Do atheists have souls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with a logical atheist^^ the posters point is way more scientific and logical . What is a goofier religion than an atheist with some dumb opinion on what he feels is moral or good? Some atheist people have violence and power in the good column and if they can kill you then I guess they are the ones who are right.

Explain the logical connection between the premise "When we die, there is no afterlife and no supreme being," to "There are no morals"?

Morals without a creator or afterlife are individual. If one persons morals include killing people who get in his way then it is equally valid to any other. Anything otherwise is the "feelings"'of a separate essentially worthless being.

If there is no creator, is it still not true that 1+1=2? There can be objective external truths without a creator. And people will disagree about what is moral even within one region. Is doesn't t mean there isn't a truth to the matter; it means we may not be right about the truth and should be humble.

I agree that you don't need a creator for a traacendent moral law to exist, much like math does for those who think that math facts are discovered and not invented. However, presupposing such a Moral Law (not fully known by anyone but existing) already puts you outside of a purely evidence-based naturalistic universe.

There are truths. 1+1=2. However, there is nothing "true" about whether or not it is right to lie, whether or not it is right to kill, etc. These things are all fairy tales. If you look at animals, and they do whatever you call "wrong" all the time, then you are making up a fairy tale about right/wrong just as surely as religious people are. You might not want to kill because the punishment from other people if you get caught may mean it would be a stupid choice. But that doesn't make it a "wrong" choice. Right and wrong are fairy tales.

[Anonymous]

Only if they have feet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with a logical atheist^^ the posters point is way more scientific and logical . What is a goofier religion than an atheist with some dumb opinion on what he feels is moral or good? Some atheist people have violence and power in the good column and if they can kill you then I guess they are the ones who are right.

Explain the logical connection between the premise "When we die, there is no afterlife and no supreme being," to "There are no morals"?

Morals without a creator or afterlife are individual. If one persons morals include killing people who get in his way then it is equally valid to any other. Anything otherwise is the "feelings"'of a separate essentially worthless being.

You've clearly never taken a college philosophy class. Freshmen can reason better than this.

Go back to church, dear. They'll tell you what to do. It's a good thing that someone will because you're aren't capable of figuring it out for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they don't. Nobody has souls. We are all just animals and will soon be dead. There are no morals. There is no reason to be good. I try to get as much fun and pleasure out of this freaky thing that feels like existance but is not while I can.

It's funny. I know a lot of atheists and agnostics and none of them believe there are no morals or no reason to be good. Those two things don't require a supreme being.

Sometimes I wonder if there is someone on here who is not an atheist but who is trying to make atheists look bad.

I'm an atheist and I believe there are no morals. I think atheists like to have morals so that religious people won't look down on them. But I am not burdened by that. I don't care what a bunch of freaks who believe in fairy tales think about me. There are no morals. Why would there be morals? It is ridiculous.

Because you are troop primate who lives in social groups. If you don't engage in pro-social behavior and avoid anti-social behavior, the other primates are going to kick your ass.

Any other questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with a logical atheist^^ the posters point is way more scientific and logical . What is a goofier religion than an atheist with some dumb opinion on what he feels is moral or good? Some atheist people have violence and power in the good column and if they can kill you then I guess they are the ones who are right.

Explain the logical connection between the premise "When we die, there is no afterlife and no supreme being," to "There are no morals"?

Morals without a creator or afterlife are individual. If one persons morals include killing people who get in his way then it is equally valid to any other. Anything otherwise is the "feelings"'of a separate essentially worthless being.

You've clearly never taken a college philosophy class. Freshmen can reason better than this.

Go back to church, dear. They'll tell you what to do. It's a good thing that someone will because you're aren't capable of figuring it out for yourself.

hahaha... college philosophy class! that's a funny religion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with a logical atheist^^ the posters point is way more scientific and logical . What is a goofier religion than an atheist with some dumb opinion on what he feels is moral or good? Some atheist people have violence and power in the good column and if they can kill you then I guess they are the ones who are right.

Explain the logical connection between the premise "When we die, there is no afterlife and no supreme being," to "There are no morals"?

Morals without a creator or afterlife are individual. If one persons morals include killing people who get in his way then it is equally valid to any other. Anything otherwise is the "feelings"'of a separate essentially worthless being.

You've clearly never taken a college philosophy class. Freshmen can reason better than this.

Go back to church, dear. They'll tell you what to do. It's a good thing that someone will because you're aren't capable of figuring it out for yourself.

The reason that there are virtually zero female philosophy professors is that philosophy is complete garbage, and women are not as easily fooled as men. Philosophy is a particularly boring, uninformed, ridiculous fairy tale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atheists that accept and embrace their status as equal to that of a worm or rock, get it. The ones with their tiresome feelings and opinions have the most hilarious and unsubstantiated religion on the planet.

word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they don't. Nobody has souls. We are all just animals and will soon be dead. There are no morals. There is no reason to be good. I try to get as much fun and pleasure out of this freaky thing that feels like existance but is not while I can.

It's funny. I know a lot of atheists and agnostics and none of them believe there are no morals or no reason to be good. Those two things don't require a supreme being.

Sometimes I wonder if there is someone on here who is not an atheist but who is trying to make atheists look bad.

I'm an atheist and I believe there are no morals. I think atheists like to have morals so that religious people won't look down on them. But I am not burdened by that. I don't care what a bunch of freaks who believe in fairy tales think about me. There are no morals. Why would there be morals? It is ridiculous.

Because you are troop primate who lives in social groups. If you don't engage in pro-social behavior and avoid anti-social behavior, the other primates are going to kick your ass.

Any other questions?

Just because somebody beats me up because I did something doesn't make what I did "wrong".

[Anonymous]

I think the discussion of "morality" has gone way off base. You don't need religion to have moral reason. Why would you?

