Ask an atheist anything! (seriously, anything)

[PickyPicky]

It’s kind of you, of course, to explain to atheists what they are thinking. You are, however, wrong from start to finish. So utterly and completely and comprehensively wrong that it is hard to decide where to begin with you. Fortunately your insulting de haut en bas manner makes it quite unnecessary to begin with you at all.

 

[snarflemike]

I hope that’s the most depressing thing I read this week. I’d hate to think there may be something worse.

But is it wrong?

 

[snarflemike]

Are you speaking for all atheists?

 

[goout]

It’s kind of you, of course, to explain to atheists what they are thinking. You are, however, wrong from start to finish. So utterly and completely and comprehensively wrong that it is hard to decide where to begin with you. Fortunately your insulting de haut en bas manner makes it quite unnecessary to begin with you at all.

It can be hard work to do critical analysis of another’s argument.
Sometimes it’s easier to reflexively ad hominem. It’s ok we’ve all done it.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Harumph!

Lolololol.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I hope that’s the most depressing thing I read this week. I’d hate to think there may be something worse.

But is it wrong?

I fully endorse what Picky said. Just see the post directly above yours.

Quite impressed with the de haute en bas as well. If you’re going to criticise someone’s attitude it’s quite a skill to do it en francais without sounding pretentious. As I just did.

 

[Wozza]

PickyPicky:

It’s kind of you, of course, to explain to atheists what they are thinking. You are, however, wrong from start to finish. So utterly and completely and comprehensively wrong that it is hard to decide where to begin with you. Fortunately your insulting de haut en bas manner makes it quite unnecessary to begin with you at all.

It can be hard work to do critical analysis of another’s argument.
Sometimes it’s easier to reflexively ad hominem. It’s ok we’ve all done it.

And you can read the post above yours as well. Good examples abound.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I hope that’s the most depressing thing I read this week. I’d hate to think there may be something worse.

But is it wrong?

Actually, I have to correct my last post. In it I was referring to to the totality of Misesere’s post. Which was…let’s just say off target.

As to the quote I highlighted in which M said that he/she (I think of her as a she for some reason) would revert to not much more than ‘Me first and the devil with the rest of you’ then yes, that attitude is wrong. Surely you would agree?

 

[snarflemike]

…‘Me first and the devil with the rest of you’ then yes, that attitude is wrong. Surely you would agree?

I do agree, but I don’t see how it could be “wrong” (as opposed to dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised, etc) from an atheist perspective.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

…‘Me first and the devil with the rest of you’ then yes, that attitude is wrong. Surely you would agree?

I do agree, but I don’t see how it could be “wrong” (as opposed to dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised, etc) from an atheist perspective.

So we agree it’s ‘dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised, etc’ but only wrong if God says so? What on earth can your definition of wrong be? That which God decrees? Surely you can tell yourself.

And following on from that, here’s a post by casslean earlier:

But I can give you lots of non-religious things…

1 - Life begins at conception
2 - Human nature is essentially good
3 - There are no aliens that have landed on Earth
4 - There is an afterlife
5 - Racism is an entirely learned behaviour
6 - Homosexuality is not a choice, but is an innate, immutable characteristic
7 - We have a social obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves

Let’s just note item 7. That we have a social obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves. And casslean doesn’t consider that to necessarily be a religious view. It’s secular. Based on what’s good for society. Something we coukd develop from the Golden Rule.

Casslean doesn’t say that these things don’t exist outside of divine fiat. They are non-religious moral duties that exist outside religious commandments.

A certain amount of faith in humanity has been restored.

 

[casslean]

Do you feel like you could wake up tomorrow and just decide to no longer believe these things, and that you would, from that point on, no longer believe them? Just as easy as that?

I don’t think it would be an easy choice, but I do think that I could choose to change my belief. I chose to believe them in the first place, after all. Maybe not overnight, but I did make the choice, and when faced with contradictory viewpoints, I consider what is said and choose whether or not it undermines my belief.

 

[snarflemike]

So we agree it’s ‘dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised, etc’ but only wrong if God says so? What on earth can your definition of wrong be? That which God decrees?

My point is that, from a Christian perspective, something can be “wrong” without being dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised. IOW, it can be “wrong” without doing me harm. But from an atheist perspective, how can something be “wrong” without being dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised, that is, when it brings no harm to the doer?

 

[Wozza]

QwertyGirl:

Do you feel like you could wake up tomorrow and just decide to no longer believe these things, and that you would, from that point on, no longer believe them? Just as easy as that?

