Egor - 10 February 2012 11:50 PM

.....They absolutely refuse to look at the implications of their belief system.

...and the implications of your belief is to postpone living your life, waste your time groveling at the feet of something which has no evidence of existing, hoping for an eternal life of groveling at the feet of something which has no evidence of existance…. no thanks.

asanta - 10 February 2012 07:39 PM

Egor, according to your beliefs, if you were to commit a heinous crime, and ask your ‘god’ for forgiveness, that is all that is needed for redemption. There is no need to address the actually people wronged, because you have ‘found Jesus’, and can now go to ‘heaven’ no matter how horrible the crime.

Were I to do something heinous, I would have to live with that fact. There is no ‘get out of jail free’ cop out for me. I would have to address and recompense the actual victim of the crime I have committed to be able to live with myself, and not throw words at an imaginary being. I would have to accept the consequences and pay the cost myself.

What are you talking about? Why would you have to do anything? If atheism is true, it’s not like you’re ever going to go to hell for anything. You may want to repay the victim, but if atheism is true, you certainly don’t have to. The whole point is you don’t have to be moral at all. No one is watching. And in fact, if atheism is true, you can’t be moral, because you are only acting out your genetic programing. You are good because you can’t tollerate being bad. That’s not moral.

Now, one could say the same thing about me: I’m only good because God is watching, so I’m not moral. That’s true. I’m not moral in my nature. My point is that no one is.

But more to the point of the OP, is that you don’t have to be moral. You don’t have to worry about things like that. Nor do you have to worry about fulfilling a purpose, or growing. Life is something you are auditing, not something you are enrolled in.

No, the point is, I have to be accountable for my own actions. I cannot foist it off onto an imaginary being. I am good for goodness sake, not because I am afraid an invisible peeping tom might be angry. If it takes that to give you some modicum of control, then you are the amoral person, not me.

Egor - 10 February 2012 11:50 PM

Really? Who gave it to you? And what good is experiencing life that is not eternal? Seriously, if it’s not eternal, then it’s nothing but loss. If you can’t see that, then you need to think more deeply about it.

Say, I give you a ticket for the movies. Would you refuse it with the argument that the movie will come to an end?

Egor,
What are you talking about? Why would you have to do anything? If atheism is true, it’s not like you’re ever going to go to hell for anything. You may want to repay the victim, but if atheism is true, you certainly don’t have to. The whole point is you don’t have to be moral at all. No one is watching. And in fact, if atheism is true, you can’t be moral, because you are only acting out your genetic programing. You are good because you can’t tollerate being bad. That’s not moral.

Sooooo wrongggggggg!!!!!!!!

Your religion allows for heinous crimes and yet be redeemed.  Atheists have no such convenient out. They have to live with the knowledge of their trespasses until they die.
What is even worse, is the fact that religious people will accept the criminal in their midst, as long as he/she repents, yet you condemn atheists as being immoral just because they don’t believe in a god and therefore no redemption.

Tell me who carries the greater burden of responsibility? Your assumption that a repentent person is “healed” from his sins is not only naive, but is an act of denial. Repentence and redemption is only allowed children, who do not yet know better and need to be taught. For you to compare me to a wanton child is an act of hubris and vanity. If, by your own admission, you want to remain a wanton child, fine have at it. But don’t presume to know the depth of my morality and dictate the way I should live my life.

And if a person is good because he/she won’t tolerate themselves to be bad, THAT IS MORALITY!  Your version of morality is escaping responsibility.
It is you who is the dodger.

Egor - 11 February 2012 12:02 AM

asanta - 10 February 2012 07:39 PM

Egor, according to your beliefs, if you were to commit a heinous crime, and ask your ‘god’ for forgiveness, that is all that is needed for redemption. There is no need to address the actually people wronged, because you have ‘found Jesus’, and can now go to ‘heaven’ no matter how horrible the crime.

Were I to do something heinous, I would have to live with that fact. There is no ‘get out of jail free’ cop out for me. I would have to address and recompense the actual victim of the crime I have committed to be able to live with myself, and not throw words at an imaginary being. I would have to accept the consequences and pay the cost myself.

