Mmm. So the morals of an atheist are relative to the individual? The individual who determines there is no god? In a religion, values are relative to the god and the individual's interpretation of said god's values. In a religion where the individual interprets no god, where would the values come from? Get me yet?
Yes well, every human being has a general idea of what is right and what is wrong. A healthy mind understands murder, rape, molestation, theft and interfering with other peoples lives is generally morally wrong. It's simply a common misconception that without God we wouldn't have a set of moral guidelines to live by. In the King James Bible, they have God and try to rape his angels. So that's with God also.
Assuming you mean the same thing by morals and values, you've already answered your question, their values are relative only to themselves. I see that you're trying to make atheism seem untenable by adhering to the definition above and asking where their values come from but atheism really cant be considered a religion.
^Untenable, first time I've heard that in a sentence, rep for you! But that's not what I'm doing, I'm saying the values an Atheist has comes from the individual, and the individual determines there is no god, ie. the prophet and god are one in the same, which is the individual. Ironically the Bible tries to teach us this. Barring my need to argue the lack of right and wrong in nature, I agree with you.
And what would that be exactly, that there is no reasonable argument for a god, least of all a meddling god? That is just looking around, and accepting reality. That require very little belief, faith. It just requires ridding oneself of invisible and imaginary entities and "friends". I know this can be a difficult concept for the believer to grasp, but simple reason denies any theistic god, and makes deistic gods highly unplausible. Our own reason reach this very simple conclution. No-one need to teach us this, unlike the very detailed fairy-tales that religions surround themselves with. Or do you imagine children are born believing in jewish zombies rescuing man from the sin of women that eat apples on the request of speaking snakes? Occams razor dictates that the simplest explanation is more likely. Everything else being equal. As such, a highly developed entity such as a god being a cause for anything flies in the face of our knowledge, whereupon complexity is a result of simple systems building upon eachother. Or evolutionary principles if you wish. Any complex feature is emergent from a set of simpler features. Nowhere in nature is there evidence of a top-down design. Nowhere. It is all emergent from simple to complex in a bottom up fashion. As such, claiming something complex such as a god to be a genesis factor, is invoking a sky-crane. That something came from nothing. God belief is simple infinite regress. It gets you nowhere. Saying goddidit, answers nothing. Claiming goddidit is just a lie. A vicious lie that anyone when thinking about it know is false. Fucking lie. Most are indoctrinated into religion. That is how religion survive. Brainwashing children. That is how religion always have spread, and still do. That is why there are clear geographical and historical fault-lines with regards to religion. They are spread within a specific area in a specific time because one is indoctrinated to believe it by following authority. Parents, leaders, whatever. Often under the threat of death if one do not get with the program. Just think about it. If you grew up in Saudi-Arabia, you'd be a muslim. If in India, a Hindu. If in Italy 2000 years ago, an ardent follower of Mars or Jupiter or whatever. Here in Norway some 1000 years ago, you'd believe in Wotan and Thor. Just as much as you do today in your current silly god. And atheism is not a religion you strawman erecting believer you. Atheism is as much a religion, that not collecting stamps is a hobby. I am also an afairist just as you know. Do that make me the founding member of the afairist religion? Do you believe in fairies? Not you say, wanna join? Jesus fucking christ, grow some intellectual honesty. I exist, Jesus never did. He is just an old sacrificial lamb myth in jewish tradition, made into an entirely new religion. Jewish zombie forgiving me for something I never did in the first place, my ass. Fuck that shit. You go and feel miserable or extatic in your sin or whatever, forgiven or not. The rest of us have actual morality, where we behave to others as we want others to behave towards us. And fuck up those that do not go by that simple principle. No silly notions of loving ones enemy. That just spells submission. Slavery.
I feel the need to state I am not a Darwin/Evolution atheist. I'm an Atheist in the most literal way, I am without theism, simply put.
I'm an Atheist, but I disagree with you. I think society gives us a direction between right and wrong, not some innate sense. ie. rights are utilitarian, not natural.
I've seen your posts in the various forums Zylark, it's an honor to argue with you. Yes. And I wouldn't call it accepting reality as much as looking at reality and interpreting it, same as anything else. Beautiful. Sounds like a good description for life. A stamp collector can see the stamps, though. Completely different scenario dealing with completely different ideas. Atheism is religion in that a lack of belief requires a belief in a lack of belief. I don't know what an afairist is. Says who? You? Here we go again... Sounds like perspective to me.
