Unfortunately, most of what we know of that is moral, comes from tenets of faith, though in some cases non-sensical, at least there is the effort.

So to deny God, one has to deny that morality that goes with it.

The problem is where do you go to find an alternative?

You will not find a theist questioning any sense of morality

What is also true, depravity is the total absence of morality and is totally a product of ego. Ego not only applies to individuals, it also applies to nations and most assuredly the good old USA since the 1960's when any moral ethic that might have existed went sailing out the window as it prepared the way to legalize abortions. The most immoral act ever committed my mankind, IMO.

That effort was spearheaded by atheism and feminism both, IMO amoral communities dedicated to self interests only.

What causes so much antagonism is these "anti-theists" take any derogatory remarks against atheism personally and they shouldn't.

Just as most Catholic's do not take personally the actions of some of it's Priests.

The depravity of nations is when more powerful nations infringe on other nations who have something they want or need such as oil, cheap manpower or natural resources and hide behind the atheistic "politically correct" construct whose continual effort to wipe out any notion of morality from existence giving it plenty of room to justify it's depraved actions as the mainstay motto is "who are you to say what is moral...?" clears the path.

But aren't we lucky though to rest comfortably behind our treasured "civil liberties" no matter how alien they may be to any sense of morality the rest of the world is trying to acquire.

And we wonder why our children are going nuts as they are graded on how well they can adapt to this depravity. Damn!

You are right on the money Pyth and bravo to you.
William

The fact of the matter is those who spearheaded the most depraved act ever committed by man were indeed atheist. It sure as hell didn't come from the theist crowd.

But their image is hardly at risk if immorality is something they embrace. In fact by the very act of embracing depravity their image cannot be protected by insisting that they are not so.

I don't think an eternity of torture is an easy thing to neglect to consider if unless you had truly discounted it.

I think it started pretty emotional dude. It could only get worse.

Sure. Rant at your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband. Rant at your friends, colleagues and families. Rant at your boss, your dog, the television. A philosophy forum should not be the place.

Then you presumably did not fall into the category of people who were unjustifiably referred to as immoral. Some people on this forum, myself included, do and, if you can't sympathise, you can take my word for it: it is offensive. I think everyone took it easy on him to begin with because he seemed confused in his argument. Then his subsequent posts became even more excited and it became clear he was just 'off on one' as they say.

Because his point of view was offensive to others, hence others were offended.

Well, we could easily put that to the test, but I could easily get banned in doing so if it got taken as anything other than a test.

The fact of the matter is those who spearheaded the most depraved act ever committed by man were indeed atheist. It sure as hell didn't come from the theist crowd.

The racist's sin is not judging a group unfairly, it is judging the individual unfairly.

It's both.

It was committed by man. Without theists there would be no atheists. There had to be theism before there was atheism. I'm not exactly sure which depraved act you are referring to but it was committed by man just like all else. He may have not come from the theist crowd but he came about because of the theist crowd.

How is that?

If I hold a bigoted view of some group, say I think Mandarin Chinese speakers have bad personalities, yet this never materializes in my judgment of an individual, how have I behaved immorally?

The act is abortion.

The maltreatment of individuals because of their group requires that you hold a view of that group by which you justify this maltreatment. In other words, you cannot separate the two.

The act is abortion. If you don't mind please elaborate how you feel abortions came about because of the theist crowd?

I separated the two. It is very possible to think that maltreatment is justified yet never actually engage in maltreatment.

3. For those of you who don't quite understand what the hubbub is about: I've said it before and I'll plead it again: Unless you have innate compassion for the conditions of others, until one feels the sting of being stereotyped they'll likely not "get it". That's ok, I suppose... one can't be much blamed for not having experienced a thing.

I have already been stereotyped a lot on the internets, in manners more damagefull than on this thread (rather than being merely insulted, I was already kicked out of game-rooms just for being a brazilian or being a noob) and I dont make a "hubbub" about it.

Your insistence that, since anyone can say anything they like to you and you don't feel offended, no-one else should either is (and I'm not saying this as an attack) pretty arrogant. I imagine if you live by that rule you must upset an awful lot of people, consciously or otherwise. Your loftiness of verbal untouchability is impressive, but quite impractical in the real world.

[CENTER]Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour? [/CENTER]


Is the atheism of modern, Western people just an excuse for them to get away with acting in ways that are immoral?

What I'm suggesting is that a great bulk of the Western individuals who claim to be atheists have NOT arrived at the position of atheism as the natural result of theological inquiry; but rather that they have arrived at their atheism because it is the position that excuses the kind of behviour that under any other circumstances would be considered as bad conduct (behaviour such as supporting Democratic Socialism as a form of government, which removes responsibility from the level of the individual and allows for an encroaching despotism from the rule of the few within big, oversized or Super-sized, government).

So atheism is embraced merely because it gives these individuals freedom from the constraints that any normal society would naturally place upon the individual. The embrace of atheism and despotic Democratic Socialism gives the individual an incredible amount of freedom (if by freedom we include the wanton rage of unconscious desire and appetite). But this freedom under immoral socialism is done for private pleasure as opposed to theological or philosophical conviction. It is private pleasure masquerading as a human right, the thrall of food and sex and money as true freedom in the midst of government encroachment and shrinking responsibilities of the individual.


It is this political component that seems to be the key for me. I ask myself: why would an atheist need to fight against Christianity or be political at all? Why can't they be silent atheists? And the answer is that their atheism is political because its purpose is to give them immunity for what could be universally recognized as bad or immoral behaviour. Atheism is about immoral behaviour NOT about the possibility of theology.

--Pyth

Sometimes religion or theism is used as an excuse or a reason for people to be immoral, and I'm not talking about having pre-marital sex, which really has nothing to do with morality. I'm talking about flying an airplane into a building and killing yourself and the innocent people on board.

You were making a good point until you mentioned the practicality part. That is condemning a philosophy. Which is cool but unfortunately not useful(just following your logic).

You can only learn so much from someones actions. Eventually your own individuality must step. In manored's case, it seems, to embrace the idea of wind. Nothing can touch me, nothing can affect me.

I was unclear. What I meant was that it is impractical for him to expect everyone to behave as he behaves, as well as arrogant.

True, but I believe the world would be a much better place if people stoped feeling somehow harmed by the mere thoughs of others, who could have instead just not exposed then, creating untrust among the society. There is also the fact that philosopy is a lot easier with free exchange of ideas.