Those condescending atheists

[marksch19]

So, I got into another debate w/ an atheist from my school.

I've no problem w/ them, but I'm shocked at how condescending they sound like.

Case in point (condensed, I posted a lot):

Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.

I used this quote (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god):

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.

The atheist response? He told me my argument was "irrelevant" and I had "cute, but not valid arguments". Curiously, he never answered my question: Should we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?

His arguments could only be described as a mix of sunday school atheism & 4chan-style argument:

"Since you say the proof God existed is b/c of the Bible, would you say Spiderman also exists b/c he's in a comic?"

I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."

He also said: "If the Moral Lawgiver is true, then why should it be your God? Shouldn't it be the Muslim Allah too?"

I said: "My God never told me to kill an unbeliever to go to heaven."

I'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.

Kierkegaard was right in saying that a lone atheist man, without his peers, would suddenly realise there is a God, so that's why they had to stick together.

Also, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,
the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.

[Skeptic]

The communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.'

This is a lie, and a rather bad one at that. Your atheist friend did well in not dignifying this with a response. I came from a communist nation, and I can tell you that religion was alive and well there. The churches were packed full every Sunday, and self-avowed Communists attended and fervently prayed to God.

Atheism does not equal Communism. Atheism simply means: A lack of belief in anything supernatural. That's it!!! Atheism does not embrace any political ideologies, and just like there are Communists who are atheists, there are liberals who are atheists, conservatives who are atheist, anarchists who are atheist, etc.

Should we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?

Are you saying that Atheists are rapists? Interesting, because I was watching YouTube clips of the show "To Catch a Predator" and almost half of all the sexual predator who were busted said something like "I'll never do it again. I'm a good Christian and I read the Bible."

Does that mean that all Christians are sexual predators? Of course not, it just means that Christians are humans and capable of doing evil just like any other human. Likewise, there are good atheists and bad atheists, just like there are good and bad Christians...so your point is? Again, being atheist simply means having a lack of belief in anything supernatural....there is nothing about rape in that definition.

"Since you say the proof God existed is b/c of the Bible, would you say Spiderman also exists b/c he's in a comic?"

I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."

 Hinduism is much older than Christianity and millions of Hindus over the centuries have  given their lives in the name of their religion. So your example that Christianity must be true because many people have believed it over the centuries is not a very good example, and is a cop out from having to take your friend's question seriously.

He also said: "If the Moral Lawgiver is true, then why should it be your God? Shouldn't it be the Muslim Allah too?"

I said: "My God never told me to kill an unbeliever to go to heaven."

Re-read Numbers and Leviticus in the Old Testament. It is full of examples of rape, genocide, etc.

I'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.

We are vocal because Christians are constantly trying to push Creationism in our schools at the expense of science. We are vocal because Christians are trying to mix religion and politics constantly, and using their views to tell others how to live. We are vocal because Christians are constantly knocking on our doors and telling us how we are going to burn in hell and how we are evil (despite the fact that you don't know us personally.)  If you did none of that, I would not give a darn what you believed in.

To the moderators: Feel free to ban me now. I was a member of the Hannity forums for over a year and never got into any trouble. A week ago they had a thread asking whether one could be an atheist and a conservative. I replied that it was possible because I am an atheist and a conservative. The next day I got a message that I was temporarily banned for replying to an attack post that someone made on me. Even though I did not remember ever having done so, I'd figure I'd wait to be reinstated to ask the moderators to show me what I did wrong. I was never reinstated from the temporary ban after the time period expired, and no one has ever answered back my email inquiries asking why I haven't been reinstated.

So feel free to ban the evil atheist, I'm quite used to it by now.

[Skeptic]

One last thing about your post:

Also, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,
the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.

Labeling others foolish because they disagree with you is not a wise tactic. You must debate the opposition because through debate you can refine your arguments, discard what doesn't work in your arguments, and strengthen what does work.

Sometimes we can believe something is true, but through debate we learn that maybe it wasn't true, or only partially true. You have to go into a debate willing to defend your viewpoint, but you also have to go in with an open mind! Sometimes I have believed in something so strongly that I was convinced it had to be 100% right, but through debate and re-examination of my beliefs, I realized I wasn't right. That is what a rational mind does. Do not become close minded. Always challenge and re-examine what you believe in, and never be afraid to be wrong.

[marksch19]

The Leviticus & Numbers you're citing is brought upon by the people who attacked Israelites.

