Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Doc Savage Fan]

You don't need to be part of an "atheist organization" to donate time or money. There's plenty of charity organizations that aren't run by a church.

I'd like to see some numbers if you don't mind.

 

[thraashman]

If this is the case, where are all the atheist organizations giving money and time to help all the people in this world who are in desperate need?

Here's a start
http://www.thinkatheist.com/notes/Secular_charities

 

[Danwar]

If this is the case, where are all the atheist organizations giving money and time to help all the people in this world who are in desperate need?

they do exist, they're just smaller than religious organizations

which makes sense, because based by % there are far fewer atheists than religous people.

but i'd be willing to wager than the % of religous or atheist people that hell those in need are very close.

good people are good people no matter what they believe.

(and using your same logic) , i'd also be willing to bet that the vast majority of the worlds richest men , are for the most part religious.

 

[Atreus21]

I find it pretty disturbing that if it weren't for you being afraid of god that you'd be running around raping and murdering people.

I find it disturbing that the only thing keeping atheists moral is the arbitrary whims of society.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's a start
http://www.thinkatheist.com/notes/Secular_charities

In numerical terms, do you actually think the amount of money/time given by these organizations exceeds the amounts given by religious organizations? Get real.

 

[JD50]

I'd like to see some numbers if you don't mind.

No, I'm not going on some ridiculous search for numbers for you. You're looking for an "atheist organization" which is absurd. Why do you think you need to be part of a specific organization in order to donate time or money to the needy? I don't need a church or the promise of heaven in order to be a good person and/or help people that are in need. First hit on google for secular charities - http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities. But like I said, that really doesn't matter.

The fact that some of you would be raping, murdering, psychopaths that refuse to help other people if it weren't for your belief in god is disturbing. I'm kinda surprised that you're so open about it.

 

[Atreus21]

So you're saying you're a sociopath? Because that's what we call people who can't feel or understand empathy. Sure, religion is great for keeping people like you in line. The rest of us who are ACTUALLY good people don't need religion, we're just good by our nature because we've evolved in a way that benefits society. Every so often even a highly evolved species creates a genetic mistake. Sorry you apparently had to be one of them.

A sociopath by what metric? Why does "empathy" command such universal respect?

I note you failed to answer the question and instead resorted to insults. Why should I be moral?

How can "furthering the species" be called a good thing without some belief in an objective good?

 

[JD50]

I find it disturbing that the only thing keeping atheists moral is the arbitrary whims of society.

Society helps define morals for everyone, it always has. That's why bible thumpers pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow.

 

[thraashman]

I find it disturbing that the only thing keeping atheists moral is the arbitrary whims of society.

Morality is defined by society. There were a whole lot of Christian Nazis mass murdering Jews in WWII. Their religion didn't seem to stop them from doing it. And just about everybody outside of the Nazis, Christian and all other religions (including not religious), considered what the Nazis were doing as horrific. You can look back throughout history and see that regardless of the prevalence of religious beliefs, that horrible acts were committed in society, often times using that religion as justification. And this is because current morality, or our perceived lack of it, is dictated by society and not a god.

 

[JD50]

A sociopath by what metric? Isn't empathy equally arbitrary in that it arrived only by random chance?

I note you failed to answer the question and instead resorted to insults. Why should I be moral?

How can "furthering the species" be called a good thing without some belief in an objective good?

Oh here we go...🙄

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, I'm not going on some ridiculous search for numbers for you. You're looking for an "atheist organization" which is absurd. Why do you think you need to be part of a specific organization in order to donate time or money to the needy? I don't need a church or the promise of heaven in order to be a good person and/or help people that are in need. First hit on google for secular charities - http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities. But like I said, that really doesn't matter.

The fact that some of you would be raping, murdering, psychopaths that refuse to help other people if it weren't for your belief in god is disturbing. I'm kinda surprised that you're so open about it.

