If you truly know your feelings (and there is a big catch right there) it could actually be very profound wisdom. That´s not what I said previously though. I said morality is about feelings. If you can´t feel that helping your fellow wo/man is okay because it feels okay, you probably have a lot of emotional digging to do.
Yes I feel like helping my fellow man because I have a concience given from God So do you but you reject God and invent an insupportable counter explanation for you concience. True morality is doing whats right even when you don't feel like. Suppose a policeman just wasn't feeling good who was driving by your house and saw a couple of known murderers enter your house. By your rational he checks his feelings and drives on. If those people killed your family you would be screeming: screw his feelings that policeman has a duty (another word that is meaningless in atheism) Atheism also makes the word Should in this context meaningless.
If you just felt it, you wouldn´t need a second.
That is why murders happen everyday. People acting on feelings instead of reason do stupid things.
atheism is not about self worth. Atheism is about not believing in God.
No kidding, so self worth has no meaning in atheism. So what do you point to when someone says he "feels" like killing some people. His feeling are just as valid as the victims. I will tell you what you appeal to. the same thing humans have appealed to throughout history. An objective moral value.That is exactly what you would appeal to when thirty seconds after you implement your feelings system and people start killing each other.
The same way, theism is not about self worth. Theism is about believing in god/s.
Christian theism is about many things includeing the worth of life. This is a completely inaccurate statement.
Both can be used (and have been used, wheter you like it or not) to both a way of self deprecation and a way of self worth.
So, I can say that I am valuable because I found this stick. That means nothing. The issue is does the stick have anything to do with worth. Atheism can be claimed to justify self worth even thoughit in no way does or could. Religion can be used and is a source of worth. The only one.
Some people find a lot more self worth in atheism. Some people find a lot more self worth in theism. Their purposes have nothing to do with self worth anyways, but you can find self worth in anything.
People and their "feelings" are notoriously faulty. I don't care if a person claims that chocolate gives them self worth. It doesn't.
You can find self-worth in cooking, even though cooking as about making tasty food, not even necesarily for yourself.
What? you can find enjoyment but not self value in cooking. Even if you could someone else doesn't consider cooking as giving you value and based on feelings from a bad breakfast could kill and that is fine in your system. An objective worth is necessary and not provided by your strange philosophy.
Of course my claim of atheist values being objective is not wrong. It would need to exist to be wrong. So at least tell me where did I say such a thing so we can then say if it is wrong
It doesn't matter, Atheism does not have the capability to establish objective morals. In fact it is the system I would design if useless subjective values is what is needed. No philosopher or scholar I have ever heard and that is many (atheists included) has even bothered to suggest atheism can produce objective values. They usually just deny objective values exist and move on.
I never said that atheism is going to do any of these things for you. If you could quote me on that I would be amazed.
I have forgotten what this is based on I withdraw it but will add in an Atheist system anything that is concluded to exist would have had to come from within atheism. You seem to want to seperate Atheism from it's inconvenient implications.
A group of people actually. But if you felt aluded, I wouldn´t be at all surprised.
I have forgotten what this is based on I withdraw it for lack of interest.
I can't watch videos where I am. What atheistic nations were mentioned. It sure wasn't Russia or China I hope.
Leviticus and deuteronomy if I am not mistaken. I am truly astonished you haven´t heard it before.
I am very familiar with the fact that atheists claim this and can't actually produce. You have proven the point, thanks. I asked for specific scriptures that use your words and you give me books because the scriptures don't exist.
Doesn´t astonish me. Then again, I don´t know who you are talking about. I merely said that understand your feelings and those of others are a great way to start understanding morality.
Well that says a lot about you. It astonishes proffessional philosophers.
An Example:
Student: There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God!
Speaker: Would you mind if I asked you something? You said, God cannot exist because there is too much evil. If there is such a thing as evil, arent you assuming that there is such a thing as good?
Student: I guess so.
Speaker: If there is such a thing as good, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.
Speaker: In a debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell, Copleston said, Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, dont you? Russell answered, Yes, I do. How do you differentiate between good and bad? challenged Copleston. Russell shrugged his shoulders and said, On
the basis of feeling what else? I must confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than many others. The appropriate logical kill for the moment would have been, Mr. Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbors; in other cultures they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?
Speaker: When you say there is evil, arent you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law.
If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.
What, then, is your question?
Student: What, then, am I asking you?
http://www.meadowlarkchurch.org/pdf/study_20041102041446.pdf
Feelings are the absolute worse attempt at defending morals in atheism I have ever heard and I have heard some bad ones. Emphasis above is mine.
I never pretended that it made Atheism "moral".
Good thing, however you also didn't say that atheism excludes the only source of objective morals. In effect it is causeing this problem.
Both atheism and theism are "amoral". This means, morqaly neutral. They are not inherently moral nor immoral in themselves.
You reasoning is wrong. Theism is moral regardless of the deity suggested. The moral requirements may be different between deities but there is still a standard. Atheism to be a state sytem must exclude the only justification for morality because of rebellion and ignorance and so it is immoral.
If you are astonished now then you should look at the religion of the thread starter
I will give you this one, I assumed it couldn't be a religous person insulting religous people.