When you're on exodus and trying to find a homeland, and hostile Semitic tribes rise up against you, what do you do? What do you do when the Amalekites themselves practise temple prostituition, sodomy, and child sacrifice? God Himself gave them more than a hundred years to repent, yet they didn't, instead, they still turned on their wicked ways.

It's not just the other tribes that were punished. The Israelites themselves were allowed by God to be conquered and subdued b/c they disobeyed His orders. They've entered a convenant w/ God, yet they had the audacity to defy him.

"And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? 16 “Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves,

God was trying to keep the messianic line pure, as the Israelites in Canaan were exposed to sins.

Other tribes, such as the Amorites, were also given more than a hundred years to repent. Yet they blockaded the Israelites' passage and constantly harassed them even in the wilderness If they repented, they would've been spared. An example is Nineveh.

I'm not saying atheists are rapists, you take things TOO literally, possibly b/c of your reliance on empirical science. What I'm saying is that if there's no absolute evil, there's also no "moral good", in that we're free to do whatever if we want. So technically, why would atheists like yourself object to 'genocide' in the Bible when evolution, if proven correct, according to Dawkins, life would have 'no evil, no good, but blind, pitiless indifference'. Sartre, an atheist, held that life has no point, yet he still condemned genocide & anti-Semitism. Why? Because a worldview consistent w/ evolution maintains that we're only propagators of DNA & expandable. Why do you concern yourself w/ the murder of these tribes, when, in your evolutionary view, humans are nothing but intelligent animals who existed b/c of a cosmic accident?

Are you trying to argue w/ the events in the Old Testament w/ the view of the modern times? You're a man who eats 3x a day, has a house, and finds food in a grocery. Do you have any idea how to live in a society where you're literally always on the verge of death due to these tribes?

Even Nietzsche himself said moral values are important b/c its the antidote against nihilism.

[Skeptic]

My morality is based on a simple precept: Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do to you. Therefore, I don't murder, I don't rape, I don't steal.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.

I forgot what the formal name of the fallacy you are employing is, but basically, you're assuming that, because X truth has bad implications for society, it isn't actually true.  Newsflash, bro (or sis): whether or not something is moral does not have any relevance to whether or not it is true.

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man.

I consider myself to be an atheist, but I certainly am not a sociopath.  Why is this the case?

Isn't it a very disturbing implication that humans can only do good through the carrot and the stick?

[Yawn]

Isn't it a very disturbing implication that humans can only do good through the carrot and the stick?

That's NOT what motivates a Christian.  Your misconceptions is why I rarely ever have "conversations" with activist atheists.  Your "morality" is the byproduct of the Christian culture you've grown up in, imperfect though it may be. As the Christian God is rooted out of our culture, the culture will continue its slide into depravity and you won't even see it coming (they are generational changes as morality is forgotten and a secular morality fills the vacuum).

[Sci Fi Fan]

That's NOT what motivates a Christian.

That's your logic: you think atheists don't have morals because we don't believe in an afterlife.

  Your misconceptions is why I rarely ever have "conversations" with activist atheists.

Hey; when your bible tells you to kill your neighbor for working on Sundays and burn girls for being whores, it's hard to take "Christian morality" seriously.

Your "morality" is the byproduct of the Christian culture you've grown up in, imperfect though it may be.

Show me one.  Don't murder?  Exists in primates.  Help others?  Confucius was preaching this long before Jesus.  Equal rights?  Don't make me laugh; the bible endorses female oppression and slavery, and John Locke was a deist.

Or did you think that people are out slaughtering each other in India?

As the Christian God is rooted out of our culture, the culture will continue its slide into depravity and you won't even see it coming (they are generational changes as morality is forgotten and a secular morality fills the vacuum).

We're already the most advanced time period in human history, largely because religion has at least partially taken the backseat to science and reason.  God told Moses to rape girls and slaughter children in the bible.  Fact.  I can show you the passages if you deny it.

[valjean]

We're already the most advanced time period in human history, largely because religion has at least partially taken the backseat to science and reason.  God told Moses to rape girls and slaughter children in the bible.  Fact.  I can show you the passages if you deny it.

If you are referring to "advanced" in the sense that morality is more advanced I have to take issue with this. Science by virtue of what it is cannot serve to lead us to value judgements, science is concerned with facts, not moral or ethical claims. Reason will often be a basis for value judgements, but many morals that societies bereft of religion cling to are often not based on true reason and tend to be more emotive. The extent to which you want to say reason is the basis for your morals only has meaning in relation to the assumptions you make about humanity and the world from which your reasoning springs.