I'm actually kinda surprised as well...that you're so open with your hateful bigotry. Compassion does not appear to be your strong suit...you must be an outlier.

 

[JD50]

I'm actually kinda surprised as well...that you're so open with your hateful bigotry. Compassion does not appear to be your strong suit...you must be an outlier.

Well that makes absolutely no sense, but ok.

 

[Danwar]

I find it disturbing that the only thing keeping atheists moral is the arbitrary whims of society.

arbitrary whims of society like:

equality to women?
rejecting slavery?
not killing gays?
not stoning people for adultery?
not killing disobedient children?
not stoning people for working on sunday?

yeah ill stick with todays arbitrary whims of society instead of following the arbitrary whims of a society in the middle east from 2000 years ago

 

[Atreus21]

Society helps define morals for everyone, it always has. That's why bible thumpers pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow.

Yes, let's hope that whole slavery thing never comes back into popularity. Because if it does, atheists won't have any objective basis on which to denounce it.

 

[Atreus21]

arbitrary whims of society like:

equality to women?
rejecting slavery?
not killing gays?
not stoning people for adultery?
not killing disobedient children?
not stoning people for working on sunday?

yeah ill stick with todays arbitrary whims of society instead of following the arbitrary whims of a society in the middle east from 2000 years ago

Yes, equality. That thing whose entire validity is staked on the dogmatic claim that we are "created" thus.

Let's hope for humanity's sake that atheists continue living in a world which still largely believes in objective morality. If the world popularly decided tomorrow that slavery was newly-legal and justified, what argument would atheists have against it?

 

[JD50]

Yes, let's hope that whole slavery thing never comes back into popularity. Because if it does, atheists won't have any objective basis on which to denounce it.

Good thing Christians never endorsed slavery.

 

[bshole]

In numerical terms, do you actually think the amount of money/time given by these organizations exceeds the amounts given by religious organizations? Get real.

Well if we are juding the morality of people by the size of their charity, well then I guess the Muslims are the most moral people in the world.

Muslims give more to charity than other religious groups, new research suggests.
At almost £371 each, Muslims topped the poll of religious groups that give to charity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/21/muslims-give-most_n_3630830.html

 

[sandorski]

A sociopath by what metric? Why does "empathy" command such universal respect?

I note you failed to answer the question and instead resorted to insults. Why should I be moral?

How can "furthering the species" be called a good thing without some belief in an objective good?

Why do we get Hungry or Thirsty?

 

[Paul98]

Yes, equality. That thing whose entire validity is staked on the dogmatic claim that we are "created" thus.

Let's hope for humanity's sake that atheists continue living in a world which still largely believes in objective morality. If the world popularly decided tomorrow that slavery was newly-legal and justified, what argument would atheists have against it?

Can you really not think of many reasons why slavery should be illegal that don't have to do with god and the bible?

 

[Atreus21]

Good thing Christians never endorsed slavery.

Yes, good thing.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, let's hope that whole slavery thing never comes back into popularity. Because if it does, atheists won't have any objective basis on which to denounce it.

Theists definitely do not have an Objective reason to denounce it.

What are all these Objective Morals you keep asserting? Where do they come from? Show your Source.

 

[buckshot24]

Its wrong because it hurts others. If I, or any other sane and normal person, were to kick a dog they would hear the dop yelp and they would see the pain on the dogs face. This would cause an emotional reaction in that person and they would know it was wrong. Why we have that emotional response is a question that we are actually making some pretty exciting and interesting progress on.

But allowing to live the "defects" in my hypothetical hurts others as well. Sure, some people will be hurt but more will be saved.

Thank you for actually admitting that.

Not a hard admission to make.

Now here is a question for you, could an atheist raised completely in a bubble without ever being taught that any religion has ever existed possibly be just as moral as you or I?

See, I believe that our consciences were created by God so innately we know the difference between good and evil. So whether you believe God exists or not you still have the moral compass within you to know the basics of morality. You also were raised in a society where this right and wrong was taught to you. So, yes I do believe that a child could be raised to have decent morals outside of any religion.

