How Are Atheists or Secularists Harming You, Your Kids or Your Country?

[Valjean]

Please explain what you mean by rejecting subjectivity.

 

[Nails]

But the goodness of the religious is a pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all set of external rules. Goodness is following the rules, not applying moral principles.
To play devil's advocate, the religious have no need to develop a capacity for moral reasoning or internalized principles. Like cripples, they cannot stand on their own and must rely on an external, religious crutch.
Our own bloody history illustrates just how effective religion has been in promoting peace and happiness in the world.

But the moral principles and 'rules' you mention are one and the same. If there are no external rules as you call them, or moral principles, which are external to yourself (objective) then you are free to act as you see appropriate. You may be a moral deviant enjoying behavior I or others consider harmful and dangerous even while your conscience, or moral compass, regards such behavior as perfectly normal.

Atheists are obligated to live under moral duties and obligations in order to live peacefully in society just like the rest of us. Where can objective morality, or external rules, come from? The fact is that these moral duties and obligations come from the Jewish and Christian religions. God is the objective source of goodness and proper morality. If atheists were honest they would admit there can be no objective morality in a naturalistic worldview, as I am convinced that morality can not develop by evolution. I think that to reject this concept of objective morality by divine origin is dishonest. You are deceiving yourself.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You said emotions are natural. Now we have unmeasurable natural things?

Yep, we do. Not to say that they'll remain unmeasurable forever, but there are a massive number of things we either can only partially measure, or can't measure at all. We also kid ourselves into thinking that being able to measure something means we completely understand it.
Animals migrate naturally. We can track their movements. We can measure this migration, in one sense, in whatever species we invest the time into. We don't understand the mechanisms of it.
So, perhaps we'll get to a point of 'measuring' love, by seeing the chemical and brain impacts. Perhaps we can synthesise this as well. It doesn't mean we understand it.

You're setting up a false dichotomy to argue against.

You create the conceptual problems by making a mess. The straightforward common sense understanding of what you say, that you provide no basis for what is good and evil, is the right interpretation from a common discourse point of view.

You're saying that I provide no basis for good and evil? I have stated many time that I don't believe in an objective good and evil. Is this where you equate this with life being a free for all, nothing matters, and all behaviours are equal under atheism?

Don't you know how popular religion is??? Religion is in line with common discourse, on this issue.

Religion?
Okay, yes, I am aware that this religion thing seems pretty popular.
Perhaps you'd be so kind a to name something that religions have in common with one another, and might therefore have 'common discourse' over?

Quite apart from that, commonality of thought doesn't equate to correct thinking. You listed some philosophers earlier, but have not responded to my questions or posts in relation to them. Add this question to the list; Do you think Berkeley was concerned about how common an idea was when determining his philosophical views?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

...maybe later love will be a matter of fact, maybe later what is good and evil will be a matter of fact. That is your direction of argumentation.

It is correct to say that you provide no foundation for good and evil. As already shown without reasonable doubt.

 

[Bunyip]

He may not twist science, but he uses it to perpetuate feuds between the religious and non-religious. I've noticed many atheists do not really realize this (perhaps they lack the religious background to know of this) that everytime he mocks religion it ends up on some Chic Track like thing convincing religious people science is out to get them. In all reality, he pushes people away from science. Science minded people will read his books, but religious people will not because he is mean to them.

Can you give me an example please? I must admit that I find all of this dishonest demonising of Dawkins to be quite disgusting.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

...maybe later love will be a matter of fact, maybe later what is good and evil will be a matter of fact. That is your direction of argumentation.

That runs pretty contra to what I actually said. Keep punching that strawman if it makes you feel better, though.

It is correct to say that you provide no foundation for good and evil. As already shown without reasonable doubt.

Yes. I already stated clearly I don't believe in an objective good and evil, which I suppose is what you mean here. My assumption is you then equate this with me not believing in standards of behaviour, or that people can act poorly, etc. Care to extrapolate on what you think the implication of me not believing in objective good and evil is?

