Ask an atheist!

[andross77]

It's not likely. This thread's become a bicker-fest.

good excuse. well that's 2 separate threads where atheists could not answer my simple moral question. Hopefully that fact is enlightening to some. Thanks for that Bran.

 

[Yekcidmij]

good excuse. well that's 2 separate threads where atheists could not answer my simple moral question. Hopefully that fact is enlightening to some. Thanks for that Bran.

I actually agree with her. Why would she want to respond after seeing what 2 clowns on this thread have already done to each other as fellow believers?

And you make a serous mistake when you assume that she doesn't answer because she isn't able. It's either one or 2 fallacies called: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" where you assume that her not-answering is caused by her having no valid response at all, or "hasty generalization" where you jump to a conclusion....take your pick, either way it's wrong.

 

[frenzy]

Are there any atheists still willing to answer questions? I've got a few if there is. I enjoy a lively debate, but I won't bring any drama . If you'd rather pm me, thats cool too.

 

[andross77]

I actually agree with her. Why would she want to respond after seeing what 2 clowns on this thread have already done to each other as fellow believers?

And you make a serous mistake when you assume that she doesn't answer because she isn't able. It's either one or 2 fallacies called: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" where you assume that her not-answering is caused by her having no valid response at all, or "hasty generalization" where you jump to a conclusion....take your pick, either way it's wrong.

lol, for the sake of debate but ultimately for the sake of truth, people should be able to get past petty arguments that did not concern them and try and answer the question. When they don't, the only valid assumption is that they can't.

Spreading the "truth" of the atheist worldview should be more important to these atheists than whether they respond to someone they like or don't like. Regardless of the two argument types you listed, it's still a fact that the past 2 threads have left atheists UNABLE to answer my moral question. If they would just answer it sufficiently i would leave. But the fact is they can't, b/c they lack an answer to the moral question using their atheist worldview.

thanks for adding nothing to the discussion...

 

[HannahBanana]

Are there any atheists still willing to answer questions? I've got a few if there is. I enjoy a lively debate, but I won't bring any drama . If you'd rather pm me, thats cool too.

I'm willing. Would it be okay if I answered them in this thread, or should I start my own (new) thread?

 

[HannahBanana]

lol, for the sake of debate but ultimately for the sake of truth, people should be able to get past petty arguments that did not concern them and try and answer the question. When they don't, the only valid assumption is that they can't.

Spreading the "truth" of the atheist worldview should be more important to these atheists than whether they respond to someone they like or don't like. Regardless of the two argument types you listed, it's still a fact that the past 2 threads have left atheists UNABLE to answer my moral question. If they would just answer it sufficiently i would leave. But the fact is they can't, b/c they lack an answer to the moral question using their atheist worldview.

thanks for adding nothing to the discussion...

So you think that pushiness is a good thing? And you think that all atheists are pushy? Mind if I ask why you think those things?

Also, I would be willing to answer your question. What is it?

 

[Yekcidmij]

thanks for adding nothing to the discussion...

....... ....... .......

 

[andross77]

So you think that pushiness is a good thing? And you think that all atheists are pushy? Mind if I ask why you think those things?

Also, I would be willing to answer your question. What is it?

don't try to twist my words. It's not "pushiness" that is a virtue, but spreading truth. As an atheist, you must believe you have the correct ("truthful") worldview. So if you DON'T share it with others, you can be considered mean and selfish. Don't try and twist it and say that tolerance and letting everyone think/do/say/act however they want and i won't interfere is the greatest virtue, b/c it's clearly not.

So i'm saying as an atheist, just like as a christian, you should want others to come to the truth. You should want christians to stop believing in a god that doesn't exist and accept reality as it is, which consists of this life on earth. I, as a christian, want atheists to stop believing the lie that man is the measure of all things, all matter just exploded and came from nothing, and once we die we cease to exist, and come to know a loving, personal God who died for our sins to bring us back into right relationship with him.

See how that works?

My question, which is stated multiple times in this thread and in another thread is this:

An atheist stated that he knew that "kicking a puppy" was wrong. So i asked him how. No response.

