Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Bones-O
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 11:11 am
@William,
William wrote:
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.

At risk of triggering a rant: Hey look, there goes a cart pushing a horse!

William wrote:

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

Yes, and to empty the bath we throw the baby out with the water.

William wrote:

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

In ourselves and each other.

William wrote:

You will not find a theist questioning any sense of morality

No, I know. Luckily in our country we had separation of church and state and we could start questioning Christian dogma. Other countries have fared less well, and a woman can still be stoned to death for the sin of being raped.

William wrote:

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.

THANKYOU!!! At last we've got to the question of moral relativism. There are anti-abortionist atheists too, you know (and even some pro-choice Christians)? However, pro-choice is largely supported by atheists, so I'm happy for them to shoulder the praise for it. This is exactly the sort of thing I think Pyth had in mind too, and exactly the reason why his whole argument is dodgy from the get-go. I'm happy to acknowledge another side to the argument of abortion, however I feel that the moral position is to stop religious dogma overriding human compassion, and abortion is an issue of compassion just as euthenasia is. Thus atheists are immoral ONLY WITH RESPECT TO YOUR MORALITY. By their own moralities, which they have thought through rather than been given prepacked and ready-to-eat, they are moral, either for being pro-choice (and winning) or being anti-abortionist (and losing, but knowing their own mind).

William wrote:

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

Abortion is a practical concern, but it is of course very much a feminist concern too. If you're lumping atheism in with feminism... uh... thanks again!

William wrote:

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

Woah woah WOAH! Pyth did not criticise atheism as some kind of tenet. He criticised atheists as people for abiding by that tenet as an excuse for immoral behaviour. Thus it IS a derogatory remark about atheists, not atheism.

William wrote:

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

What, like that acme of morality, the alter-boy abuser? Hey, don't take it personally dude. I'm not saying it about you.

William wrote:

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.

This is in reference to nations like the US and the UK right? Nations acting under the administrations of the likes of Bush and Blair right? Those famous atheists! What was it Bush said: "I invaded Iraq because God told me to"?

William wrote:

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.

The civil liberties repeatedly infringed by the governments of said nations? Uhh...

William wrote:

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

Oh, get a room! Laughing
 
Justin
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 11:11 am
@William,
William wrote:
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.


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.

I'm not sure what the argument is here.


A Message From a God

I'm a human. Here is your God... No, this one! You were raised here this means the you must follow THIS GOD not THAT ONE. This is who you will worship and obey because these are the words God has spoken through me. These are the battles you will fight and because I believed, others should also. These are your women and you are the head of your house. Do not question any of this but have faith that God gave me these words to give to you. Turn the other cheek and then kill the bastard because you are forgiven. Do not question God and do not seek further, just wear these glasses and follow the man standing before you. Where he goes, you go. Children obey your master and don't question it, just have faith. God will come again to judge the living and the dead... meanwhile, cast judgment on those who do not believe as I believe and if they will not swallow the pill of the true living God, force it down their throat. If they still do not believe as I have believed, they shall be cast into hell for eternity. Men of faith, have faith in the God that THIS man tells you to. Do not seek further as there is no rabbit hole. Do not listen to the still inner voice as that's the God Jesus spoke of, just have faith that YOUR GOD is the right one.

It's almost like the lottery, if you are lucky enough to have chosen or been raised with the right God in your life then that God will provide your salvation. Heck with trying to discover or create that salvation from the Light of God within, just have faith that your sins are forgiven and you can do nothing so bad that God will not forgive you, once you are washed in the blood of the lamb... or Mohammad.. or whoever, darnit just believe what I say because God in me has written these words and ye must have faith.

Disclaimer:
I am not an Atheist nor am I a Theist. I'm a human being on a journey through life. There's a small portion of all religion that is a small portion of me.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 11:23 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
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.

They can be afraid of being harassed by people who have other concepts of morality, or wanting to seen "nicer" in the eyes of others.

It is actually easy, as far as I know people dont remember very oftenly that they can die at any moment, leave things for later, think that maybe they already did enough, etc. Ceasing to fear, or at least respect, what was supposed to be respected happens a lot.

Bones-O! wrote:

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.

Sometimes I suck at expressing myself Smile What I wanted to mean was that then people are exposing a point of view they may rant naturally since humans have a tendence to try to convince others using from eloquency beside arguments or merely being emotionally attached to the matter. Not that it is a good thing, but happens and everone will do it eventually, some more than others, so lets be forgiving.

Bones-O! wrote:

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.
But, what, exactly, is to fell offended? If you can answer this question in a manner that doesnt demonstrates that feeling offended is pointless and destructive I will be extremelly impressed.

By the way, you presumed that I am not atheist. Isnt presuming things kinda one of the things you complained that he did? But you are correct, I am agnostic, thought in moral terms I am in the same grounds as an atheist would be, so I dont think it makes a difference how I call myself.