Ok... Could you elaborate? If you know what is right and wrong than obviously you know there is a difference between right and wrong. It sounds like you are just saying it a different way but with the exact same results.

I'm saying that we don't need to know exactly what is right and wrong to be able to accept that there is a right and wrong. If we can imagine one act that is wrong in all situations then we have established that there is a right and wrong and therefore there must be a standard that divides right from wrong that is outside of ourselves.

People who continually do evil things often have a few loose wires in their heads. I would argue that a lot of the "evil" people in the world have had serious mental disorders, hence the lacked sanity.

Yes, they have lost the ability to hear their consciences. But do you think evil actually exists?

I dunno if society as a whole would have produced a different moral landscape but I do agree that society in generally would have evolved differently, at least in Europe. Sure people might not have been able to be as vocally against some things considering the Nazi's secret police and stuff but I don't see it actually changing peoples morals. I do agree with your last sentence which sort of goes along with my point.

I think it works with my belief that God gave people consciences and the basic ability to know from right and wrong.

Morality has been debated for centuries and here we are still debating it. Knowing that, how can you make such a definitive statement that whatever position he holds (I honestly don't know) is wrong?

All I did was say that he misconstrued the argument everytime I heard him discuss it. I think you're starting to get it, he never did.

Please elaborate, knock down arguments against what exactly? Objective morality or theism in general?

Objective morality.

Regardless, if it was true shouldn't there be some "knock down arguments" FOR it? Some sort of hard evidence or proof? Faith isn't required for things that can be proven to be true.

I think there are. But the claim was that "objective morality" was merely invented to prove an unproveable case. Given that I can't prove that I exist I wouldn't even attempt to do so with God.

Please elaborate again, seems you are on to a rather interesting discussion with this one.

Not much to elaborate on really. In your worldview we are just animals evolved through a couple billion years of struggle for survival. Seems just as "moral" to view the competition as threats as it would to view them as people with any value.

If you're just a bag of meat looking to spread your DNA then anything goes to that end.

We can judge him, and other people, based on their actions, no? We say that Hitler was an evil and morally wrong person based upon his actions, why not god(s)?

Sure but you're doing so in a way a 2 year old judges mommy as a meany when she puts him in his crib. Just like the 2 year old doesn't understand the whole situation we don't understand it either from God's perspective but to a larger degree.

 

[Atreus21]

Can you really not think of many reasons why slavery should be illegal that don't have to do with god and the bible?

None that do not filter down to some claim to equality and human dignity, of which both are dogmatic claims.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well that makes absolutely no sense, but ok.

Here, let me spell it out for you. I'm calling you a bigot based on your incredibly twisted viewpoint which I previously bolded. Your perspective is not based on compassion...it's based on contempt, intolerance and hatred....the hallmarks of bigotry.

 

[thraashman]

Yes, let's hope that whole slavery thing never comes back into popularity. Because if it does, atheists won't have any objective basis on which to denounce it.

Actually they will, the evolved human trait of empathy. You have to realize that throughout much of western history, if you admitted to being atheist, you were dead. The concept of the free-thinking, not religiously bound atheist is a pretty new concept. So there's not a lot of history of atheist behavior to draw on for examples. Most atheists will use logic and reason to make their initial assessments of a situation, and final decisions resulting from those assessments will include an empathic element.

Example. Logic could dictate that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But because we atheists are not Spock, empathically we would not sacrifice people (you know like cutting off social programs to reduce the deficit and effectively kill thousands of poor people like so many Christian Republicans seem to want to do).

As has already been determined, the concept of empathy is beyond foreign to you so it's impossible to discuss it. You are only moral because you fear what your god would do to you if you weren't. That's not a good person, that's a scared person. And if you could be convinced that your god believed something else, like murdering poor children was good, you'd do it. Most atheists would not because we have empathy.