13
StephenB
08/01/2011
4:45 pm
The good news is that atheists can claim to be just as moral as anyone else.
The bad news is that they define morality to mean any behavior that they happen to feel comfortable with. Their undemanding and subjective moral standard provides them with a sweet exemption from the demanding standards of objective morality–or at least they delude themselves to that extent.
Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. As someone once said, “If you hit the ten ring every time, you are standing too close to the target.”
And:
25
Bantay
08/02/2011
3:01 am
Elizabeth says here @21
“Atheism is, simply, a-theism. Atheist, not being believers in god or gods do not accept god or gods as a basis for ethics.”
Elizabeth,you aren’t trying to trot out the atheist back-door excuse of “lack of belief” are you? Surely you know people are not so naive as to believe that? Come now, be honest. We both know that the term atheism is formed by the prefix “a” (meaning “without”) and implied to mean “no”,and “theos” (referring to God in most circles). The term “lack of belief” has no etymological basis for being associated with the term “atheism”. When it is used in the sense of “lack of belief”, it is used improperly, dishonestly and with the sole intention of evading epistemic responsibility.
Even if it did literally mean what you say and wish it meant, it is nearly always used in the sense of the Judeo-Christian God not existing. Until you can provide a reasonable association between Thor, Zeus and the Judeo-Christian God (impossible since the Judeo-Christian God is qualitatively distinct from so-called Thor and Zeus), the atheist has an epistemological responsibility equal to the theist of providing a positive case for the literal and implied view that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist.
Trying to associate Zeus and Thor with the Judeo-Christian God is also dishonest. It’s deceptive because you yourself already know that Thor and Zeus are mythological figures. But you do not know with the same certainly that Thor and Zeus have the same characteristics as the Judeo-Christian God and are equally comparable.
What does this have to do with atheists being moral or immoral? Well I tend to think that this whole “lack of belief in God” definition of atheism is simply dishonest. It’s a lie. You aren’t lying to us are you?. You aren’t trying to be dishonest with us in attempting to perpetuate the “atheism is lack of belief” myth are you?
From this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/are-atheists-immoral-2/#comment-393472
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "morality" of religious zealots leaves a lot to be desired.
And the "Judeo-Christian God" isn't mythological, like Thor and Zeus? ROFLMAO! Speaking of "evading epistemic responsibility."
StephenB
08/01/2011
4:45 pm
The good news is that atheists can claim to be just as moral as anyone else.
The bad news is that they define morality to mean any behavior that they happen to feel comfortable with. Their undemanding and subjective moral standard provides them with a sweet exemption from the demanding standards of objective morality–or at least they delude themselves to that extent.
Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. As someone once said, “If you hit the ten ring every time, you are standing too close to the target.”
And:
25
Bantay
08/02/2011
3:01 am
Elizabeth says here @21
“Atheism is, simply, a-theism. Atheist, not being believers in god or gods do not accept god or gods as a basis for ethics.”
Elizabeth,you aren’t trying to trot out the atheist back-door excuse of “lack of belief” are you? Surely you know people are not so naive as to believe that? Come now, be honest. We both know that the term atheism is formed by the prefix “a” (meaning “without”) and implied to mean “no”,and “theos” (referring to God in most circles). The term “lack of belief” has no etymological basis for being associated with the term “atheism”. When it is used in the sense of “lack of belief”, it is used improperly, dishonestly and with the sole intention of evading epistemic responsibility.
Even if it did literally mean what you say and wish it meant, it is nearly always used in the sense of the Judeo-Christian God not existing. Until you can provide a reasonable association between Thor, Zeus and the Judeo-Christian God (impossible since the Judeo-Christian God is qualitatively distinct from so-called Thor and Zeus), the atheist has an epistemological responsibility equal to the theist of providing a positive case for the literal and implied view that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist.
Trying to associate Zeus and Thor with the Judeo-Christian God is also dishonest. It’s deceptive because you yourself already know that Thor and Zeus are mythological figures. But you do not know with the same certainly that Thor and Zeus have the same characteristics as the Judeo-Christian God and are equally comparable.
What does this have to do with atheists being moral or immoral? Well I tend to think that this whole “lack of belief in God” definition of atheism is simply dishonest. It’s a lie. You aren’t lying to us are you?. You aren’t trying to be dishonest with us in attempting to perpetuate the “atheism is lack of belief” myth are you?
From this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/are-atheists-immoral-2/#comment-393472
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "morality" of religious zealots leaves a lot to be desired.
And the "Judeo-Christian God" isn't mythological, like Thor and Zeus? ROFLMAO! Speaking of "evading epistemic responsibility."
