God has no merit (2 Viewers)

[Rothbard]

the 'word' good is meaningless without religion, what on earth do you mean when you say 'good people', it's a abjectly subjective term, you need religion to objectify it.
Did the atheist columbine killers think what they where doing was 'good'? In a world without religion they certainly would have been justified in thinking so, because there is no 'good' or 'evil' in an atheist society, everything would merely boil down to materialist or self-constructed conjectures.

Ugh worst troll.

 

[SnowFox]

Some placid phallus (phylo) negged me for my eat da poopoo comment.

Read up on some news fooool.

 

[SylviaB]

...he's actually only half wrong, you simple minded godless folk.

He's wrong in that religion, true or not, can tell us what is "good" or deontologically moral.

HOWEVER, he is right in that it is impossible for atheists to determine what is objectively "good" or "moral", though they are forever banging on about how atheists are more moral etc etc

I mean yeah, to claim being atheist makes you kill people is just plain UGH

but the number of philosophically illiterate atheists (as well as theists, though the theists are meant to be the ignorant ones) is astounding

 

[blueduck]

...he's actually only half wrong, you simple minded godless folk.

He's wrong in that religion, true or not, can tell us what is "good" or deontologically moral.

HOWEVER, he is right in that it is impossible for atheists to determine what is objectively "good" or "moral", though they are forever banging on about how atheists are more moral etc etc

I mean yeah, to claim being atheist makes you kill people is just plain UGH

but the number of philosophically illiterate atheists (as well as theists, though the theists are meant to be the ignorant ones) is astounding

so in summation neither atheists nor theists can objectively determine morals, which is an entirely subjective notion itself?...... ground breaking

 

[SylviaB]

so in summation neither atheists nor theists can objectively determine morals, which is an entirely subjective notion itself?...... ground breaking

you cant derive an ought from an is

end of story

 

[Scorch]

...he's actually only half wrong, you simple minded godless folk.

He's wrong in that religion, true or not, can tell us what is "good" or deontologically moral.

HOWEVER, he is right in that it is impossible for atheists to determine what is objectively "good" or "moral", though they are forever banging on about how atheists are more moral etc etc

I mean yeah, to claim being atheist makes you kill people is just plain UGH

We can conclusively say what behaviour causes suffering and which does not, which benefits society and which does not, which is productive and helpful and which is not; these are all potentialities for deriving ideas of morality that we can deal with even without a magic sky-man.

i.e. killing is considered wrong because it breaks down the social relationships in which our safety as individuals and as a social group lies, etc.

They are not objective, but if you need a set of objective rules to follow to the letter to consider yourself a good person, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities, and as you correctly pointed out, simply because you say "Here is a book, LOOK, it's an objective source", the complete and utter lack of proof for the existence of said deity means it's no more objective than something I make up now and attribute to God.

but the number of philosophically illiterate atheists (as well as theists, though the theists are meant to be the ignorant ones) is astounding

Yes, but I think atheism is the logically default position for one that does not know the facts, don't you?

 

[SylviaB]

yeah we obviously don't need "morality" to be opposed to murder

but still, you can't define deontological morality without resorting to consequences, which means its no longer a matter of inherent "rightness" or "wrongness"

 

[-Lemon-]

...he's actually only half wrong, you simple minded godless folk.

He's wrong in that religion, true or not, can tell us what is "good" or deontologically moral.

HOWEVER, he is right in that it is impossible for atheists to determine what is objectively "good" or "moral", though they are forever banging on about how atheists are more moral etc etc

I mean yeah, to claim being atheist makes you kill people is just plain UGH

but the number of philosophically illiterate atheists (as well as theists, though the theists are meant to be the ignorant ones) is astounding

I never claimed being an atheist 'makes you kill people', I merely made the undeniable assertion that in an atheist world, the words 'good' and 'evil' have no objective meaning.
Murder and rape and torture become mere collision of 'atoms', arbitrary chemical rearrangements. Sure, the brains of modern human beings have evolved to view such actions unfavorably, but this only happened because the random genetic mutations that give rise to such instincts increased the chance of them having offspring.
Only when we introduce an immaterial dimension, call it Gods Grace if you will, can we add real meaning to such atomical diffusions.

We can conclusively say what behaviour causes suffering and which does not, which benefits society and which does not, which is productive and helpful and which is not; these are all potentialities for deriving ideas of morality that we can deal with even without a magic sky-man.

Yawn. An idiot utilitarian perspective..
From an objective view point, (i.e. a rock with eyes) there is nothing 'good' about a particular type of atomical structure, human beings, having a productive society, nor is there anything 'bad' about atoms being reranged in such away that 'human suffering' occurs.

As the tide slowly erodes a rock into fragmented particles of sand, is the water being 'evil'? One could construct a morality that says yes, but it would be normative, we'd be merely assigning arbitrary words to certain chemical rearrangements, your 'morality' is no more advanced than this.

Only when we transcend the realm of space-time and enter a space built not upon atoms (or there various sub-particles) but of matter in which objective morality DOES indeed exist, can we begin to have an intelligible conversation. And my friends, that conversation begin with two words, Gods Grace.

 

[SylviaB]

I never claimed being an atheist 'makes you kill people', I merely made the undeniable assertion that in an atheist world, the words 'good' and 'evil' have no objective meaning.
Murder and rape and torture become mere collision of 'atoms', arbitrary chemical rearrangements. Sure, the brains of modern human beings have evolved to view such actions unfavorably, but this only happened because the random genetic mutations that give rise to such instincts increased the chance of them having offspring.
Only when we introduce an immaterial dimension, call it Gods Grace if you will, can we add real meaning to such atomical diffusions.

yeah okay you're an idiot

if if you could prove your fucking delusional fairy tale religion was true, this isn't proof of what is deontologically "right" or "wrong"

 

[-Lemon-]

if if you could prove your fucking delusional fairy tale religion was true, this isn't proof of what is deontologically "right" or "wrong"

I believe that the evidence is to the contrary, this 'life spark' that runs through the universe, i.e. movement or heat or energy, or whatever you want to call it, is a leak from a 'higher' dimension.
We know that in the 'universe' (that we humans have evolved within) energy cannot be created nor destroyed, merely transformed, thus the space-time dimension must have, at some stage (most likely the big bang) been set alight with a 'spark' from another 'dimension', another fabric in which 'energy' flows.
nolens volens , God Grace awaits.

 

[Scorch]

Okay yeah you're an idiot.

 

[SylviaB]

ugh

 

[-Lemon-]

Okay yeah you're an idiot.

capitulation.
(Deep down you know that you can't explain why killing should be considered 'wrong' in an atheist world)

 

[runoutofsleep]

it's true deep down i want to murder everyone including my close friends and family

p sure most atheists feel the same way

 

[SylviaB]

capitulation.
(Deep down you know that you can't explain why killing should be considered 'wrong' in an atheist world)

okay, well firstly, your reason for it being "wrong" is total bullshit.


Murder goes against our inherent sense of justice, because as we evolved it was in our best interests for everyone not to be going around murdering everyone else because:

-If someone in our tribe was murdered, then it makes it harder for us to survive
-The more murder going around the more likely it is we'll be murdered

it is impossible to say what is inherently right or wrong, but murder is universally harmful to utility and so we don't need morality to oppose it

 

[Rothbard]

As an Atheist psychopath I'm surprised at how restrained I've been

 

[Scorch]

capitulation.
(Deep down you know that you can't explain why killing should be considered 'wrong' in an atheist world)

No, it's because I'm an intelligent, coherent person and I have better things to do than waste my time explaining the elementary facets of the world to a person such as yourself.