I believe atheists can certainly live by a code of ethics. The ethics of Aristotle for example make no appeal to the divine and operate under the golden mean.

But to say that somehow science and reason alone are going to be the basis of ethics for a society is nonsensical. Neither science or reason nor the two in conjunction can say anything meaningful and authoritative about morality if they do not operate under certain assumptions, and these assumptions for them to rightly be assumptions cannot be based on evidence, they are an assumed value judgement. Two systems of ethics both using science and reason can look like polar opposites depending on their underlying assumptions, one could appear great and the other horrific.

[a777pilot]

An atheist was walking through the woods.

'What majestic trees!'
'What powerful rivers!'
'What beautiful animals!'
He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river,
he heard a rustling in the bushes behind
him.

He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot
grizzly bear charge towards him.



He ran as fast as he could up the path.
He looked over his shoulder & saw that
the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the
bear was even closer.

He tripped & fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw
that the bear was right on top of him,
reaching for him with his left paw &
raising his right paw to strike him.


At that instant moment, the Atheist
cried out:  'Oh my God!'

Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man,
a voice came out of the sky.

'You deny my existence for all these
years, teach others I don't exist and
even credit creation to cosmic accident.'
'Do you expect me to help you out of
this predicament?'

'Am I to count you as a believer?'

The atheist looked directly into the
light, and said: 'It would be hypocritical
of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as
a Christian now, but perhaps you could
make the BEAR a Christian?'

'Very well', said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the
forest resumed. And the bear dropped
his right paw, brought both paws
together, bowed his head & spoke:

'Lord bless this food, which I am about
to receive from Thy bounty through
Christ our Lord, Amen.'

[Sci Fi Fan]

If you are referring to "advanced" in the sense that morality is more advanced I have to take issue with this. Science by virtue of what it is cannot serve to lead us to value judgements, science is concerned with facts,

Any ethics system worth a damn is based primarily on facts.

I believe atheists can certainly live by a code of ethics. The ethics of Aristotle for example make no appeal to the divine and operate under the golden mean.

Aristotle supported slavery and was a misogynist; I don't think he's the best example.

But to say that somehow science and reason alone are going to be the basis of ethics for a society is nonsensical.

You are correct.  But what claim to legitimacy does religion have?  It's not enough to offer an explanation or code not provided by other methods of human thought; you need to actually have a reason as to why it is worth using.

The Bible condones rape, genocide, slavery and torture.  If anyone dares to challenge me on this, I can provide dozens of quotes at the drop of a hat.

[valjean]

Any ethics system worth a damn is based primarily on facts.

Care to expand on this?

The statement: "rape is wrong" is not a statement that can be said to be factual, strictly speaking. It is a value judgement that is not provable in any sense. Yet, in spite of this we would all agree that rape is wrong.

  Aristotle supported slavery and was a misogynist; I don't think he's the best example.

This appears to be an Ad hominem attack on Aristotle. Ancient Greek culture in general was misogynistic, and slavery was common place. Though we may find these things objectionable now, this in no way discredits Aristotle as a philosopher, he was certainly one of the greatest.

   You are correct.  But what claim to legitimacy does religion have?  It's not enough to offer an explanation or code not provided by other methods of human thought; you need to actually have a reason as to why it is worth using.

But who are you to judge what is legitimate and what is not? We live in a pluralistic society, not everyone has the same code of ethics, and if they do, they might not arise from the same source. If three people believe murder is wrong, and one is a Christian, one is an atheist, and one is a Buddhist, what does it matter to me where their beliefs come from at least in terms of the outward effect? Furthermore, why is it not enough for someone to simply believe in their religion and hold to their system of ethics that are derived from that religion. Is it not enough simply because you don't like it? My point is, moral and ethical judgements are not provable in any sense at all in the way other things are proved scientifically, so far be it from me to say that someone's value judgement on what is moral or ethical is not up to snuff solely because it isn't supported by other things that would be to my liking.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Care to expand on this?

The statement: "rape is wrong" is not a statement that can be said to be factual, strictly speaking. It is a value judgement that is not provable in any sense. Yet, in spite of this we would all agree that rape is wrong.

All morality must be based on certain premises, but these should be as self evident, universal and simple as possible.  Everything there should be logical.

Rape is wrong because it causes suffering.  Suffering being bad is relatively unprovable.  But rape is not bad because it is rape; it's bad because it has negative consequences.  This logic is fine, because the premise ("suffering is bad") is hardly one anyone would disagree with.