So my question is, if i think kicking a puppy is ok, who are you to tell me it's not ok? I assume you have two choices of answer: 1) society says that "kicking a puppy" is not ok (we could be talking about other things, "much more evil", but we will leave it at "kicking a puppy") or 2) you have no way of telling ME it's wrong to "kick a puppy".

Problem with answer #1 is that society is made up of individuals like you and me. So if i come to power (see become President/King/Dictator/Senator or whatever) and decide to pass a law that says kicking a puppy is ok, you have to accept it since your morals are based on society.

But then you might say, "I just know deep down inside that kicking a puppy is wrong and no matter what anyone says, i won't say it's ok". This is also unlivable b/c each person in the world could use the same logic and then there would be chaos. You would say it's wrong. I would say deep down i know it's right. And there is no rule to decide who is right.

And if you settle for answer #2 you just prove to yourself and everyone that Atheism is not a valid worldview since it can't answer the moral question.

So i sincerely await your response. I don't want to hear from the peanut gallery that i'm being mean. And i hope you don't run away like the last 2 atheists in this thread and the other. If an atheist can give me a good response to the moral question i will have much to think about.

Blessings.

 

[andross77]

....... ....... .......

and your attempt at comedy proves again, you add nothing to this discussion.

 

[HannahBanana]

don't try to twist my words. It's not "pushiness" that is a virtue, but spreading truth. As an atheist, you must believe you have the correct ("truthful") worldview. So if you DON'T share it with others, you can be considered mean and selfish. Don't try and twist it and say that tolerance and letting everyone think/do/say/act however they want and i won't interfere is the greatest virtue, b/c it's clearly not.

So i'm saying as an atheist, just like as a christian, you should want others to come to the truth. You should want christians to stop believing in a god that doesn't exist and accept reality as it is, which consists of this life on earth. I, as a christian, want atheists to stop believing the lie that man is the measure of all things, all matter just exploded and came from nothing, and once we die we cease to exist, and come to know a loving, personal God who died for our sins to bring us back into right relationship with him.

See how that works?

My question, which is stated multiple times in this thread and in another thread is this:

An atheist stated that he knew that "kicking a puppy" was wrong. So i asked him how. No response.

So my question is, if i think kicking a puppy is ok, who are you to tell me it's not ok? I assume you have two choices of answer: 1) society says that "kicking a puppy" is not ok (we could be talking about other things, "much more evil", but we will leave it at "kicking a puppy") or 2) you have no way of telling ME it's wrong to "kick a puppy".

Problem with answer #1 is that society is made up of individuals like you and me. So if i come to power (see become President/King/Dictator/Senator or whatever) and decide to pass a law that says kicking a puppy is ok, you have to accept it since your morals are based on society.

But then you might say, "I just know deep down inside that kicking a puppy is wrong and no matter what anyone says, i won't say it's ok". This is also unlivable b/c each person in the world could use the same logic and then there would be chaos. You would say it's wrong. I would say deep down i know it's right. And there is no rule to decide who is right.

And if you settle for answer #2 you just prove to yourself and everyone that Atheism is not a valid worldview since it can't answer the moral question.

So i sincerely await your response. I don't want to hear from the peanut gallery that i'm being mean. And i hope you don't run away like the last 2 atheists in this thread and the other. If an atheist can give me a good response to the moral question i will have much to think about.

Blessings.

Why should I want everyone to share my worldview? Why should I be so narrow-minded as to think that my worldview is the correct worldview for everyone on Earth? Do you not see the inherent problems in that mindset? So why do you expect me, a person who thrives on logic and rationality, to employ such an irrational and illogical mindset?

As for your whole "kicking a puppy" question, my answer is thus: kicking a puppy is only wrong if you think that it's wrong. I'm perfectly fine with others kicking puppies if they feel like doing so, since they're the ones who will have to reap the consequences of those actions. I myself, however, would never kick a puppy, since I think that doing so isn't okay at all.

I hope that answers your question fully. Let me know if it didn't.

 

[andross77]

Why should I want everyone to share my worldview? Why should I be so narrow-minded as to think that my worldview is the correct worldview for everyone on Earth? Do you not see the inherent problems in that mindset? So why do you expect me, a person who thrives on logic and rationality, to employ such an irrational and illogical mindset?

