How To Tell Right From Wrong

[thedoc]

Bullshit. Atheists simply refuse to believe that god does exist, although I'll grant that there is often much confusion amongst theists who can't make the distinction.

"Refuse to Believe", is a belief itself, why is that so hard to understand and accept?

[Obvious Leo]

"Refuse to Believe", is a belief itself, why is that so hard to understand and accept?

The reason why this statement is so hard to understand and accept is because it is false. I refuse to believe that pigs can fly because it contradicts my understanding of aerodynamics and the physiology of pigs. Thus when I say that pigs cannot fly then I am not making a statement of belief. I am drawing a logical conclusion from the evidence which may in fact be false but since it conforms with the known evidence I stand willing to provisionally accept it as a true statement. In this example the burden of proof lies with those who would claim that pigs can indeed fly because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The cognitive dissonance of theists is breathtaking. If you tell a bloke not to touch the wall because the paint's still wet there's every likelihood he'll poke it with his finger just to re-assure himself that you're not pulling his chain. However if you tell him that the entire universe was created by an invisible being whose existence cannot be established then there's a distinct possibility that he might believe you without questioning this.

Understanding the nature of belief is simply a question of understanding the evolution of the human mind. Irrationality is a distinctly human characteristic related to our evolution as a social species. Shared myths are what binds us as a society and such myths serve to distinguish US from THEM. It's not hard to see how this could have provided some human societies with a selective advantage over others so the myths themselves become self-reinforcing over time to the point where they can masquerade as truth.

Don't you think it's time we grew up?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you dare to suggest that the Christians were conforming to a higher morality than the godless heathen?

I can tell you, from a Christian perspective, why what they were doing was wrong.

All I ask is that you tell me, from an atheist perspective....wait...what is it atheist believe about that?

Well, tell me why, anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not making a statement of belief.

Hey, that's amazing...both False Dichotomy and False Analogy in one paragraph. Nice work.

If you're operating scientifically, then what's your evidentiary standard for the non-existence of God? What would make atheism verifiable or falsifiable?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

This was untrue when it was said, and hasn't become any truer since you borrowed it. I would have to do very little to prove to you the extraordinary claim that pigs can fly. If I showed you any actual evidence of just one flying pig, you lose.

Understanding the nature of belief is simply a question of understanding the evolution of the human mind. Irrationality is a distinctly human characteristic related to our evolution as a social species. Shared myths are what binds us as a society and such myths serve to distinguish US from THEM. It's not hard to see how this could have provided some human societies with a selective advantage over others so the myths themselves become self-reinforcing over time to the point where they can masquerade as truth.

Wait a minute..."shared myths are what binds us as a society, and give us a selective advantage? Yet are you trying to deprive homo sapiens of their "evolution-supporting" myths? How genocidal is that?

You can't even keep your evolutionary just-so stories straight so they can seem to support what you're claiming.

Don't you think it's time we grew up?

Don't you mean "evolved"? But wait...we evolved by helpful myths...And we'll lose our "selective advantage"...You're trying to kill us all...

[Immanuel Can]

Ah yes..it is news to me.....

Well, I'm still waiting for the "news" of how you personally justify any "standard." You've never replied. You've claimed several times now you do it, but you've never gone one step in showing you're justified in doing it.

But I'm a patient waiter. I won't forget.

[Obvious Leo]

All I ask is that you tell me, from an atheist perspective....wait...what is it atheist believe about that?

There's no such thing as an atheist perspective. I reckon killing people is wrong and using a non-existent being to justify such behaviour is even more wrong. Belief in god is inherently immoral because it transfers the burden of moral culpability onto a non-existent being. That countless billions of human lives have been needlessly wasted over the past few millennia is a complete and adequate proof of this proposition.

[artisticsolution]

Belief in god is inherently immoral because it transfers the burden of moral culpability onto a non-existent being. That countless billions of human lives have been needlessly wasted over the past few millennia is a complete and adequate proof of this proposition.

Not always, Leo. While it's mostly true...that Christians as a whole follow the 'rules de jour', there are a few, who admit the truth , that atheist's have a valid point.

This type of Christian does not wish to cause harm to anyone. ..it is enough for them to walk alone in kindness ...even if it means going against the people they love.