What are you talking about? Why would you have to do anything? If atheism is true, it’s not like you’re ever going to go to hell for anything. You may want to repay the victim, but if atheism is true, you certainly don’t have to. The whole point is you don’t have to be moral at all. No one is watching. And in fact, if atheism is true, you can’t be moral, because you are only acting out your genetic programing. You are good because you can’t tollerate being bad. That’s not moral.

Now, one could say the same thing about me: I’m only good because God is watching, so I’m not moral. That’s true. I’m not moral in my nature. My point is that no one is.

But more to the point of the OP, is that you don’t have to be moral. You don’t have to worry about things like that. Nor do you have to worry about fulfilling a purpose, or growing. Life is something you are auditing, not something you are enrolled in.

You’re missing the point entirely;being good because of “genetic programing” is good enough in order to live a nice life.Who cares if there is no God to make sure you do it right! Choosing to be moral (if that is even possible) and simply being that way by nature are both workable. It seems Egor, that this debate is centering on wearing a “good guy badge” if you follow; take the case of Asanta claiming she is good for goodness sake - let’s say that you lived on the same street as her,and say you were out of town and your house was being broken into,Asanta saw the crime in process and called the police. That’s a big favor she did you,isn’t it?No miracle is needed to explain it. Would you fault her because she in not religious. I would do the same thing;the motivation comes from basic human emotions (as cliche as that sounds). Lending a helping hand when it is needed is in our genes.

This “helping hand” is practised by many higher order mammals. This is clearly evident in our emotional response to seeing a newborn baby or even an animal. Don’t we love and care for puppies and kittens? Don’t we try to heal a wounded animal?

Frankly I am getting sick of theist’s assertions that man is inherently evil or callous. IMO theists are evil because they can get away with murder in the name of their religion. And if is just murder they can still find forgiveness, redemption, and salvation in repentence. Give me a break!

Anyone who prays but does not receive a reply from God is no different than someone calling out on a HAM radio night after night and never getting a response. They’re wasting their time. God speaks to us in many ways.

The analogy of a HAM radio operator calling out night after night and getting no response is an excellent one for the multitude praying to god (or gods) every second of every day that never get a response. They are indeed wasting their time, so the analogy works.

In what other ways does your god speak to you? Because obviously the HAM radio going out to your god only goes one way and is therefore useless.

I notice you can’t address the point so you attempt an academic bullying in place of admitting ignorance. Fine. But trust me, you’re not talking to one of your students.

No, I was addressing your response which sounded like one a student would give me. It’s a shame that you’re not one, maybe I could help direct you to information that would refute any point you’ve made here. but since you can’t seem to escape your round robin argument about the ethical behavior of a non believer or have the courage to admit that death is the ultimate end of all things, then what’s the point of the discussion? No one here can crack your mindset but you. And BTW, we also don’t run amok because we have civil laws and they are policed by the local and national governments. But, keep your beliefs if they comfort you and live at the foot of your Roman torture device, i ‘ll leave you alone.

Cap’t Jack

The Everyday Atheist - 11 February 2012 05:49 AM

Anyone who prays but does not receive a reply from God is no different than someone calling out on a HAM radio night after night and never getting a response. They’re wasting their time. God speaks to us in many ways.

The analogy of a HAM radio operator calling out night after night and getting no response is an excellent one for the multitude praying to god (or gods) every second of every day that never get a response. They are indeed wasting their time, so the analogy works.

In what other ways does your god speak to you? Because obviously the HAM radio going out to your god only goes one way and is therefore useless.

Excellent point Everyday Atheist.

btw. Welcome to CFI I look forward to your posts.

Egor - 11 February 2012 12:02 AM

What are you talking about? Why would you have to do anything? If atheism is true, it’s not like you’re ever going to go to hell for anything. You may want to repay the victim, but if atheism is true, you certainly don’t have to. The whole point is you don’t have to be moral at all. No one is watching. And in fact, if atheism is true, you can’t be moral, because you are only acting out your genetic programing. You are good because you can’t tollerate being bad. That’s not moral.