As for your whole "kicking a puppy" question, my answer is thus: kicking a puppy is only wrong if you think that it's wrong. I'm perfectly fine with others kicking puppies if they feel like doing so, since they're the ones who will have to reap the consequences of those actions. I myself, however, would never kick a puppy, since I think that doing so isn't okay at all.

I hope that answers your question fully. Let me know if it didn't.

thanks for answering my question. i'll just respond to your "puppy paragraph" in this post. You missed the entire point. It wasn't about literally kicking puppies. That was just used in place of greater evils.

What if i said it was ok for an adult to have relations with a 17 yr old (or insert the age 1 year younger than the law in whatever country). Or what if i said it was ok to grow and distribute marijuana? Or what if i said it was ok to abort a baby that was in their last trimester?

How would you tell me that is wrong as an atheist? Again, reference my previous post to get the only 2 answers i think available to you. You chose #2 in response to kicking puppies but i assume you will refer to answer #1 once the "stakes are raised".

But when you tell me that government has set the legal age for consenting adults (sexually) and has determined that it is illegal to produce and distribute marijuana and has outlawed late term abortions, that is an insufficient answer. Why? b/c government and society is made up of individuals like you and i. So once there are enough people that think those things are OK, then the laws would be changed and so would your morals. And you can't say that that will NEVER happen b/c you just don't know. And if you use history as your evidence, there is an OBVIOUS slide of morals in this country in terms of family and media.

So, no you did not answer my question sufficiently b/c puppies is not the point of the question. The subject are humans and the point is how you make your moral decisions. As a Christian, I can point to a Moral Law Giver (God) who deals Justly with mankind and is perfect in holiness. What do you, as an atheist, point to for your moral guide?

Blessings.

 

[HannahBanana]

thanks for answering my question. i'll just respond to your "puppy paragraph" in this post. You missed the entire point. It wasn't about literally kicking puppies. That was just used in place of greater evils.

What if i said it was ok for an adult to have relations with a 17 yr old (or insert the age 1 year younger than the law in whatever country). Or what if i said it was ok to grow and distribute marijuana? Or what if i said it was ok to abort a baby that was in their last trimester?

How would you tell me that is wrong as an atheist? Again, reference my previous post to get the only 2 answers i think available to you. You chose #2 in response to kicking puppies but i assume you will refer to answer #1 once the "stakes are raised".

But when you tell me that government has set the legal age for consenting adults (sexually) and has determined that it is illegal to produce and distribute marijuana and has outlawed late term abortions, that is an insufficient answer. Why? b/c government and society is made up of individuals like you and i. So once there are enough people that think those things are OK, then the laws would be changed and so would your morals. And you can't say that that will NEVER happen b/c you just don't know. And if you use history as your evidence, there is an OBVIOUS slide of morals in this country in terms of family and media.

So, no you did not answer my question sufficiently b/c puppies is not the point of the question. The subject are humans and the point is how you make your moral decisions. As a Christian, I can point to a Moral Law Giver (God) who deals Justly with mankind and is perfect in holiness. What do you, as an atheist, point to for your moral guide?

Blessings.

My response to your puppy post applies to any other sort of "wrong-doing" as well. If someone wants to smoke marijuana, then I'm fine with them doing so, since they're the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of doing so. If someone wants to rob a bank, then I'm fine with them doing so as well, since, again, they'll have to deal with the consequences of doing so. As an atheist, I just do what feels right to me (so I guess in that sense that I would be my own moral guide), and many things don't feel right to me, like kicking puppies or smoking marijuana. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to push my morals onto others. As far as I'm concerned, others can do what they want, as long as they're okay with reaping what they sow.

 

[SnapCount]

My response to your puppy post applies to any other sort of "wrong-doing" as well. If someone wants to smoke marijuana, then I'm fine with them doing so, since they're the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of doing so. If someone wants to rob a bank, then I'm fine with them doing so as well, since, again, they'll have to deal with the consequences of doing so. As an atheist, I just do what feels right to me (so I guess in that sense that I would be my own moral guide), and many things don't feel right to me, like kicking puppies or smoking marijuana. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to push my morals onto others. As far as I'm concerned, others can do what they want, as long as they're okay with reaping what they sow.

Injustices happen not because of bad people committing evil acts, but good people doing nothing.

