Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[F1fan]

..and that is when fornication became "fashionable" .. when the pill was discovered.
"free love" and what have you ..

That happened well before any religions existed. Humans love the feeling of sex, as we evolved that way. Of course religions made sex dirty and sinful, and it's laughable in the 21st century. It was laughable all through history, but when religions had absolute power they could execute anyone for violating "God's rules". Today we have secular government so we have moved past the obsolete and narrow minded laws of gods.

Emotional health is important .. satan only wishes to deceive ..

Oh the irony.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That happened well before any religions existed. Humans love the feeling of sex, as we evolved that way. Of course religions made sex dirty and sinful, and it's laughable in the 21st century..

It is not "laughable"..
We should not behave like animals .. males assaulting each other to "get the girl" etc. ,
which we see every weekend here in the UK in "the 21st. century".
No .. not laughable at all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that is when fornication became "fashionable" .. when the pill was discovered.
"free love" and what have you ..

Life became better with the advent of oral contraceptives. You write "free love" derisively, as if freedom and love are bad things when combined. And the church bristled, not because man would be harmed by sexuality, but because it would lose a measure of control over social mores and the behavior of people and reveal the emptiness of its warnings against sexual liberation.

Emotional health is important

Not to the church. Obedience and submission to its dogma are.

Most all religions are valid approaches to God

But where's the value in pursuing gods? I live outside of that world and find nothing lacking nor any reason to add gods to my life. Why? So I can belong to a religion? So I can spend uncounted, fruitless hours guessing about an imagined ghost? Humanism has produced the most valid approach to understanding and navigating life. It alone has elevated the human condition. It converted the divine right of kings to democracies and with it, elevated people from serf and subject without rights to autonomous citizen with guaranteed personal freedoms. And it converted sterile faith-based pseudosciences like creationism and astrology into science, which has made life longer, safer, more functional, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting.

Convincing someone to reject faith in God and adopt the Atheist doctrines of death is ultimately evil.

Abrahamic religions are centered around a blood sacrifice and the threat of damnation, yet you call freedom from such thinking a death cult. What is more evil than that, or the deity said to have orchestrated it all? Atheism, the result of critical thinking applied to the problem of gods, is liberation from the chains of faith and the comforting, mind-numbing swaddling of Abrahamic religions. It's the blue pill. The path of the red pill is more difficult at first, but makes life easier once one accepts that his consciousness likely ends with death and that there is no god watching over us or judging us. It's easier to believe in a god than not. Being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, nobody watching over you or answering your prayers, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence.

But the reward is well worth making the effort.

God is the creator, this is his world, his will is the way to life eternal weather you like, believe accept or reject it.

Reality is doesn't change because you believe in gods.

When you say "there is no God".

You were asked, "What is the true sense of atheism." That is an inadequate definition of atheism. Atheists reject all god concepts - not just the Abrahamic one named "God" - and the majority of atheists don't claim that gods don't exist, although some specific gods can be ruled out.

The proverb "Wisdom is too high for a fool", is definitely true.

That's your rebuttal? That such ideas as those I named bad or immoral are wisdom, and that those not recognizing that are fools? I think you have that reversed. The advice you call wisdom was pretty foolish. How much of that advice have you rejected yourself? Would you cut off a hand? Play with venomous snakes?

If one wants to hold up his religion's moral precepts as exemplary, he should be able to defend them with more than that.

 

[nPeace]

That sounds about right.

But what I get is not valid evidence, as we've explained about a million times.

No. You do get valid evidence. You just try to deny, or ignore it.
I am going to demonstrate it to you soon. Hold on.

 

[nPeace]

You were asked, "What is the true sense of atheism." That is an inadequate definition of atheism. Atheists reject all god concepts - not just the Abrahamic one named "God" - and the majority of atheists don't claim that gods don't exist, although some specific gods can be ruled out.

The majority of atheists? Hmm. You mean the ones that like the new version of atheism, which is popularized. Um-huh

That's your rebuttal? That such ideas as those I named bad or immoral are wisdom, and that those not recognizing that are fools? I think you have that reversed. The advice you call wisdom was pretty foolish. How much of that advice have you rejected yourself? Would you cut off a hand? Play with venomous snakes?

What would you prefer... that I laugh at your lack of understanding, and the fact that atheists are that desperate?

If one wants to hold up his religion's moral precepts as exemplary, he should be able to defend them with more than that.

