purpose.

Either of those two results, seem to have no constructive place in life.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The difference between saying, "I don't believe gods exist" and saying, "there are no gods" is subtle, I know. But there is a fundamental difference in what is being expressed. The first person doesn't believe any of the concepts or claims of God that have been presented but isn't saying there is no chance that any kind of gods exist. The second person is making that definitive statement as if they possess the knowledge you would need to say that.

I think you'll find very few atheists take the second position. There might be some but I haven't met them.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,
Yes, what you think is what I have found. I was dissapointed in the word usage after that.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[GrimKingGrim]

You can be both.

Indeed. That does not change the fact that I am an atheist as well. They are not mutually exclusive.

Why does no one ever get that these are two separate terms?

 

[Eudaimonist]

My point is Evolution. Animals kill other animals for territory, rape their females. The strong crush the weak, which helps the species improve.

Cooperation, productivity, and peaceful trade do far more to help human beings survive than "the strong crushing the weak". The importance of love in forming good families and friendships can't be understated.

The weird thing about Atheists is they always use religious arguments ("don't hurt the weak", "I'm a good person", etc.) instead of logical arguments like evolution, euthanizing the weak/burdens on society, etc.

Those aren't religious arguments. They are ethical arguments. And you aren't necessarily being logical here.

If you are Atheist then there is no "good" or "evil".

Wrong.

Or do you atheists not believe in Evolution?

I believe in Evolution, but not as a source of right and wrong. It isn't a normative theory.

What logical arguments can you have for not stealing a car if you know you can get away with it? Or robbing a bank? Or kidnapping the women you want who rejects you?

One reason is that would make me a parasite on others. I wouldn't have a life that I could call my own with its own accomplishments, but instead I would be attempting to live through others. Ironically, I would only be stealing my life from myself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[unno-Dey]

Nonsense. I agree on the INDIVIDUAL level there is a lot of risk for people. But we can do it in large groups not as individuals, and AT THAT LEVEL it has often been acceptable in non-Christian cultures. Like Japan taking tens of thousands of Korean "comfort women", Rome conquering other lands and taking their women as plunder, or the Vikings raping and looting.

Like why not blow up the Saudis, take all their oil for ourselves, maybe hand some out to the Russians/Chinese to appease them... or the Chinese who need more women (too many men) go into Vietnam which has an over-supply and conquer them and take millions of war brides... etc. etc.

I would not advocate power-hungry violence towards the Saudis since everyone would think the US government is, well, power-hungry, and would declare war. I would not give women to the Chinese, with one reason being that they put themselves in that position, and they alone should be held responsible.

Also, please calm down, you are scaring the children. I try to talk online as if I am at a quiet restaurant, and I would advocate the same for you. You should be concered for your public image (even if you are just a troll, which you seemingly are). Who knows who could see your posts?

 

[unno-Dey]

he'd be dead right now if I wasn't religious

Excuse me?

 

[unno-Dey]

So basically once everyone adheres to hedonism or atheism and gives up this strange religious "conscience" construct that only harms their own self-interest, then they should vote for a government that will take the most resources on their behalf.... conquer, pillage, loot, rape, etc.



No I didn't. And I didn't write an entire reply that's only purpose was to insult the other person (which you BOTH have done). I sometimes jokingly called them weak to show that they are essentially against Evolution because THEY are the weak ones that would be crushed by the strong. They aren't making the argument from the perspective of the strong who have everything to gain by a world of looting, raping, etc.

A world of looting and raping would cause social upheaval, which is not something I want. Even if I were supreme overlord of the world and took whatever I desired, the vast amount of unhappy people would make the world less calm and more dangerous.

 

[unno-Dey]

Reading the OP, it is


Reading the OP, it is like you are saying that we can't be moral because those are your religion's values. But the are good morals, and the do exist separate from religions. Religions do not have the lock on moral behavior. Empathy and logic about reducing harm to others can lead to good morals. No need to bring evolution into it.

I agree with your point that morals are separate from religions. I have been thinking lately that religions are just the collection of the thoughts of past people that they felt helped them live better lives or make sense of their lives. Religions are just lumps of advice with occasional metaphysical concepts which, again, are there to help people to attempt to make sense of life.

 

[unno-Dey]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in god/s.

Perhaps what she is saying is the idea that it is supposedly hard to prove a negative? (Ok, so, I press the "p" key on my keyboard, attempting to prove the negative that "the 'p' key does not produce a 'k.'" I do it, and I can repeat it...does this count?) I understand that atheism is what you stated it to be. She may have also been thinking about gnostic or agnostic atheists.

 

[unno-Dey]

from a Christian perspective

Aren't there too many denominations to determine what is "Christian" and what is not with absolute certainty?

 

[unno-Dey]

You know, I think this is the best, most succinct answer I have ever seen to this oft asked question. Do you mind if I use it sometime. There you go OP. There is nothing to be gained by evil even though you seem to think there is.

Just make sure you remove the improper apostrophe, it makes atheists look bad.