This type of Christian, is not a Christian who rally around a group think mentality but rather chooses to simply allow others the lifestyle they wish to live as long as no harm is done. okay...I'll admit I haven't met this type of Christian except for Jesus. ..lol ..but still...that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ..lol

It is not ' faith' so much as it is, a feeling. I don't know what atheist said this but it had something to do with feeling ' grateful ' to something or someone when he viewed something beautiful or magestic...and that he didn't know who or why he had that 'feeling. ' That is the same feeling I have....I was just taught from birth it was God. That is not my fault.

However, that is where the group think ends....I do not condone the Christian mentality that serves it's own purpose by harming others. And what really ticks me off is like you say...they hide behind God to do it.

That is some jacked up shit.

[Immanuel Can]

inherently immoral

Flesh out that idea for me...what is "inherently" immoral? By what rational process does one justify such a judgment?

[artisticsolution]

Ah yes..it is news to me.....

Well, I'm still waiting for the "news" of how you personally justify any "standard." You've never replied. You've claimed several times now you do it, but you've never gone one step in showing you're justified in doing it.

But I'm a patient waiter. I won't forget.

I have answered thst question already...in every way I can think of...it is useless as you either can't understand or you are just being a dick.

[artisticsolution]

inherently immoral

Flesh out that idea for me...what is "inherently" immoral? By what rational process does one justify such a judgment?

He just told you in the entire sentence! Quote the entire sentence of Leo's, instead of just 2 words! How dishonest can you be?!

[Immanuel Can]

Bullshit. Atheists simply refuse to believe that god does exist, although I'll grant that there is often much confusion amongst theists who can't make the distinction.

"Refuse to Believe", is a belief itself, why is that so hard to understand and accept?

Did you notice Obvious Leo's evolutionary "just so" story? He says,

...Shared myths are what binds us as a society and such myths serve to distinguish US from THEM. It's not hard to see how this could have provided some human societies with a selective advantage over others so the myths themselves become self-reinforcing over time...

Did you notice he believes this? And note further, that there is not a stitch of historical evidence that this is how morality came to be. It is, by the very sunniest accounts, a mere anthropological guess, based on nothing more than that it seems [to people who want it to be true] that it might have happened that way. And he's willing to gamble his entire future on the mere possibility that this myth might somehow turn out to be right.

But if Leo's right, then such "beliefs" are simply totally irrational. Yet he's got to be wrong, as he has just demonstrated, that people can simply get through life without believing anything. He's been unable to get through three messages without believing things.

[Immanuel Can]

He just told you in the entire sentence! Quote the entire sentence of Leo's, instead of just 2 words! How dishonest can you be?!

I don't need his entire sentence, because the rest of it makes no sense with the word "inherently."

"Inherently" (check your dictionary) means, "in itself," or "in essence." But how can a thing be wrong "in itself," if there are no objective moral standards? For then NOTHING can be wrong -- in itself, or any other way.

And on that topic, I'm still waiting for your answer as to how you justify your standards. And I notice you are not even willing to try to answer. I wonder why...

[Obvious Leo]

inherently immoral

Flesh out that idea for me...what is "inherently" immoral? By what rational process does one justify such a judgment?

If you're going to quote me then do so honestly. I answered this question.

Belief in god is inherently immoral because it transfers the burden of moral culpability onto a non-existent being.

Thank you IC, for pointing out the hypocrisy of this poster.

[Immanuel Can]

Belief in god is inherently immoral because it transfers the burden of moral culpability onto a non-existent being.

I saw. But you haven't done anything at all to show that on an atheist account...or on your account, if you prefer...that a) a burden of moral accountability actually exists, or b) that it's "immoral" to "transfer" such burdens, or c) that belief in supposedly "non-existent" beings is even, in any moral sense, "wrong." And you've done nothing to expound what "intrinsic" property of this situation warrants your claim that it's immoral.

There's nothing dishonest about pointing out these four great incoherences in your position instead of blithely pretending you've explained them when you clearly have not. I'd be dishonest to pretend I didn't see the bluff there.

[Obvious Leo]

a) a burden of moral accountability actually exists,

I accept that all human beings are morally accountable to each other for their actions. Obviously this eradicates such notions as an "absolute" morality.

b) that it's "immoral" to "transfer" such burdens,

Are you suggesting otherwise?

c) that belief in supposedly "non-existent" beings is even, in any moral sense, "wrong."

At no stage have I ever suggested that a belief in a non-existent being is wrong. I merely regard it as infantile and unworthy of an examined mind.