Also, whilst I'm happy to converse on this topic, it would be nice if you occasionally addressed a question or point made in my posts?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think atheism is harmful because it is dishonest. Why do most atheists you ask say they are "good people" when they affirm no foundation for goodness? This shows bad character and sets a bad example for children.

Goodness or badness requires a frame of reference which is lacking from the naturalist world view.

I asked earlier, but perhaps you thought I was being rhetorical...
Can you define 'dishonest' as it pertains to your quote above?

 

[Nails]

I asked earlier, but perhaps you thought I was being rhetorical...
Can you define 'dishonest' as it pertains to your quote above?

Intellectual dishonesty; self deception.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Intellectual dishonesty; self deception.

How are atheists being intellectually dishonest and self-deceiving?
Do you see this as universal amongst atheists?
Do you see this exhibited in secularists?
Do you see this exhibited by most theists?

 

[icehorse]

I apologize for jumping in here, but I gotta ask...

Nails, what's your "foundation for goodness"?

 

[Nails]

I apologize for jumping in here, but I gotta ask...

Nails, what's your "foundation for goodness"?

God

 

[icehorse]

And how does God convey his advice to you?

 

[Sapiens]

I think atheism is harmful because it is dishonest. Why do most atheists you ask say they are "good people" when they affirm no foundation for goodness? This shows bad character and sets a bad example for children.

How does that show bad character and set a bad example for anyone. Most atheists are good people, better people that most Christians, IMHO since they are usually committed to the well-being of conscious creatures, without any promise of reward or threat of punishment.

Goodness or badness requires a frame of reference which is lacking from the naturalist world view.

That is a blatant and pernicious lie, I just supplied you with a naturalists' frame of reference for good and bad.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Please explain what you mean by rejecting subjectivity.

Subjectivity is choosing about what it is that chooses. So love and hate and such can be motivation of a decision, therefore it's a matter of opinion if they are real or not. Same, God, the soul, they choose, therefore it is a matter of opinion if they are real or not. That whole subjective category is being effectively rejected by atheists / secularists / evolutionists, what have you.

 

[Valjean]

Feelings, reactions, perceptions, &c are qualia, not objective things like God or soul. These are not comparable categories.

 

[Koldo]

But the moral principles and 'rules' you mention are one and the same. If there are no external rules as you call them, or moral principles, which are external to yourself (objective) then you are free to act as you see appropriate. You may be a moral deviant enjoying behavior I or others consider harmful and dangerous even while your conscience, or moral compass, regards such behavior as perfectly normal.

Atheists are obligated to live under moral duties and obligations in order to live peacefully in society just like the rest of us. Where can objective morality, or external rules, come from?

A lot of atheists don't believe in the existence of objective morality. So, what's the problem exactly?

 

[Nails]

A lot of atheists don't believe in the existence of objective morality. So, what's the problem exactly?

I guess there's no problem for you then. However, if objective moral values exist then you are bound to them regardless of consent.

 

[Nails]

How does that show bad character and set a bad example for anyone. Most atheists are good people, better people that most Christians, IMHO since they are usually committed to the well-being of conscious creatures, without any promise of reward or threat of punishment.

That is a blatant and pernicious lie, I just supplied you with a naturalists' frame of reference for good and bad.

What do you mean by good? How does being "good" without threat of punishment or reward make them better?

 

[Nails]

And how does God convey his advice to you?

God reveals Himself two ways: through nature (creation and our very existence) and through the Bible. However, God does not advise, He rules.

 

[Nails]

How are atheists being intellectually dishonest and self-deceiving?
Do you see this as universal amongst atheists?
Do you see this exhibited in secularists?
Do you see this exhibited by most theists?

For an atheist to say they are good is essentially meaningless. To determine goodness you must use a comparison. How can you say goodness without some basis of comparison? i.e. your goodness could be someone else's badness, and who is correct? In all honesty, morality comes from God (the supernatural), an objective source external to yourself.