Evidently, you are not showing reasonableness.
"Tear out your eye". Lol.
Research hyperbole. I don't think atheist think that does not exist. Lol

 

[nPeace]

@It Aint Necessarily So I'll be fair to you, and just pick one, to demonstrate how it is your lack of understanding.
[3] Matt 8:32 - Having no regard for private property, Jesus destroys a herd of someone else's pigs.
Israelites - Jews - did not raise pigs. It was against the Jewish law.
If you know why Jesus was there, you would understand why Jesus not only was justified in allowing the wicked spirits to destroy the pigs, but you would also understand why he was justified, in overturning the tables of the money-changers in the temple, and driving those merchants out.

I think that should be enough to make you reconsider your confidence on this matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@It Aint Necessarily So I'll be fair to you, and just pick one, to demonstrate how it is your lack of understanding.
[3] Matt 8:32 - Having no regard for private property, Jesus destroys a herd of someone else's pigs.
Israelites - Jews - did not raise pigs. It was against the Jewish law.
If you know why Jesus was there, you would understand why Jesus not only was justified in allowing the wicked spirits to destroy the pigs, but you would also understand why he was justified, in overturning the tables of the money-changers in the temple, and driving those merchants out.

I think that should be enough to make you reconsider your confidence on this matter.

So which take on the story are you going for?

- people who reject the religion they were raised in deserve to have their property destroyed, or

- foreigners deserve to have their property destroyed?

Just curious.

 

[nPeace]

So which take on the story are you going for?

- people who reject the religion they were raised in deserve to have their property destroyed, or

- foreigners deserve to have their property destroyed?

Just curious.

Did I send you a message saying "I am serious now".
Why would you think my response this time will be serious...
Or is this a demonstration of how atheist run away, so they can live to come another time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did I send you a message saying "I am serious now".
Why would you think my response this time will be serious...

You think that was for you? Interesting.

Reply to my post if you want; it doesn't really matter. I was just pointing out to everyone else that no matter what you meant by your post, you're advocating for prejudice and intolerance.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The majority of atheists? Hmm. You mean the ones that like the new version of atheism, which is popularized. Um-huh

I don't know what that means. What new version of atheism? Atheists are people with no god belief. The majority of such people are agnostic atheists, meaning that they do not say that there are no gods. Most of us reject the theists depiction of atheism and agnosticism being incompatible, as when they say, "You're not an atheist if you don't say that gods don't exist. You're an agnostic." That doesn't work for unbelievers, the majority of whom, like me, call themselves both.

What would you prefer... that I laugh at your lack of understanding, and the fact that atheists are that desperate?

You did that anyway calling it foolishness. I don't mind, but I would have preferred that you tried to rebut the claim that Christian ethics are flawed.

Evidently, you are not showing reasonableness.

Then make the counterargument. Identify my fallacies and correct them if you can. I don't think you can. I think you are limited to making an unevidenced, unsupportable claim.

I'll be fair to you, and just pick one

You'd need to address all of them to rebut the claim that this ethical system is flawed, not just one. If you don't want to do that, address three or four of the most egregious ones, not the one about disrespect for personal property. Why won't you give a response to all of them? Isn't defending your faith important enough, assuming that you can?

I saw a similar response on a thread asking whether Christmas and Easter were adaptations of pagan holidays, and about a dozen examples of pagan influences (yule logs, tinsel, flocking, Santa and reindeer, eggs, bunnies), and the guy chose to address one of them as if that were a rebuttal. We also see this with the response to claims that the Bible contradicts itself or that biblical prophecy is weak if several examples are provided.

But it is the best one can do short of a complete rebuttal - a rebuttal of one point. It goes downhill from there. Next worse is simply giving what you believe instead without explaining why you feel what you reject cannot be correct. Next least effective is to simply dissent: "That's not what I choose to believe." An ad lapidem fallacy comes next ("Anybody with commonsense can see that your argument is absurd"), and the lowest rung is the dismissive insult, like your first answer: "Wisdom is too high for a fool"

 

[Alien826]

I just think its silly to accuse christians of living morally because fear of hell.

Gods laws or mans laws, People don't do lots of immoral things because of "fear of punishment".