I don’t think it would be an easy choice, but I do think that I could choose to change my belief. I chose to believe them in the first place, after all. Maybe not overnight, but I did make the choice, and when faced with contradictory viewpoints, I consider what is said and choose whether or not it undermines my belief.

If I may, you are saying that you will accept or reject further evidence and then your belief may change. That you may choose to change your mind (you do this automatically anyway - the only conscious choice is to accept or reject evidence)

I think what qwertygirl is suggesting is that you cannot change your mind without further evidence. That changing your belief is not possible unless you have been convinced that you were wrong in the first place.

With apologies to qwertygirl for interupting.

 

[OddBird]

Beautifully said ! Thank you.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So we agree it’s ‘dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised, etc’ but only wrong if God says so? What on earth can your definition of wrong be? That which God decrees?

My point is that, from a Christian perspective, something can be “wrong” without being dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised. IOW, it can be “wrong” without doing me harm. But from an atheist perspective, how can something be “wrong” without being dangerous, unproductive, ill-advised, that is, when it brings no harm to the doer?

If something is wrong, then by definition there has to be a negative outcome to some event. Otherwise what on earth does the word mean?

Lots of things can be wrong without the negative results affecting me. If a woman is assaulted in India then it is wrong but has no effect on me (unless there is some connection between us).

This is probably the only problem I have with Catholic morality. With which almost everything I agree. But you have some moral positions against certain acts which do not always cause harm. But there is no ‘Do not do this (unless it doesn’t cause harm)’. It’s a blanket ban. And I disagree with that utterly.

So…something is wrong only if there is harm done. The problem then becomes how we define harm. And you and I may differ on that. But your objections might be religious which I cannot accept.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Ask you anything about what?
I was an atheist for ten years.
I probably used to think exactly as you do.
There is no need of getting into it because I know the faith is the truth. Noone will change your mind. However I don’t really know where you did your research. It was actually exactly that which kindled my faith again.

But as for arguing it is pointless. As Saint Thomas Aquinas said To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.

 

[snarflemike]

If something is wrong, then by definition there has to be a negative outcome to some event. Otherwise what on earth does the word mean?

But from an atheistic perspective, what does it matter if there is a negative outcome somewhere, as long as there is a positive outcome for the doer?

Besides, the “negative outcome” criteria is totally bogus. If I get a job that somebody else wanted (maybe even needed more than me), am I “wrong” to accept the job?

Am I “wrong” to date and win a girl from another guy and thus cause his heart to be broken?

Am I “wrong” to offer more money and thus purchase a home that was somebody else’s dream home, but they simply couldn’t afford to offer more?

There are a million cases where behavior can result in a negative outcome, but by no standard is it “wrong”.

 

[po18guy]

The very nature of such a thread is to validate one’s heels being dug in. If resistance is futile in some cases, dialog is futile in others.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If something is wrong, then by definition there has to be a negative outcome to some event. Otherwise what on earth does the word mean?

But from an atheistic perspective, what does it matter if there is a negative outcome somewhere, as long as there is a positive outcome for the doer?

Besides, the “negative outcome” criteria is totally bogus. If I get a job that somebody else wanted (maybe even needed more than me), am I “wrong” to accept the job?

Am I “wrong” to date and win a girl from another guy and thus cause his heart to be broken?

Am I “wrong” to offer more money and thus purchase a home that was somebody else’s dream home, but they simply couldn’t afford to offer more?

OK, I should have been more specific. I think I said that harm needs to be done for something to be wrong. As I said at the end of the post: ‘So…something is wrong only if there is harm done.’ When I said ‘negative outcome’ it was harm to which I was referring. Apologies if that was unclear. My bad.

Having said that, your examples don’t show harm being done. They do exhibit (and again I apologise for the misunderstanding) that there was a negative effect for someone.

But to take one example, if you honestly bid more for a house than the next guy then that’s acceptable. Nobody would accept that you did anything wrong. But if you cheated somehow on the auction and obtained the house by means of subterfuge, then that woukd be morally wrong. You harmed the other guys chances by unfair means.

 

[EndTimes]

blackforest --But with regards to the others, why do you think I encounter so much hate and bigotry? Did I just get bad luck with my contacts, or do other people encounter these attitudes, as well?

+++

They’re cookie-cutter acting-out just like their fellow co-religionists of the church of Overt aTHEism…

Although they try to deny it w/“gods” - those a-THE-ists amazingly define themselves in terms of GOD

These Mockers - waste their lives like fanatical religionists
in an epic-fail_ed attempt to vigorously oppose what they don’t believe in

I don’t believe in Casper the Friendly Ghost … or a Flat Earth,
nor am I attracted to people who might… …

God gave all free-will, so they are free to do so…

They’re more to be ignored, pitied and Prayed for.