Now, one could say the same thing about me: I’m only good because God is watching, so I’m not moral. That’s true. I’m not moral in my nature. My point is that no one is.

But more to the point of the OP, is that you don’t have to be moral. You don’t have to worry about things like that. Nor do you have to worry about fulfilling a purpose, or growing. Life is something you are auditing, not something you are enrolled in.

This is so full of ignorant self serving assumptions its really hard to know where to begin. What makes you think an atheist is any less bound to do the right thing than a believer. For an atheist there is only one lifetime. There is no opportunity to redeem ones self. We are more inclined not less to get it right the first time. As others have said above, we can;t go around killing and raping and then expect absolution from some non-existent being.

What total BS and arrogance it is every time a religious believer claims that atheists can’t be moral. An athiest’s morality is a far more honest morality because its not forced upon them. They perform moral acts because they want to not because they are concerned about eternal damnation. Your comment that no one is moral is incredibly self serving. Perhaps you are such an immoral individual that you need the restriction of religious handcuffs to keep you from committing heinous acts. That doesn’t mean everyone else is. Its just comforting for you to believe everyone else is the same as you because it absolves you of a certain amount of self loathing and guilt. If your argument were true then most crimes would be committed by atheists and in fact just the opposite is true. the vast majority of criminals are believers even before they get to prison where their motives for believing could easily be questioned.

Contrary to your comment that we are auditing life and are not enrolled, reality is just the opposite. We are here for only a short time. There is no afterlife. What greater motivation could there possibly be to make someone fully engaged and enrolled in life?

Egor - 10 February 2012 11:50 PM

If everyone is simply annihilated at death, and eventually the human race will die off—it has too—what’s good about anything you do or leave behind? This is what I will never get about atheists:

They absolutely refuse to look at the implications of their belief system.

I understand you now. You are too weak to accept reality so you wrap yourself in comforting mythology. As Bertrand Russell said, there is something contemptible about people like you. Perhaps it is the smugness of your fear-turned-faith that we find so offensive. Perhaps it is willful ignorance you display while refusing to open your mind to reality that annoys us so much. Perhaps it is your refusal to think outside the narrow confines of your religious views that frustrates us. Perhaps it is the same tired clichés you offer in lieu of reasoning that we find so exasperating. Perhaps it is the combination of all these that make us lose respect for your and your fellow theists.

Egor - 11 February 2012 12:02 AM

What are you talking about? Why would you have to do anything? If atheism is true, it’s not like you’re ever going to go to hell for anything. You may want to repay the victim, but if atheism is true, you certainly don’t have to. The whole point is you don’t have to be moral at all. No one is watching. And in fact, if atheism is true, you can’t be moral, because you are only acting out your genetic programing. You are good because you can’t tollerate being bad. That’s not moral.

Now, one could say the same thing about me: I’m only good because God is watching, so I’m not moral. That’s true. I’m not moral in my nature. My point is that no one is.

But more to the point of the OP, is that you don’t have to be moral. You don’t have to worry about things like that. Nor do you have to worry about fulfilling a purpose, or growing. Life is something you are auditing, not something you are enrolled in.

This doesn’t even make sense. Surely the person “auditing” life is the theist, who is only awaiting death to join God in heaven. Life to the theist is essentially worthless, since the goal of theism is not this life, but the next one in fairyland.

The person truly enrolled in life is the one who lives it for what it is: all that we will ever experience.

GdB - 11 February 2012 12:26 AM

Say, I give you a ticket for the movies. Would you refuse it with the argument that the movie will come to an end?

Funny you should mention that, because who can deny that life is all about the end, just like in a movie. Either we are racing toward annihilation, or we are racing toward judgment. If annihilation, then what we do doesn’t matter. If judgment, then everything we do matters.

Write4U - 11 February 2012 03:42 AM

Your religion allows for heinous crimes and yet be redeemed. 

Yes.

Atheists have no such convenient out.

That’s putting it lightly.

They have to live with the knowledge of their trespasses until they die.