If a child is running a fever of 102 and vomiting - you know they are sick don't you? You can quickly discern healthy from unhealthy no matter what religion you are?

In the same manner, you can distinguish healthy from unhealthy actions. How would the tribe survive if killing the members indiscriminately was okay? How would the tribe survive if they couldn't trust each other to tell the truth about things like dangerous animals or places? How could the tribe survive if stealing resources from each other was the rule? It wouldn't survive so you wouldn't be here. The successful tribes are the ones that evolved successful moral values among themselves.

If in later times it was helpful to codify those values into some tale about stone tablets, well - fine. History is full of stories told to explain evolutionary events to the uneducated and gullible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion of "morality" has gone way off base. You don't need religion to have moral reason. Why would you?

If a child is running a fever of 102 and vomiting - you know they are sick don't you? You can quickly discern healthy from unhealthy no matter what religion you are?

In the same manner, you can distinguish healthy from unhealthy actions. How would the tribe survive if killing the members indiscriminately was okay? How would the tribe survive if they couldn't trust each other to tell the truth about things like dangerous animals or places? How could the tribe survive if stealing resources from each other was the rule? It wouldn't survive so you wouldn't be here. The successful tribes are the ones that evolved successful moral values among themselves.

If in later times it was helpful to codify those values into some tale about stone tablets, well - fine. History is full of stories told to explain evolutionary events to the uneducated and gullible.

Why would you call this "moral" reasoning? I think that is misleading. Useful reasoning. Practical reasoning, sure. But what is "moral" about any of these reasonings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion of "morality" has gone way off base. You don't need religion to have moral reason. Why would you?

If a child is running a fever of 102 and vomiting - you know they are sick don't you? You can quickly discern healthy from unhealthy no matter what religion you are?

In the same manner, you can distinguish healthy from unhealthy actions. How would the tribe survive if killing the members indiscriminately was okay? How would the tribe survive if they couldn't trust each other to tell the truth about things like dangerous animals or places? How could the tribe survive if stealing resources from each other was the rule? It wouldn't survive so you wouldn't be here. The successful tribes are the ones that evolved successful moral values among themselves.

If in later times it was helpful to codify those values into some tale about stone tablets, well - fine. History is full of stories told to explain evolutionary events to the uneducated and gullible.

If my husband is hurting me, and I am 100% sure I can kill him without getting caught, then "healthy" reasoning would tell me to kill him while "moral" would tell me not to. That is a fundamental difference. moral reasoning sometimes tells you to do things that actually are not in your own best interest, and sometimes not in anybodies best interest, but that most people would agree are somehow "good".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion of "morality" has gone way off base. You don't need religion to have moral reason. Why would you?

If a child is running a fever of 102 and vomiting - you know they are sick don't you? You can quickly discern healthy from unhealthy no matter what religion you are?

In the same manner, you can distinguish healthy from unhealthy actions. How would the tribe survive if killing the members indiscriminately was okay? How would the tribe survive if they couldn't trust each other to tell the truth about things like dangerous animals or places? How could the tribe survive if stealing resources from each other was the rule? It wouldn't survive so you wouldn't be here. The successful tribes are the ones that evolved successful moral values among themselves.

If in later times it was helpful to codify those values into some tale about stone tablets, well - fine. History is full of stories told to explain evolutionary events to the uneducated and gullible.

If my husband is hurting me, and I am 100% sure I can kill him without getting caught, then "healthy" reasoning would tell me to kill him while "moral" would tell me not to. That is a fundamental difference. moral reasoning sometimes tells you to do things that actually are not in your own best interest, and sometimes not in anybodies best interest, but that most people would agree are somehow "good".

Why would "moral" tell you not to? What is moral about letting someone hurt you?

[Anonymous]

Across cultures and time there has been a general category of acts deemed immoral. This is the case with those who worshiped a sun god and those who worship the Christian God. One general principle is that it is wrong to harm other people.

The "no morals" poster may think that we who believe in morals are crazy but s/he is wrong to draw the line of the argument between believers and not. How does believing in a god change the human sense that certain things are wrong and right? In his/her own obnoxious way, I assume they would just say that believing a book contains with word of god is another form of fairytale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion of "morality" has gone way off base. You don't need religion to have moral reason. Why would you?

If a child is running a fever of 102 and vomiting - you know they are sick don't you? You can quickly discern healthy from unhealthy no matter what religion you are?

In the same manner, you can distinguish healthy from unhealthy actions. How would the tribe survive if killing the members indiscriminately was okay? How would the tribe survive if they couldn't trust each other to tell the truth about things like dangerous animals or places? How could the tribe survive if stealing resources from each other was the rule? It wouldn't survive so you wouldn't be here. The successful tribes are the ones that evolved successful moral values among themselves.

If in later times it was helpful to codify those values into some tale about stone tablets, well - fine. History is full of stories told to explain evolutionary events to the uneducated and gullible.

If my husband is hurting me, and I am 100% sure I can kill him without getting caught, then "healthy" reasoning would tell me to kill him while "moral" would tell me not to. That is a fundamental difference. moral reasoning sometimes tells you to do things that actually are not in your own best interest, and sometimes not in anybodies best interest, but that most people would agree are somehow "good".

What is healthy about killing someone? Wouldn't healthy reasoning be to get the hell out of there? Wouldn't healthy reasoning be to stop what was happening by calling the police? This is a very flawed analogy. Is your husband hurting you?

[Anonymous]

A difference between morals and healthy thinking is this. Many of us are old enough that the effects of global warming will not have much effect until after we die. So why shouldn't we release as much carbon as we can? Sure, our ancestors were nicer than this to us, but I can not help it if they were deluded moralists. They should have grabbed what they could grab. I'm going to grab what I can grab.