Anonymous wrote:Well, crazy faux-atheist, you can't force the rest of us to change our definitions of atheism. Words mean what most people take them to mean. That's how language works. Can yourself a cow for all I care but if it mattered to me I would mention to you that you aren't a cow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm not drawing a line. I believe both religious people are nuts and atheists who believe in morals are nuts. There is no god and there are no morals. God and morals are both fairy tales. I'm a real atheist, not some mamby pamby atheist who makes up morals. And I certainly don't believe in God.

You don't get to appropriate the word atheist for yourself, change the meaning to add "no morals," and then call yourself a true atheist against most atheists who believe in morals.

If you're not just trying to make atheists look bad, I wonder if your anger stems from your inability to completely squash the internal voice you have telling you that some things are morally right and wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if tomorrow someone were able to prove that there was never a Jesus Christ, a Buddha, a Mohammed, etc. Definitively. What would believers do?

As an atheist, I would not change anything I am doing. I still would value life, work towards a fairer and more verdant planet, and hope to leave the world better that I found it.

I don't believe in Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and never believed in that trash. As an atheist, I personally would not still value life, etc. I'm going to get whatever fun and pleasure I can while I can get it. And this is not because I don't believe in God. Its because I want what is good for me and see no reason not to want it and take it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if tomorrow someone were able to prove that there was never a Jesus Christ, a Buddha, a Mohammed, etc. Definitively. What would believers do?

As an atheist, I would not change anything I am doing. I still would value life, work towards a fairer and more verdant planet, and hope to leave the world better that I found it.

I don't believe in Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and never believed in that trash. As an atheist, I personally would not still value life, etc. I'm going to get whatever fun and pleasure I can while I can get it. And this is not because I don't believe in God. Its because I want what is good for me and see no reason not to want it and take it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why should I be the one to get the hell out of there? I want to stay where I am. And we all know how effective it is to call the police. NOT! It would be much cleaner just to kill him.

Are you telling me that this is an example of "healthy" reasoning vs. moral reasoning? Your argument sounds crazy and bitter, not healthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm not drawing a line. I believe both religious people are nuts and atheists who believe in morals are nuts. There is no god and there are no morals. God and morals are both fairy tales. I'm a real atheist, not some mamby pamby atheist who makes up morals. And I certainly don't believe in God.

You don't get to appropriate the word atheist for yourself, change the meaning to add "no morals," and then call yourself a true atheist against most atheists who believe in morals.

If you're not just trying to make atheists look bad, I wonder if your anger stems from your inability to completely squash the internal voice you have telling you that some things are morally right and wrong.

Anonymous wrote:So, if tomorrow someone were able to prove that there was never a Jesus Christ, a Buddha, a Mohammed, etc. Definitively. What would believers do?

As an atheist, I would not change anything I am doing. I still would value life, work towards a fairer and more verdant planet, and hope to leave the world better that I found it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why should I be the one to get the hell out of there? I want to stay where I am. And we all know how effective it is to call the police. NOT! It would be much cleaner just to kill him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm not drawing a line. I believe both religious people are nuts and atheists who believe in morals are nuts. There is no god and there are no morals. God and morals are both fairy tales. I'm a real atheist, not some mamby pamby atheist who makes up morals. And I certainly don't believe in God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm not drawing a line. I believe both religious people are nuts and atheists who believe in morals are nuts. There is no god and there are no morals. God and morals are both fairy tales. I'm a real atheist, not some mamby pamby atheist who makes up morals. And I certainly don't believe in God.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

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 wrote: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.