Interesting remark. However, consider that atheists do not fall into the trap of “unbridled” hedonism, despite the fact that they do not believe in God’s existence (and as such they live their life as if there were no God). I think the explanation must dig deeper to discover the real reason.
This analogy is interesting, too. But the feeling of loss does not have to lead to violence and/or hedonistic lifestyle. Not even in teenagers, and we are supposed to be a tad more mature emotionally than teenagers.
Why not, indeed? As long as your behavior does not cause harm to others and it is pleasurable to you, why refrain from practising it? That is what libertarians say: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”.
SpockFirst, I need to make a quick correction. Those threads I was talking about were not initiated by me. They were not really “tests” or “surveys”, just simple, everyday threads.
DPMartin said:
What that should have shown you is what is truly in peoples hearts, that without fear of God, or knowledge of God, or thought toward God they would seek out the fulfillment of what is in their own hearts. No great revelation there. Read the days of Noah and it is said already what is truly in the hearts of men. Therefore the fulfillment of what is in God’s Heart in Jesus Christ makes all the difference. It’s not brain science nor rocket surgery. Without the knowledge of God, mankind only knows his own ways.
I think you overlooked something. The overwhelming majority of the people said that they would not change their attitude toward others. Only a very small percentage wanted to do it. So the picture is not “dark”, at all. (By the way, I loved “brain science” and “rocket surgery”.It was hilarious.)
Interesting thoughts. Let me see if I understand you correctly. It seems that you say that without God we would be like animals? No “rational soul”, no “morality”, just pure animal behavior.
I am sorry, but I don’t understand what you say here. Do you say that the reason why the average theists and atheists behave pretty much equally on a moral scale, is because God keeps intervening? If there would be no God, then all of us would fall into uncontrolled violance? Could you enlighten me?
You make an excellent point, Spock…I think I may have to rethink my position on this one.
Thank you.
Sure, you could argue along those lines. I would then say that the “semblace” of morality is so strong that it cannot be differentiated from the “real McCoy” (true morality). It would seem that the difference between humans and apes is much less than it is usually considered. If one says that the humans have a “rational soul”, while animals have an inferior, “non-rational soul”, then the difference between the rational and non-rational is diminishing. (Of course I am sure you know that atheists do not consider the soul a valid concept.)
I would be tempted to say this. Maybe we are not “that” unique? The truth is that the more I think about it, the simpler the concept of good, “moral” behavior becomes. There is only one concept that is needed: the concept of reciprocity. I look at a fellow human and take him or her “basically” the same as I am, with certain non-too-important differences. Gender, strength, mental capacity, hair-color, height, etc… all can be different, but but none of that really matters. I see another sentient being.
You are most kind and most welcome. Exchanges like this one are the reason for my being around. I enjoy your posts, too, since they force me to re-think my ideas. Nothing wrong to learn from each other.
I wish there were more atheists here because I think most of them, at least atheists of the intellectual persuasion, would violently disagree with you.
I’m saying all of this in good will and with charity.Being familiar with a book and reading a book are two different things. That all human beings have a “Heart of Darkness” as this truth was artistically rendered by Conrad, is precisely the point of this discussion.
In MY=Spock;7971224]Hi everyone.
IN MY OPINION:
I explained in detail why he was wrong. Deal with the explanation if you have a different opinion. You are now the spokesperson for him so get out your sharpest sword and wield it. A simple “quotation” carries no wieght. All atheists behave “as if” there were no God. And they do not engage in an “anything goes” behavior. 'Nuff said.
I’m not his spokesperson, I’m just a “fan”.
Have you studied philosopher/linguist Lacan? He reversed the quotation. He said, “If there is no God, then nothing is permissible.” It is of course going to be misunderstood outside of context. He also reversed Descartes cogito “I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think.”You are applying values to things that exist only in your imagination and the imaginations of those who choose to be apart of your fantasy. “Sociopaths”, if by that word you are implying that somebody is behaving in a way they ought not to, or in a way that is morally abnormal, is an objectively meaningless concept given your world view. It is not objectively true of people; there is no such thing as a sociopath. Effects are just effects; physical behavior is just physical behavior. The only true function that word can have is to differentiate between one form of human behavior and another. It doesn’t tell us whether that behavior is wrong or abnormal or something people shouldn’t like doing. This thread is purely an exercise in meaninglessness while pretending to have meaning, and at the same time pretending to have some kind moral high ground as if the people who were honest enough and brave enough to act on all their desires were doing something immoral.
Emotional maturity? Again the delusion rares its ugly backside.
Yep. That about sums it up. Well done warp.
Cutesy quotes are sill dime a dozen and carry no relevance.I’m not his spokesperson, I’m just a “fan”.
And I am sure you know that such assertions would be well served by proving them. But that is not relevant at the moment. For whatever reason you now agree that the average theist and average atheist do not differ all that much.
I wish this terrible nonsense would die out. Such blatant generalizations cannot be made based on a handful of instances. Those people who committed the atrocities did not do it because they were atheists, they were bloodthirsty monsters, who craved power - and also were atheists (more or less). You assume that if an atheist gets into power, he or she will turn into a monster? It is a blatant fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.
Let’s exclude all the Buddists, too. And the Hindus. Also the Moslims… and everyone else who does not happen to worship the Christian God. All those are without moral fabric, none of them can be trusted with power. Give me break.
I am answering this one time out of sheer politeness. The tone of your post is contary to the forum rules. The content shows that your do not differentiate between “objective” and “absolute”. As such I have no desire to talk to you. You may waste your time on making posts, but I will not read them nor reply to them.