It sort of follows from Christians accusing atheists of doing bad things because they don't have God to tell them what to do. If that's the case that Christians must be good because they do have God telling them what to do. Actually I disagree with both ideas. I have never met a Christian IRL that was moral because he/she feared divine punishment, though they probably exist. There's a lot of blind obedience going on, I think, like a Catholic friend who was trying find out of there was a "dispensation" to allow her to eat meat on Friday. She didn't seem afraid but very concerned that she should do the right thing. But I think most Christians follow Christian morality because they agree with it.

In short, I agree with you.

What do you consider legal and immoral?

So many examples, and I'm having trouble thinking of one! Eating lobster, perhaps? It bothers me that they are dropped alive into boiling water.

 

[Alien826]

What does toplessness or sex education have to do with pregnancy? Isn't unwanted pregnancy is inversely proportional to comprehensive sex ed?
Didn't men warn of the same dire consequences when women began baring their arms, raising the hemline of their skirts, or wearing trousers?
Are scantily clad, tropical societies more promiscuous or licentious than fully covered, northern cultures?

Please explain the harm you see in a daughter "taking the pill and having fun." Could it be that it offends your enculturated sense of propriety?

.

When I grew up in the Stone Age (actually 1940-50s) in England, there was NO sex ed at all. The subject of reproduction was even skipped over in science class.

What bothers me about this same attitude today is, don't they realize that the kids will get sex ed whether you like it or not? It's just that if you don't do it properly it will be misinformed and inaccurate stuff passed around between the kids themselves. Did you know that a girl can't get pregnant if she does it standing up? Or the first time she does it? Some girls of my generation believed that with predictable results. And, sorry, they (some of them) are going to do it anyway. If you don't let them be alone at home, they'll find a bush somewhere to hide behind. I did.

 

[Polymath257]

..except when one wants to MAKE it the business of the police .. naturally.

If you were a policeman, you would know that, of course.

Well, we should make it the business of the police if the sexual activity wasn't voluntary. Otherwise, I don't see why we would.

I'd also make it the business of the police if my money was involuntarily removed. But not if it was voluntary.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, we should make it the business of the police if the sexual activity wasn't voluntary..

..and how does one prove that, in a society where there is no such thing as an illicit sexual relation?

 

[nPeace]

I don't know what that means. What new version of atheism? Atheists are people with no god belief. The majority of such people are agnostic atheists, meaning that they do not say that there are no gods. Most of us reject the theists depiction of atheism and agnosticism being incompatible, as when they say, "You're not an atheist if you don't say that gods don't exist. You're an agnostic." That doesn't work for unbelievers, the majority of whom, like me, call themselves both.

What did you mean by "the majority of atheists don't claim that gods don't exist"?
Aren't the minority atheists as well. We;ll there you go.

Atheists are people that deny God's existence.
Modern day atheists are people who claim atheists are people with no god belief.
Not much different really, but that popularized belief makes every child of a certain age an atheist... which is not accurate.

You did that anyway calling it foolishness. I don't mind, but I would have preferred that you tried to rebut the claim that Christian ethics are flawed.

I quoted the proverb "wisdom is to high for a fool".
That pretty much rebuts the claim. It says you are speaking from a lack of understanding.
Of course, your preconceived idea, that you understand, won't allow you to admit that... even when it is demonstrate to you.

Then make the counterargument. Identify my fallacies and correct them if you can. I don't think you can. I think you are limited to making an unevidenced, unsupportable claim.

I actually did, you know.
Did you research hyperbole? Then you should know that pretty much took care of about 35% of your post.
Another portion is basically demolished by the fact that you are atheist, using a text that dictates God's commands, and claiming that those commands are wrong.
I then demonstrated where the flaw lies... in your lack of understanding the very thing you tried to use against Christians.
That's practically all the claim. What now?

Surely, you don't want me to talk to you about God, do you?
That would be shocking.

You'd need to address all of them to rebut the claim that this ethical system is flawed, not just one. If you don't want to do that, address three or four of the most egregious ones, not the one about disrespect for personal property. Why won't you give a response to all of them? Isn't defending your faith important enough, assuming that you can?

Why? Why would I spend time addressing things for which

1. Jesus never said half the things you wrote.
2. Jesus used hyperbole, and you evidently have no understanding of that.
3. Jesus states facts, which you as an atheist can/will only respond that you don't believe in God.

That's about 99% of your claim covered.
The 1% can't be any good.

