Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Valjean]

Of course .. human beings sin..
However, not all of us commit adultery or fornication routinely.

What makes something a sin?

 

[Polymath257]

All very well in theory, but clearly a problem in practice.
Violence due to sexual rivalry is common.

In societies that encourage that by their oppressive policies, yes. Maybe if it wasn't made such a big deal, that wouldn't happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is very easy to understand, but notoriously difficult to prove.

You said "That is why all of those who condemn sexual activity should just mind their own business."
Those in authority can't really mind their own business .. they have a job to do.

As we've seen, illegalizing sex outside of marriage
causes its own problems, eg, people being prosecuted
& severely punished for it. We already have too many
people in prison. I see no benefit to increasing that
population for a victimless "crime".

 

[Polymath257]

BBC News - Why do so few rape cases go to court?

And how is that a consequence of non monogamy? It looks like it is more an administrative problem.

Of course they don't !
It was easier for the police when the institution of marriage was the norm.

Not really. Rape by spouces was simply ignored then. I guess it's easier when you ignore the problems.

 

[Valjean]

The claim that primitive life forms kept falling uphill into more complex forms as an unplanned, unaided phenomenon.

Do you know why this is claimed? Have you read or seen the evidence? Do you understand the proposed mechanisms? Do you know of any other possible mechanisms?

 

[Revoltingest]

And how is that a consequence of non monogamy? It looks like it is more an administrative problem.

Not really. Rape by spouces was simply ignored then. I guess it's easier when you ignore the problems.

Are you posting from a phone?
Having trouble discerning which words you mean.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, consider the scenarios I just posed...
If the results of actions are the same, whether
our existence is physical or non-physical, thus
there is no perceivable difference.
By Occam's razor, I can reduce it all to one
kind of existence. I label it "physical".

I don't label our existence anything, other than we are in the world. And what the world is, is also a label, so I don't do that.
I list human experiences and how we make sense of them.
You have your philosophical beliefs and system. I have mine.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't label our existence anything, other than we are in the world. And what the world is, is also a label, so I don't do that.
I list human experiences and how we make sense of them.
You have your philosophical beliefs and system. I have mine.

What difference is there between the systems?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What difference is there between the systems?

You describe the world as such. I describe how it is to be a human in it.
Yours is one philosophical approach, where we know what the world is as such. Mine doesn't do that, it tells you how we experience the world as being part of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No sex before marriage is a safer option.

The risks of premarital sex are acceptable. The risk of buying a pig in a poke isn't. BTDT.

By their fruits one can distinguish human self-will from Gods will.

I've never seen or heard of any act from any human being that was distinguishable from human will.

You don't even believe in Jesus

Why would that matter?

The atheist doctrine that life invented itself isn't critical thinking.

There are no atheist doctrines. What isn't critical thinking is ruling the option out without cause.

“The mechanistic philosopher professes to reject the idea of a universal and sovereign will, the very sovereign will whose activity in the elaboration of universe laws he so deeply reverences. What unintended homage the mechanist pays the law-Creator when he conceives such laws to be self-acting and self-explanatory!”

There is no reason to believe that nature has a will. This writer slips his god into the issue and claims that others are giving homage to it when they are doing the opposite as I am.

Atheists certainly aren’t reliable sources for spiritual truth.

If you're worshiping gods that you believe created or run nature, you have nothing to teach this humanist about spirituality, but might be able to learn a thing or two from.

Spirituality is unrelated to spirits, and belief in them can impede an authentic spiritual experience of nature, which includes a pleasant sense of connection and belonging, and which is attended by feelings of mystery, awe, and gratitude. The Abrahamic religions have stripped nature of its sacred nature and vested it in an imagined god that it is taught lives outside of nature and intends to destroy it, and which give commands and rules over an afterlife. They teach that matter is base, the world a place to avoid, the flesh vile, and the mind raided by a demon trying to steal one's soul, leaving many adherents living life as it has no meaning without an afterlife and as if they are waiting at a cosmic bus stop to be "spirited" off to somewhere better. How is any of that spiritual? It's not. It's the description of alienation.

 

[Revoltingest]

You describe the world as such. I describe how it is to be a human in it.

Any practical difference there?

Yours is one philosophical approach, where we know what the world is as such. Mine doesn't do that, it tells you how we experience the world as being part of it.

Sounds like feckless navel gazing to me.
Do you belong to the Philosophers Union?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Any practical difference there?

Sounds like feckless navel gazing to me.
Do you belong to the Philosophers Union?

Yeah, that is a feeling in you. I feel differently.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you posting from a phone?
Having trouble discerning which words you mean.

Yes, I was....grrrr

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

“The mechanistic philosopher professes to reject the idea of a universal and sovereign will, the very sovereign will whose activity in the elaboration of universe laws he so deeply reverences. What unintended homage the mechanist pays the law-Creator when he conceives such laws to be self-acting and self-explanatory!” UB 1955

Well, if there's one thing at which you appear to have acquired real mastery, it is eisegesis -- the "interpretation of text by reading in one's own ideas." That is, the opposite of exegesis -- meaning you totally failed to understand the meaning of my words, and did so deliberately.

 

[Colt]

Do you know why this is claimed? Have you read or seen the evidence? Do you understand the proposed mechanisms? Do you know of any other possible mechanisms?

Which mechanisms are you referring to?

 

[Valjean]

Which mechanisms are you referring to?

The chemical mechanisms observed to form the constituents of life.

 

[We Never Know]

So that's where you can be found when you aren't on RF.

Nah. You wanted the address so I looked at up for you. Have fun when you go now that you have the address.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sexual jealousy and rivalries are not universal problems.

That's absurd .. it's a major problem in the "West", where marriage is becoming
"unfashionable".
Most murder mysteries are about greed of money and/or sex.
..crime of passion bla bla..

Don't judge other cultures by your own. If you want to solve a social problem, look to a society where it doesn't exist..

..such as?

 

[muhammad_isa]

In societies that encourage that by their oppressive policies, yes.

That's a poor excuse.
What "oppressive policies" are there in the UK?
People are free to go to licensed bars and clubs until early hours of the morning,
and get up to whatever they like [in bed] when they go home.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As we've seen, illegalizing sex outside of marriage
causes its own problems, eg, people being prosecuted
& severely punished for it. We already have too many
people in prison. I see no benefit to increasing that
population for a victimless "crime".

Nor do I see any benefit in imprisoning people for sexual misdemeanours.
I believe in capital punishment for rape.

However, if anybody commits false witness, that is a very serious crime.
The punishment would be as if they committed the crime that they accused another.