True. And so does the religious person. I’ve never known a religious person who actually cared about sinning who didn’t feel tremendous remorse for the things they had done. Their hope was to be forgiven by God who can forgive all sins and so not be thrown into hell, and also maybe to be able to forget in eternity what happened in the world.

What is even worse, is the fact that religious people will accept the criminal in their midst, as long as he/she repents, yet you condemn atheists as being immoral just because they don’t believe in a god and therefore no redemption.

Absolutely! And not just religious people. People in general would rather be associated with a repentant criminal than a known atheist. That’s because the criminal seems to have a moral foundation. The atheist is just good at the time for no known reason, which means they might not be good five minutes from now. Not to mention, for those who know God, being around an atheist is literally being around someone who is spiritually dead, and that’s just a very negative environment.

Tell me who carries the greater burden of responsibility? Your assumption that a repentent person is “healed” from his sins is not only naive, but is an act of denial. Repentence and redemption is only allowed children, who do not yet know better and need to be taught. For you to compare me to a wanton child is an act of hubris and vanity. If, by your own admission, you want to remain a wanton child, fine have at it. But don’t presume to know the depth of my morality and dictate the way I should live my life.

Well, see, that’s just it. That’s what I was talking about. No one can tell you what is right and wrong. You won’t let them, so you might do anything. You say you are moral, but to most people a person judging themselves as good is not the best character witness. When whatshername says she is good for goodness sake, it’s practically nauseating. In fact, it’s downright scary.

I admit I’m not a good person by nature, but I believe in God. I believe God is watching and wants me to behave a certain way. Other people know that I believe I’m being watched by God all the time, so they trust in my integrity more. Not that I have integrity, but I have God.

Do I have to have that to be good? Yes. Do you? Yes.

And if a person is good because he/she won’t tolerate themselves to be bad, THAT IS MORALITY!  Your version of morality is escaping responsibility.
It is you who is the dodger.

How is my version escaping responsibility? It’s because I am responsible that I am in danger of judgment.

And let me ask you this: If atheism is true, how do you ever come to the notion of something being good or bad? Things would just be what they are—no right or wrong about it.

Write4U - 11 February 2012 04:21 AM

This “helping hand” is practised by many higher order mammals. This is clearly evident in our emotional response to seeing a newborn baby or even an animal. Don’t we love and care for puppies and kittens? Don’t we try to heal a wounded animal?

Yes we do. Don’t we build chemical weapons and nuclear bombs and drop them on those same puppies and kittens and newborn babies? I find your statement about our innate goodness particularly appalling juxtaposed to the tortures in Africa where the newborn is cut out of the mother and then tossed up and caught on a bayonet. Or where we good Americans call waterboarding “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

As Marvin Yudal would say, “Sell crazy someplace else. We’re all stocked up here.”

Frankly I am getting sick of theist’s assertions that man is inherently evil or callous. IMO theists are evil because they can get away with murder in the name of their religion. And if is just murder they can still find forgiveness, redemption, and salvation in repentence. Give me a break!

Well, institutionalized religion and those who follow it are pretty jacked. They really aren’t much different than atheists. They say they believe in God, but they live as if He doesn’t exist. So, what’s the difference. But it’s not much better with atheists, because where the religious person can be forgiven, the atheists doesn’t need to be forgiven. So, again, what’s the difference?

The difference is that little word, “repentance.” Do you know what it means?

dougsmith - 11 February 2012 07:57 AM

This doesn’t even make sense. Surely the person “auditing” life is the theist, who is only awaiting death to join God in heaven. Life to the theist is essentially worthless, since the goal of theism is not this life, but the next one in fairyland.

The person truly enrolled in life is the one who lives it for what it is: all that we will ever experience.

I can’t speak for all theists on this one, but only for myself as a Veridican. Life is a training ground; everything is a lesson or a test. If one does not transform into the substance of Christ, spiritually speaking, they will not be able to learn the lessons, pass the tests, or go on to heaven where they are given much more power to create than they have here—kind of like a lucid dream. In death, we do not find God. We only go on to the next phase of existence on our way to a union with God—if we are transformed into Christ before death, that is. If not, well, that’s another topic for another post.