I saw a similar response on a thread asking whether Christmas and Easter were adaptations of pagan holidays, and about a dozen examples of pagan influences (yule logs, tinsel, flocking, Santa and reindeer, eggs, bunnies), and the guy chose to address one of them as if that were a rebuttal. We also see this with the response to claims that the Bible contradicts itself or that biblical prophecy is weak if several examples are provided.

This is because

1. we know the general response.
2. the atheist presenting the claim is not listen to anyone but himself.
3. the atheist never gives a response acknowledging his error, when shown.
4. it becomes then, a pointless exercise, where we spend precious time, on a finger-tapping exercise.... only to hear what...

I have had this experience numerous times.
Have you said anything on my suggestion to research hyperbole? I heard no response on that.

But it is the best one can do short of a complete rebuttal - a rebuttal of one point. It goes downhill from there. Next worse is simply giving what you believe instead without explaining why you feel what you reject cannot be correct. Next least effective is to simply dissent: "That's not what I choose to believe." An ad lapidem fallacy comes next ("Anybody with commonsense can see that your argument is absurd"), and the lowest rung is the dismissive insult, like your first answer: "Wisdom is too high for a fool"

Put yourself in our position for a minute.

A die hard atheist who is out to do more than ridicule - actually trying to subvert your faith, will try all he can to attack the Bible, at least if that is something you rely on... unlike those who are happy to call it mythical, while calling themselves Christian... The atheist is not going to go at those ones.

Now, you explained numerous times, where the die hard atheist is flawed. Numerous times. Numerous.
The die hard atheist does not give up... after all, they are on Religious Forums with a mission... almost like hired assassins.
Many think their skills are excellent, and they have a 97% success rate.
So they are there... ready with their "excellent irrefutable" arguments.

Here you are, not getting through to them, no matter what you say, because they foreheads are like steel, as they fix their mind on their goal.
Not a word you say, gets past their forehead.

Now, what would you do?

 

[Colt]

Life became better with the advent of oral contraceptives. You write "free love" derisively, as if freedom and love are bad things when combined. And the church bristled, not because man would be harmed by sexuality, but because it would lose a measure of control over social mores and the behavior of people and reveal the emptiness of its warnings against sexual liberation.

Not to the church. Obedience and submission to its dogma are.

But where's the value in pursuing gods? I live outside of that world and find nothing lacking nor any reason to add gods to my life. Why? So I can belong to a religion? So I can spend uncounted, fruitless hours guessing about an imagined ghost? Humanism has produced the most valid approach to understanding and navigating life. It alone has elevated the human condition. It converted the divine right of kings to democracies and with it, elevated people from serf and subject without rights to autonomous citizen with guaranteed personal freedoms. And it converted sterile faith-based pseudosciences like creationism and astrology into science, which has made life longer, safer, more functional, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting.

Abrahamic religions are centered around a blood sacrifice and the threat of damnation, yet you call freedom from such thinking a death cult. What is more evil than that, or the deity said to have orchestrated it all? Atheism, the result of critical thinking applied to the problem of gods, is liberation from the chains of faith and the comforting, mind-numbing swaddling of Abrahamic religions. It's the blue pill. The path of the red pill is more difficult at first, but makes life easier once one accepts that his consciousness likely ends with death and that there is no god watching over us or judging us. It's easier to believe in a god than not. Being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, nobody watching over you or answering your prayers, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence.

But the reward is well worth making the effort.

Reality is doesn't change because you believe in gods.

You were asked, "What is the true sense of atheism." That is an inadequate definition of atheism. Atheists reject all god concepts - not just the Abrahamic one named "God" - and the majority of atheists don't claim that gods don't exist, although some specific gods can be ruled out.

That's your rebuttal? That such ideas as those I named bad or immoral are wisdom, and that those not recognizing that are fools? I think you have that reversed. The advice you call wisdom was pretty foolish. How much of that advice have you rejected yourself? Would you cut off a hand? Play with venomous snakes?

If one wants to hold up his religion's moral precepts as exemplary, he should be able to defend them with more than that.

The value in pursuing God is eternal life and endless adventure of life and service in a vast creation.

 

[Revoltingest]

The value in pursuing God is eternal life and endless adventure of life and service in a vast creation.

Unless you pick the wrong god.
Then it's eternal punishment.

 

[Polymath257]

..and how does one prove that, in a society where there is no such thing as an illicit sexual relation?

