Atheism is unnatural

[o_mlly]

But the point of speed limits wasn’t about whether or not speed limits exist. It’s what is the objective speed limit? There is none, so it’s subjective. And as you once said if it’s subjective it can be anything, and if it can be anything it’s nothing.

The answer to your question is twofold. One is a moral question and the other a technical one.

The moral issue may be stated: Excessive speeds in certain conditions kill innocent human beings. Therefore, one ought not speed excessively.

The technical (non-moral) issue is to determine under varying conditions what are the optimum safe speed limits (min and max).

The moralists does not make technical judgements.

 

[Dan123]

The moral issue may be stated: Excessive speeds in certain conditions kill innocent human beings. Therefore, one ought not speed excessively.

What’s the objective meaning of excessive?

 

[Dan_Defender]

As I said, Non-religious is now actually more than 20% worldwide, perhaps higher. At what percentage can we say “religion” is unnatural?

I don’t believe in that number and in any case non-religious is different than atheist. You can believe atheists as a group will keep growing to become ubiquitous, I prefer to believe God will intervene before the world is taken over by atheists.

 

[IWantGod]

I prefer to believe God will intervene before the world is taken over by atheists.

Imagine being the last believer alive! God won’t allow that to happen.

 

[littlebird]

Yeah, you are right. I just dont get it though. I cant imagine me saying to myself " I want others to know what I dont believe in" ? I dont believe in a lot of things and I never have any interest in even thinking about them.

 

[o_mlly]

What’s the objective meaning of excessive?

When is a human being dead?

Moralist: One ought not extract organs from a living human being.
Technician: A brain dead human being is not a living human being. (Specific tests and specific test results determine brain death.)

 

[Dan_Defender]

I think that the vast majority of atheists want to be atheist and they exploit science to give an air of rational respectability where there is none.

I agree with you. In the end, atheists don’t want God to exist, so it is convenient to use science as if everything were explainable by it.

 

[IWantGod]

I dont believe in a lot of things and I never have any interest in even thinking about them.

Because whether they want to admit it or not, the idea of God is big enough that it has an effect on their lives in some way shape or form. God has an influence in the world, so much so that they cannot ignore it.

 

[Dan123]

Yeah, you are right. I just dont get it though. I cant imagine me saying to myself " I want others to know what I dont believe in" ? I dont believe in a lot of things and I never have any interest in even thinking about them.

Honestly ‘vocal’ atheists are usually a response to religious imposition. Take something like gay marriage. If you read any thread that devolves into politics it’s not uncommon for people to want a candidate who opposes gay marriage. Supporting only heterosexual marriage is of course fine, I get it’s the Catholic and other Christian denominations (though not all) position. But wanting it to be enforced on others is a different line. So it’s not “I want others to know what I don’t believe in”, it’s “I want others to know not everyone believes what they do”.

As for why I’m here, I got here from a discussion about evolution and saw a lot of falsehoods and misunderstandings being repeated over and over. Likewise in a lot of threads about atheism you see theists trying to tell atheists what they believe, I can’t imagine what would be said if those ideas were never challenged. Hopefully at least now and then someone (including myself) walks away from a discussion with a better understanding of the other side.

And I guess as a compliment I do find religious folk around here generally more familiar with and prepared to discuss these matters than even pretty adherent folks in my life. People here all around are more interested in discussion and (usually) civil debate

 

[IWantGod]

I suspect they come either to justify, demonstrate, or express their atheism

Well i guess you just came for religious studies.

Or maybe to expose their errors about evolution?

Unless of course you have some strange compulsion to talk to religious people.

 

[PickyPicky]

Unless of course you have some strange compulsion to talk to religious people

No, although it doesn’t seem strange to talk to other people, religious or not.

I happened here by chance, found someone saying something mistaken about the Church of England, an organisation I happen to admire, and said my penn’th. Since then I’ve met a few people it’s pleasant to talk to, found it necessary sometimes to chip in when someone says something daft about atheists. And, yes, evolution, and politics, and religion, and history are interesting subjects so that now and then I am coaxed out of my shell. Promoting atheism or attacking theism is not something I try to get involved in (anywhere, but especially here).

That OK?

 

[goout]

And I guess as a compliment I do find religious folk around here generally more familiar with and prepared to discuss these matters than even pretty adherent folks in my life. People here all around are more interested in discussion and (usually) civil debate

I personally am not interested in debate as such (probably painfully obvious). I think Christians debating with atheists are foolish, as they are usually trying to debate past incorrect assumptions and preconceived notions.
I personally am interested in the kind of discussion where party A becomes able to articulate party B’s point of view in their own words. Understanding.
And then finds the common ground. This shows that both parties in fact understand what they are talking about rather than doing religious proselytizing. And that’s why I never throw bible passages at atheists, or my searching kids for that matter. Ironically it is always an atheist who will rebut with “but that’s your religion!” when religion was never brought into the equation.