Bones-O! wrote:

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.
Insulting someone just for the sake of insulting wouldnt work to test this out, we would need to insult someone who didnt knew it was a experiment, then, if the person was offended, ask why it did. My bet is that the person wouldnt know exactly, wence why I think people fell offended then tapped in areas of thenselves they dont know.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 11:54 am
@William,
William wrote:
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.
I'm not sure which act you're referring to. But if you're referring to the Nazis, most of them were theists. They were a strange breed of christian positivists; or at least Goebbels and Hitler were. Some militant atheists in the Nazi regime fell into disfavor with Hitler for that view. Furthermore, the thousands of Poles and Russians who handed their local Jews over to the SS were Catholic and Orthodox, respectively.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
The racist's sin is not judging a group unfairly, it is judging the individual unfairly.
It's both.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 01:19 pm
@Aedes,
How do we judge a community ? is it by their actions or their literature ? how do we judge the individual by his actions or by his words or both..Atheism is the admission that god does not exist, the individual that makes it a vendetta against believers is not representing atheism he is representing his own agenda.The faithful that abide by their scriptures word for word and it affects others adversely are not individually directly to blame but the faith that gives them permission.The problem is we have to confront the individual because we cant confront the faith..Excuse my grammar its awful..
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 01:27 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:

It's both.


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?
 
William
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 01:41 pm
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
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.


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

Thanks,
William
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 01:58 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
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 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.

William wrote:
The act is abortion.
That's the most depraved act in all of humanity? More than torture? More than genocide? Intentional infliction of severe suffering, grief, and loss strikes me as a bit more depraved than abortion.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:27 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
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.


I separated the two. It is very possible to think that maltreatment is justified yet never actually engage in maltreatment.
 
Justin
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:12 pm
@William,
William wrote:
The act is abortion. If you don't mind please elaborate how you feel abortions came about because of the theist crowd?

Well I'm not discussing abortion in this thread because it's off topic. But to clear a misunderstanding up... I never said abortions came about because of a theist crowd. If you read it in context you said an atheist commits an act. I'm saying that atheist would not be if it weren't for theism. So still nothing changes, a man or woman commits an act. Whether they are theists or atheist is beside the point. Without Theist though, there would be no atheists. Atheism is a product, (label) of Theism.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:44 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
I separated the two. It is very possible to think that maltreatment is justified yet never actually engage in maltreatment.
What about disseminating prejudicial information about a group that incites acts of maltreatment?

For instance, Julius Streicher and Joeseph Goebbels probably never pulled a single trigger, but they were instrumental as propagandists in the Nazi campaign against the Jews. Streicher was hanged at Nuremberg and Goebbels would have been had he not blown himself away. Kristallnacht was a collective act on the part of the society against a group, and it was manufactured by Goebbels. It would be historically incorrect to regard this only as instances of single acts by one individual against another.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:59 am
@Aedes,
Well, I'll leave off this thread; it's not getting us much of anywhere. I'd like to leave with a few 'softened' points Smile[INDENT]1. When you categorized whole groups of people and attribute damning behaviors to them - without any kind of qualification - you're doing a disservice. It's not just in this thread, it's all over.
[/INDENT][INDENT] 2. When you proclaim that you know what 'those people' do bad things, you're being arrogant. Individual motivations and actions make individuals. Where there are correlations between groups and behaviors they need to be stated as such.
[/INDENT][INDENT] 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.
[/INDENT][INDENT]4. Looking back at all the material here, I can't honestly tell if there was an honest message that didn't have the damning overtones. I'm guessing there was, but if so, it's lost somewhere in inflammatory language. Perhaps we can continue and/or restart the discussion in a way that's not quite so judgmental. The question itself is a good place to start: Heck, the title of this thread is just fine on its own without all the arbitrary attributions to immorality, excuse making, laziness and so on. Maybe this isn't possible given what appears to be a bitterness and blame-laying that's just aching to burst forth onto the page. It could be worth a try though!
[/INDENT]In either case, good luck with this wherever it goes, and thanks for the free exchange of thought.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:20 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
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.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:57 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
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.
 
Joe
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:16 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
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.


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.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:52 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
[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


Atheism has nothing to do with morality, at least not directly. If you are concerned with morals then atheism will logically lead one to find secular humanist means to develop a system of ethics that is compatible with the disbelief in supernatural agency.

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.
 
neapolitan
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 11:28 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:

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.



His actions creates an ad hominem argument against all people who believe in God. The terrrorist, when he dies, he will be shown or realize himself that his actions did not lead others to a clearer image of God, in fact he offended God, and his victims, and himself, in a way shoves God out of the world in a way worse then any other crime because he is involving God in his reasoning. Any action that is immoral like terrorism can not be acceptable to God, God can neither deceive nor be decieved.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 02:49 am
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
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.
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 01:36 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
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.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 02:16 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
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.

Mmm. I don't think not exposing thoughts like 'atheists aim for depravity' would cause much in the way of mistrust; in fact I think exposing them does that. I certainly didn't trust his judgement. As philosophy, it's kind of a non-starter, as would be 'theists aim for stupidity'. I don't think philosophy 'becomes easier' at all with such claims; in fact it becomes frightening more difficult since there's no grounds upon which to approach the question.

Furthermore, if I were a racist, homophobe or sexist peddling similar ideas about people of different ethnicity to me, homosexuals or women, not only do I doubt I'd have your utmost support for my emotional outpourings and exchange of what you generously call 'ideas' but I'd be banned in the blink of an eye. Atheists aren't covered the same way, despite being a minority here according the recent poll on this forum. Not that I'd care for such sensitivities either, but I'll damn well stick up for myself.

And lastly, what precisely is it about Pyth's 'exchange of ideas' that are upheld by your philosophy that is lacking in my 'exchange of ideas' of the origins of Pyth's? Is it perhaps no more than you agree with his and disagree with mine? Again, you champion his freedom of speech while protesting at mine.

If you can't win an argument on equal footing, I guess you can always resort to dual standards, eh?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/29/2020 at 04:04:13