So why is this distinction important?  Well, some moral systems have ridiculous rules such as "pre-marital sex is wrong" that have no explanation.  They're wrong simply because they're wrong.  They're premises, but hardly self evident or universal ones.  They're not sensible.

This appears to be an Ad hominem attack on Aristotle.

Yes, but that's only because you used an Appeal to Authority on Aristotle.  If Aristotle's beliefs were outdated as you seem to suggest, then he isn't really relevant from a moralistic standpoint today.

But who are you to judge what is legitimate and what is not?

I'd ask the Religious Right that wants to impose their subjective and arbitrary moral values on everyone else. 

It's fine to have your own moral code.  But don't impose it on society if it is arbitrary, and certainly don't claim immunity from the law.

[valjean]

All morality must be based on certain premises, but these should be as self evident, universal and simple as possible.  Everything there should be logical.

Rape is wrong because it causes suffering.  Suffering being bad is relatively unprovable.  But rape is not bad because it is rape; it's bad because it has negative consequences.  This logic is fine, because the premise ("suffering is bad") is hardly one anyone would disagree with.

I agree for the most part, but like I said in one of my previous posts, the things you are saying here are not provable and so they cannot be scrutinized by scientific means something you seemed to have suggested had a place in forming ethical standards. I don't think suffering is necessarily bad, we often have to put ourselves through suffering to achieve a greater end, or put others through suffering to achieve a greater end. A coach may have to make his players suffer by running suicides so that they get into shape, or something of this sort. So to me, suffering although it is an issue here, isn't the heart of the issue here as to why rape is wrong. If a woman was drugged into oblivion and was raped while not experiencing suffering in the act, it is still wrong on the basis of the rapist depriving her of the freedom to consent or not to consent, this is the heart of the matter to me, the deprivation of freedom  by the use of force to sexually abuse. Even if for some reason no suffering was experienced by the victim, if they were drugged, the act is still wrong because it deprives the victim of due freedom and due dignity. But for me to make these points, I am not relying on science, I am relying on assumptions that human beings ought to be free to make certain choices, who they have sex with being one of them. Does science support this claim? No. Is it reasonable to say this? Well, I don't quite know. Do people prefer to be free than not free? Yes I would say so. And do people prefer to not suffer rather than suffer? Yes. But do these things necessarily being the case mean that is is reasonable to say it is wrong to deprive someone of freedom or cause suffering? I don't quite know the answer to this either. Is something reasonable simply because we like it? And is something unreasonable simply because we don't like it? All interesting questions, but to wrap this up, my only point here is that someone can look beyond science and their conception of what is reasonable to form ethical judgements, and sometimes they might just seem arbitrary, a matter of preference.

  So why is this distinction important?  Well, some moral systems have ridiculous rules such as "pre-marital sex is wrong" that have no explanation.  They're wrong simply because they're wrong.  They're premises, but hardly self evident or universal ones.  They're not sensible.

 You call it ridiculous, but on what basis? I think one could make the argument that society would run much more smoothly if people had less sexual partners. Having less sexual partners would decrease the frequency of the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases for one. And if people had only one sexual partner in their lifetime, the person they were married to, sexually transmitted diseases would be reduced on unseen levels. Now this may not be a good enough reason for you to believe pre martial sex is wrong, but to say it is ridiculous, and not sensible is an overstatement.

  Yes, but that's only because you used an Appeal to Authority on Aristotle.  If Aristotle's beliefs were outdated as you seem to suggest, then he isn't really relevant from a moralistic standpoint today.

I most certainly did not use an appeal to authority on Aristotle. I merely used Aristotle's ethics, the golden mean, as an example of a code of ethics that do not make an appeal to the divine, countering the belief that is common among some Christians that atheists cannot have an ethical standard to live by simply because they don't believe in God. I could have used any other example to illustrate this, but the example of Aristotle is one of the most well known.

[MFA]

Rape is wrong because it causes suffering.  Suffering being bad is relatively unprovable.  But rape is not bad because it is rape; it's bad because it has negative consequences.  This logic is fine, because the premise ("suffering is bad") is hardly one anyone would disagree with.

There's certainly more than that.  If "suffering is bad" becomes the highest standard to which we attain, then there's no reason for us to exist at all.  Non-existence would trump suffering.

To be fair, I didn't read the rest of your post.  I just wanted to pick on this one thing.