It’s very frustrating.

 

[IWantGod]

I happened here by chance, found someone saying something mistaken about the Church of England, an organisation I happen to admire, and said my penn’th. Since then I’ve met a few people it’s pleasant to talk to, found it necessary sometimes to chip in when someone says something daft about atheists. And, yes, evolution, and politics, and religion, and history are interesting subjects so that now and then I am coaxed out of my shell. Promoting atheism or attacking theism is not something I try to get involved in (anywhere, but especially here).

That OK?

History and enjoys general conversations about religion, politics, and religion. Not here to promote Atheism.

Okay. But if you slip up…

 

[PickyPicky]

Okay. But if you slip up…

Ever get the feeling you’re being watched?

 

[Dan123]

I think Christians debating with atheists are foolish, as they are usually trying to debate past incorrect assumptions and preconceived notions.

I personally am interested in the kind of discussion where party A becomes able to articulate party B’s point of view in their own words. Understanding.
And then finds the common ground.

Well I think we found the common ground right there. From this side you of course appear to be the one carrying incorrect assumptions and preconceived notions.

 

[goout]

goout:

I think Christians debating with atheists are foolish, as they are usually trying to debate past incorrect assumptions and preconceived notions.

I personally am interested in the kind of discussion where party A becomes able to articulate party B’s point of view in their own words. Understanding.
And then finds the common ground.

Well I think we found the common ground right there. From this side you of course appear to be the one carrying incorrect assumptions and preconceived notions.

You mean like this Dan?:

Am I understanding your objection:
You do not see religion as a reliable or objective basis for moral determinations.
Because
1 Christians behave badly
2 the Bible proposes slaughter and other immorality as God’s will
3 the actual practice of morality is wildly inconsistent.

All of which I agree with. And that is the reason I did not resort to scripture or religious maxims to make the point

You can view it the way you prefer.

 

[Dan123]

There are two elements to my objection I suppose. One is demonstrating that an objective morality exists, the second is determining what that objective morality is. So far given the questions you’ve asked it feels like your assertion might be along the lines of:

1. Most people feel human life has value
2. There must be an explanation for this that transcends individual human beliefs
3. That explanation is therefore the source of objective morality

 

[goout]

There are two elements to my objection I suppose. One is demonstrating that an objective morality exists, the second is determining what that objective morality is. So far given the questions you’ve asked it feels like your assertion might be along the lines of:

1. Most people feel human life has value

Yes. I think that’s a well ordered inclination in humanity.

1. There must be an explanation for this that transcends individual human beliefs

I would not say it in that way. I would say that the objective value of human life is self-evident, or revealed. It is revealed outside the individual as well as interiorly. But the other-ness of human value does transcend individual human beliefs, yes.
The value of another human being, on a secular level, is revealed by the person standing next to me, and all others. We find meaning and value only in the context of others. This is anything but subjective. These others that mirror human value are not me. This removes their value from the influence of my whims, or my opinions, or beliefs, or popular opinion (force).
I do not think this is a matter of finding a mere explanation.

1. That explanation is therefore the source of objective morality

No, rather than an explanation, I would say objective morality resides in that “other-ness”.
I don’t want to get too far into religion here but…if nothing else Christianity is not about explanations, it is about relationship with the other. This opens up a huge conversation about the end of morality, which is love, or willing the good of another, not for subjective considerations. We don’t merely love ourselves, for ourselves, when we feel like it, when it’s popular,…turned inward in a vacuum. Love flows out to the other. Moral evaluation has this as it’s end point.

 

[Freddy]

Human life has value worth protecting outside our whims, preferences, decisions, popular opinions. So we at least agree on that.

I find it extraordinarily difficult to argue with that. What kind of monster would say that some lives are worth more than others? But if we ask the same question in a different way: Are some lives more valuable to us than others? then the answer is a most definite yes.

How can we say that all lives are of equal value when we will readily admit to some being being more so?

 

[goout]

goout:

Human life has value worth protecting outside our whims, preferences, decisions, popular opinions. So we at least agree on that.

I find it extraordinarily difficult to argue with that. What kind of monster would say that some lives are worth more than others? But if we ask the same question in a different way: Are some lives more valuable to us than others? then the answer is a most definite yes.

How can we say that all lives are of equal value when we will readily admit to some being being more so?

Depends what you value. I would not say some have more value than others. All are equal in value and dignity. If you value productivity, or intelligence, or mobility, or star power, or physical beauty, then some have more human value than others.
In any case, if you believe that human life has intrinsic value, is it worth telling others about? And is it worth fighting for to some degree? How will you make that case if you allow the value of life to be determined by decisions, whims, opinions, rather than it’s own objective value. If you truly believed in subjectivism you have no business telling anyone else what is moral, because they have their own feelings and passions to obey.
(abortion is the prime example, but I won’t derail).