Imagine if people commit atrocities and everyone just look the other way.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

good excuse. well that's 2 separate threads where atheists could not answer my simple moral question. Hopefully that fact is enlightening to some. Thanks for that Bran.

You're cute. Start a new thread that you and Jedi don't plan on whining away, and I'll gladly participate. I just don't feel like sifting through pages of you guys sounding like a married couple to find one particular post.

You can even PM me, if you'd prefer that.

 

[andross77]

My response to your puppy post applies to any other sort of "wrong-doing" as well. If someone wants to smoke marijuana, then I'm fine with them doing so, since they're the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of doing so. If someone wants to rob a bank, then I'm fine with them doing so as well, since, again, they'll have to deal with the consequences of doing so. As an atheist, I just do what feels right to me (so I guess in that sense that I would be my own moral guide), and many things don't feel right to me, like kicking puppies or smoking marijuana. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to push my morals onto others. As far as I'm concerned, others can do what they want, as long as they're okay with reaping what they sow.

YES! Thank you SoAmazing! Your post is EXACTLY what i was looking for and something an "experienced" or "veteran" atheist would NEVER admit to.

So by the bold statement you must be OK if someone broke into your house and killed your parents right? Or if you have a sister or brother, the burglar could break in, rape them, then kill them, and you would be fine with it right? After all, we do what we feel like as long as we are ok with reaping what we sow. And there are plenty of criminals out there that think they are ok with the consequences of rape and murder. What if another atheist just took your opinion as their own that "As an atheist, I just do what feels right to me (so I guess in that sense that I would be my own moral guide)?" What if another atheist that thought that way said that their "moral guide", which is their own self, said it was ok to rape and kill your parents? Could you tell them that is wrong or you don't agree with it? NOPE. You must stand by your statement as an atheist that you do whatever you feel like.

Obviously, i do not believe you would be OK with those things but it proves my point that the Atheistic worldview is a FAILURE. It doesn't stand up b/c i guarantee you would not be fine if someone broke into your house and murdered your parents or your brother or sister or daughter or best friend or boyfriend. But following what you said in your post, especially the bold, you have no reason to complain about anything in life b/c "it is what it is". You have no reason to be sad or angry at what other people do.

You have no basis for saying Pres. Bush was better than Pres. Clinton or vice versa. You have no basis for saying abortion is wrong or smoking weed is wrong. By trying to embrace all ethics you are left with moral bankruptcy.

Thank you SoAmazing and i pray that your eyes will be opened to the total and utter failure of the atheistic worldview to answer the most important questions in life and you come to understand there is a Person who has lovingly given us his Law and provided a WAY for us when we inevitably don't measure up.

Blessings.

 

[andross77]

You're cute. Start a new thread that you and Jedi don't plan on whining away, and I'll gladly participate. I just don't feel like sifting through pages of you guys sounding like a married couple to find one particular post.

You can even PM me, if you'd prefer that.

Have any response to the last 3 or so posts by me and SoAmazing? That way you don't have to sift through a lot of posts and you get to the heart of the issue. If you can answer the moral question better than her, please do. SoAmazing has admitted to the chaotic, unsupported and ultimately untenable nature of the atheistic worldview. Can you provide a more feasible answer to the moral question?

Blessings.

 

[HannahBanana]

Injustices happen not because of bad people committing evil acts, but good people doing nothing.

Imagine if people commit atrocities and everyone just look the other way.

But everyone doesn't share my mindset, though. So why should I even worry about that?

 

[HannahBanana]

YES! Thank you SoAmazing! Your post is EXACTLY what i was looking for and something an "experienced" or "veteran" atheist would NEVER admit to.

So by the bold statement you must be OK if someone broke into your house and killed your parents right? Or if you have a sister or brother, the burglar could break in, rape them, then kill them, and you would be fine with it right? After all, we do what we feel like as long as we are ok with reaping what we sow. And there are plenty of criminals out there that think they are ok with the consequences of rape and murder. What if another atheist just took your opinion as their own that "As an atheist, I just do what feels right to me (so I guess in that sense that I would be my own moral guide)?" What if another atheist that thought that way said that their "moral guide", which is their own self, said it was ok to rape and kill your parents? Could you tell them that is wrong or you don't agree with it? NOPE. You must stand by your statement as an atheist that you do whatever you feel like.