I never said it was some innate sense, I completely agree that your surroundings dictate your moral code, (to stereotype for arguments sake) a young man living in the "ghetto" might see murder as a means for survival, whereas a young man living in the suburbs may see murder as a cruel, selfish act. It's all dependent on your surroundings, not some "innate sense". I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I beg to differ. Our sense of ethics and morality is an evolutionary imperative, and as such very much a part of our inate nature. Ofcourse, it is coloured by the cultural and situational context. But what that really translates to, is a widening definition of in-group and out-group. As we expand the in-group, the more individuals we feel empathy for. But also, those not part of the in-group, especially those that threaten our in-group, we have very few moral qualms about decimating if necessary or just beneficial. The Neanderthals did not die off by accident. Basic pack animal nature. Us vs Them. And don't think for a moment we are above it.
At the first paragraph you say we evolved instincts value human life, but then in the ending you talk about people as if they were vicious killers even in society? So do you agree or disagree
Good, then I presume you can handle it. 1: You did not get the metaphor. By lack of will, intelligence or reading skills I can only guess at. So once again, atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Analyze the above sentence please. 2: Only religion requires a belief. Atheism requires no such thing. Though, we are very fond of something called evidense and logical coherency. Lack of belief in the silly supernatural, is not a belief in anything silly supernatural. It is merely living in reality, and not fairy-land. To extrapolate your misconception a bit. Atheists say "we do not know" when at the edge of our knowledge. Theists say "goddidit" and is happy with that. Claiming as truth something they cannot possibly know. The religious are no more special than me. they have no hotline to a universal oracle that gives them all the answers to anything. They do however have arrogance in ignorance. It feels rather silly explaining this, I thought I was rather clear. Again, I can only guess at what your cognitive problem is. Lack of will, intelligence or reading skills. Atheist means not theist, not believing in a dogmatic god. More broadly, no god. I assume you know what a fairy is. Or fairies in plural. So what do you think someone who do not believe in fairies is called? Starting to dawn on you? So is afairism a religion? I am sure belief in fairies can be construed as a religion. You never know, there are many silly people out there. Silly people that believe in invisible entities. Both. We need empathy to survive as the pack animal that we are. As we've evolved, more correct, as our culture have evolved, that in-group have grown. But that still do not stop us from defining out-groups to be taken care of. All wars are based on it.
How the hell does disbelief define me? That's like saying that I define myself as a person who hates douche bags. I am not a douche hater, I am a person who happens to believe that douche bags are not worth spending time on. Does that make me a member of the Adouche religion? I'm going to have to get working on my shrine. I feel sorry for anyone who defines themselves by their lack of belief in a thing. I happen to not believe in any gods, but that does not define me or otherwise change me in ANY WAY. Prior to deciding that I didn't believe in god(s), I was no different than I am today save a single opinion. I lived for happiness when I thought that there was a god. I live for happiness now. I lived what I consider a moral life then, and those values have yet to change. I am the same person now that I was before deciding that god was a fairy tale. How is that a religion? It may be connected in ways to things that I also believe, such as evolution and science, but in no way does it define or create those opinions. They exist independently, as do the rest of my convictions on life. Amen, adouche.
Yes, I got the metaphor, I assure you. I said it was different in that an atheist denies god, while a non-stamp collector doesn't say stamps don't exist and don't build their life on their lack of stamps. Isn't that agnosticism? You can't have it both ways, is there no god or do you know there's no god? I agree universally. Afairism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. Fairies don't have too much to do with a divine creator. I guess it would be a religion if you worshiped fairies, like atheist worship a lack of god (themselves). Lack of god = god though. I would like to point out someone who doesn't collect stamps probably has another hobby. It's all the same shit guys. Just different coats of paint. My memory's so good I know he quoted you.
So....what's the difference between atheist and agnostic? I'm not being a smart ass...I really would like to know because I hear so many label themselves as one or the other... I, myself, don't believe there's a God, but at the same time, I don't believe there is not a God. I don't know...and I don't believe anything just because someone tells me that's what I should believe. And, I truly don't even really think about how we got here or where we came from because I don't really care. It is what it is and my beliefs or non-beliefs are not going to change the end result of anything. If there really is a God, will he bar me from heaven because I didn't have enough proof to believe in him? Is not believing considered a sin? I guess I'll see when the time comes, right? Whatever is meant to happen, will happen. I just live life and take it as it comes. Basically, I've never really thought of myself as having a 'religion' at all....I consider myself 'non-religious'...I don't put a 'label' on my beliefs or non beliefs
It provides you with a definition, and someone with no definition still has the definition of 'no definition'. If it doesn't define you then why is there a word for it? If it's not a religion, why do people define themselves as atheist? How is it not? What's so hard to understand about "a lack of belief requires belief"?