Huh? In the same way you prove any other crime. How do you prove that money was stolen as opposed to freely given? it is perfectly legal to give money away, but taking it without permission is not OK.

An 'illicit sexual relation' is simply one where consent is not given. How difficult is that to understand?

 

[Valjean]

The majority of atheists? Hmm. You mean the ones that like the new version of atheism, which is popularized. Um-huh

Atheism, per se, is just a lack of belief in god/s, nothing more, just as a-unicornism would be a lack of belief in unicorns. Atheism has no doctrine, and no beliefs.
Now, there are various types of atheism, eg: 'strong' atheism, distinguished with various adjectives, but when you simply refer to "atheism," you're using it in its definitive sense.
A definition is a single characteristic distinguishing a thing from all other things. The one thing all varieties of atheism have in common is lack of belief. Lack of belief defines the unmodified term "atheism."

You seem to think there is some belief, or even doctrine, attached to atheism. You're certainly not using it in its definitive sense.
So how, exactly, are you using the term?

What would you prefer... that I laugh at your lack of understanding, and the fact that atheists are that desperate?

We're desperate? How so? Are you saying we feel threatened -- by what?

 

[Polymath257]

What did you mean by "the majority of atheists don't claim that gods don't exist"?
Aren't the minority atheists as well. We;ll there you go.

Atheist are those that do not believe in a God. Most do not actively state that there is no God.

Atheists are people that deny God's existence.

No. That is a strong atheist.

Modern day atheists are people who claim atheists are people with no god belief.
Not much different really, but that popularized belief makes every child of a certain age an atheist... which is not accurate.

Absolutely it is. No child believes in God before they are taught to believe that way.

I quoted the proverb "wisdom is to high for a fool".
That pretty much rebuts the claim. It says you are speaking from a lack of understanding.
Of course, your preconceived idea, that you understand, won't allow you to admit that... even when it is demonstrate to you.

You claim it is from a lack of understanding. But, in reality, it is from a position of understanding very well.

I actually did, you know.
Did you research hyperbole? Then you should know that pretty much took care of about 35% of your post.
Another portion is basically demolished by the fact that you are atheist, using a text that dictates God's commands, and claiming that those commands are wrong.
I then demonstrated where the flaw lies... in your lack of understanding the very thing you tried to use against Christians.
That's practically all the claim. What now?

Surely, you don't want me to talk to you about God, do you?
That would be shocking.


Why? Why would I spend time addressing things for which

1. Jesus never said half the things you wrote.
2. Jesus used hyperbole, and you evidently have no understanding of that.
3. Jesus states facts, which you as an atheist can/will only respond that you don't believe in God.

That's about 99% of your claim covered.
The 1% can't be any good.


This is because

1. we know the general response.
2. the atheist presenting the claim is not listen to anyone but himself.

And the theist says nothing new.

1. the atheist never gives a response acknowledging his error, when shown.

And the theist never acknowledges the arguments for a deity are poor.

1. it becomes then, a pointless exercise, where we spend precious time, on a finger-tapping exercise.... only to hear what...

I have had this experience numerous times.
Have you said anything on my suggestion to research hyperbole? I heard no response on that.


Put yourself in our position for a minute.

A die hard atheist who is out to do more than ridicule - actually trying to subvert your faith, will try all he can to attack the Bible, at least if that is something you rely on... unlike those who are happy to call it mythical, while calling themselves Christian... The atheist is not going to go at those ones.

Because they are slightly more reasonable and far less dangerous.

Now, you explained numerous times, where the die hard atheist is flawed. Numerous times. Numerous.

No, you made claims. But you didn't justify those claims.

The die hard atheist does not give up... after all, they are on Religious Forums with a mission... almost like hired assassins.

I would say that most theists are here with a mission as well: to justify their beliefs.

Many think their skills are excellent, and they have a 97% success rate.
So they are there... ready with their "excellent irrefutable" arguments.

Which are often denied, but seldom refuted.

Here you are, not getting through to them, no matter what you say, because they foreheads are like steel, as they fix their mind on their goal.
Not a word you say, gets past their forehead.

Now, what would you do?

Well, maybe you are open to the possibility you might be wrong and that they actually have something worthwhile to say. Maybe you look at your own side and ask if it is really justified. Ultimately, most atheists would *love* to see a religious position that was actually justified. At the very least, it would be additional knowledge. But the positions that religion takes are so weak and easily demolished that the hope for such is minimal.