Obviously, i do not believe you would be OK with those things but it proves my point that the Atheistic worldview is a FAILURE. It doesn't stand up b/c i guarantee you would not be fine if someone broke into your house and murdered your parents or your brother or sister or daughter or best friend or boyfriend. But following what you said in your post, especially the bold, you have no reason to complain about anything in life b/c "it is what it is". You have no reason to be sad or angry at what other people do.

You have no basis for saying Pres. Bush was better than Pres. Clinton or vice versa. You have no basis for saying abortion is wrong or smoking weed is wrong. By trying to embrace all ethics you are left with moral bankruptcy.

Thank you SoAmazing and i pray that your eyes will be opened to the total and utter failure of the atheistic worldview to answer the most important questions in life and you come to understand there is a Person who has lovingly given us his Law and provided a WAY for us when we inevitably don't measure up.

Blessings.

I doubt your worldview would stand up to criticism either. So why are you acting as though it's only the atheistic worldview that doesn't stand up to criticism?

EDIT: And I've already tried out Christianity and I know now that it is not the right belief system for me. If you want specific details on why that is, then feel free to PM me.

 

[karisma]

Is it ok if I jump in here and express my atheist/secular humanist views?

Religious people seems to think only in terms of moral absolutes, black and white. In reality, though, morality is relative-relative to human needs. It is about accountability to others. It can be summed up simply as, "Don't deliberately cause harm." Morality is being able to judge the merits of one principle against another in a rational fashion. This is in contrast to the Bible, which leaves no room for ethical dilemmas.

Thou shalt not steal.
-What if my family is starving and the bread owner is charging a ridiculously high price?

There are countless other examples.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

To the puppy question:

First thing first, atheism is not a morally-conscious worldview. It is a lack of belief in gods of any sort. It makes no moral claims and it offers no ethical guidelines. It is not a religion.

A man raised to have a strict moral code but not taught about any gods or religions is an atheist. A man raised to believe in a god but not taught about any moral code is a theist. A man who does not believe in god and straps bombs to dogs to kill people he doesn't like is still an atheist. A man who straps bombs to dogs and sends them into crowds of "infidels" to appease his god is still a theist. See where I'm going with this?

Personally, I adore dogs. I have dogs, I love my dogs, I've never even dreamed of kicking my dogs. I'd would flirt with the idea of kicking someone in the head if I found out they kicked my dogs. I imagine I would come to a better decision than assault, and press charges through our legal system instead.

But then again, I'm a hypocrite. Why? I eat chicken. I know exactly the terrible conditions in which chickens are kept, and I do something far worse than kick them--I allow them to be slaughtered and I eat them. It is my understanding that in some countries and cultures, dogs are eaten. I imagine they're kept in similarly crappy conditions as chickens in our country. Do I storm their borders with an army of bloodhounds and rottweilers to set them free? Well, no, because I respect our differences in cultures. I would submit that you (and most theists) do the same, because I've not heard of any Christian Animal Rescue groups going overseas to witness to dog-eaters because they eat dogs. I wouldn't be surprised, though, of such a group existing in our country that caters to abused dogs of our culture. Why? Because our culture values the rights of animals that we like around us. The Jews hate pigs and Hindus love cows, and the most of us can't relate to either cultural value. Why? Because it's simply not a value our culture.

We're all guilty of some level of moral relativism, which I imagine is the thing you're fishing for here. Unfortunately, this isn't as slippery of a slope as most theists would have it. Kicking (or eating) dogs cannot directly translate to kicking (or eating) human beings which can also not translate to kicking (or eating) leafy greens.

If you want to know what an atheist thinks about any given thing, you’ll have to ask that specific person about that specific question. There is no atheist creed, list of moral guidelines, or ethical codes. I do not feel like I’m personally adrift on a sea of moral indecision, though. I value the things I value because I’ve thought about them and can explain to you the precise whys and hows involved. And I am in no way afraid of admitting that I do not know.

I’ll risk sounding presumptuous for a moment. I’d submit to say that many theists think exactly the same way I do about these things. Their morality does not come from their creed alone, but is only one of the cultural forces at work that affects their moral decisions. This is an issue we can address later if you’d like, though.