Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormon Religion

[This_person]

so bad christians are bad dispite of their religion and good atheist are good in spite of their lack of religion?
makes no sense to me.....

That it makes no sense to you does not mean it's not true. I'm not talking specifically about the individuals involved in any religion (ie, I'm not talking about Christians, I'm talking about religious people in general, whether it's the American Indian, the Muslim, the Christian, etc.), nor any individual without a theistic religion. I'm talking about what religion, in general, teaches, and what lack of religion doesn't have.

again i say, why do you need religion to tell you to be a good person? why do you need god looking over your shoulder making sure you dont 'sin'.

I don't, and neither does any religious person. You learn to be a type of person, with a set of values and morals, and you act on those values and morals - not on fear of someone looking over your shoulder.

 

[This_person]

well then you at least have to account for the fact that -any- society has certain laws/morals just by existing. The ancient greeks didn't believe in 'god' per say, but they still had morals etc. etc.

Nope, they had a series of gods. They were as religious as Pat Robertson, just a different religion.

And, let's be clear here. Laws and morals are very different. Laws are manmade, morals transend laws.

 

[This_person]

There is a "Secularist" movement..

But we are waiting for our first miracle to prove we are right!

 

[tommyjones]

Exactly. "Right" and "wrong" are moral concepts. Morality is, effectively, a religious concept. While Atheism is doctrine, it doesn't have religious concepts of morality, so there is not "right" or "wrong" as a part of atheism. Were the whole world atheist, the concepts would not exist. You only know to speak of them because the bulk of the society in which you were raised has religious people guiding your experiences and attitudes (even if they've failed to convince you).

moral and religious are not the same.

and i dont know where you get this 'the is no right or wrong' for atheists. maybe not for sociopaths, but for EVERYONE else, there is right and wrong. It might not tie neatly into your little religious outlook on things, or even be hard for you to understand that people can and do do the right thing just becasue, but it happens all the time.

no religion had to tell you that having something stolen from you wasn't 'fun' for you, so why would a religion have to tell you that stealing is 'wrong'?

 

[Xaquin44]

Nope, they had a series of gods.

oh, I know, I was just pointing out that all morals don't come from the same exact source.

 

[Toxick]

well then you at least have to account for the fact that -any- society has certain laws/morals just by existing. The ancient greeks didn't believe in 'god' per say, but they still had morals etc. etc.

I think what it boils down to, is that everyone has a moral code, based on ... whatever. Be they societial expectations, or handed down from On High.

If an atheist (or a non-orthodox, non practicing Whatever-ist) doesn't necessarily fear any sort Retribution in the afterlife (or Karmic retribution in this life), the only thing keeping them towing the moral/ethical line is basically the promise of living up to societal expectations.

This_Person's boggle with your argument seems to be that without any fear of retribution, there's basically NOTHING to keep someone from suddenly deciding to run rampant.

 

[Xaquin44]

I think what it boils down to, is that everyone has a moral code, based on ... whatever. Be they societial expectations, or handed down from On High.

If an atheist (or a non-orthodox, non practicing Whatever-ist) doesn't necessarily fear any sort Retribution in the afterlife (or Karmic retribution in this life), the only thing keeping them towing the moral/ethical line is basically the promise of living up to societal expectations.

This_Person's boggle with your argument seems to be that without any fear of retribution, there's basically NOTHING to keep someone from suddenly deciding to run rampant.

well there is nothing keeping -anyone- from running rampant. You only have to want to be good.

 

[Toxick]

well there is nothing keeping -anyone- from running rampant.

No, but if a Christian runs rampant, you can tell them that they're going to go straight to ####ing hell.


I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm simply trying to facilitate the communication. Nobody seems to be understanding the point that T_P is trying to make.

Once everyone understands it, then this debate might become more productive, instead of running around in the same circle.

 

[Xaquin44]

No, but if a Christian runs rampant, you can tell them that they're going to go straight to ####ing hell.

They (in theory) know it.

 

[tommyjones]

No, but if a Christian runs rampant, you can tell them that they're going to go straight to ####ing hell.


I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm simply trying to facilitate the communication. Nobody seems to be understanding the point that T_P is trying to make.

Once everyone understands it, then this debate might become more productive, instead of running around in the same circle.

and they can confess their 'sin' and be off the hook, how is that making anyone more morally right than others?


here's the thing, we all have a consience, and it guides us. if you didn' thave religion you would still have a conscience, and you would still have morals.

I personally feel that religions are based on early man's morals, not the other way around. therefore, without religion, you still have the same moral code.

 

[This_person]

moral and religious are not the same.

and i dont know where you get this 'the is no right or wrong' for atheists. maybe not for sociopaths, but for EVERYONE else, there is right and wrong. It might not tie neatly into your little religious outlook on things, or even be hard for you to understand that people can and do do the right thing just becasue, but it happens all the time.

no religion had to tell you that having something stolen from you wasn't 'fun' for you, so why would a religion have to tell you that stealing is 'wrong'?

This starts at 9 because 1-8 were the adjective definitions, and I'm refering to morals as the things, the noun:

Morals
noun
9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.


Okay, so what I'm refering to it the principle with respect to right or wrong conduct. So, let's go there:
right
noun
20. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

So, Atheism, being the lack of a belief system, would have no principles associated with it, no ethical values, so there would be no "right" for there to be right or wrong.

wrong
–noun
8. that which is wrong, or not in accordance with morality, goodness, or truth; evil

Again, there could be no goodness, no evil. So, a wrong would be lack of truth. There is no lack of truth in feeding your family by stealing from the neighbor - that could be right, as it keeps your clan stronger than the rival clan next door. Certainly, that's the way animal packs work. Those based on no more morality than eat/deficate/procreate. Atheism, as a doctrine (not each and every atheist, just the doctrine of atheism) has no more to it than that - eat/deficate/procreate. As a doctrine, it means no more than that.

Now, atheists can be, and virtually always are, much much more than this. But, is that because of what they are inherently, or what they were taught to be by a religious society?

 

[Xaquin44]

So, Atheism, being the lack of a belief system, would have no principles associated with it, no ethical values, so there would be no "right" for there to be right or wrong.

Atheism isn't lack of belief in 'anything', it's the lack of belief in a supreme being.

 

[tommyjones]

Now, atheists can be, and virtually always are, much much more than this. It is because of what they are inherently, Not what they were taught to be by a religious society?

 

[This_person]

I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm simply trying to facilitate the communication. Nobody seems to be understanding the point that T_P is trying to make.

I appreciate that you're trying to help get my point across, but I'm actually not talking about how anyone acts themselves - I'm talking about what the religion teaches them.

There is nothing in the doctrine of atheism that would have someone be good, because there is no "good" in atheism.

There is nothing in the doctrine of atheism that would have someone look out for anyone else because there is nothing about atheism that consists of a higher cognitive concept of self-sacrifice.

Virtually all religions teach to be a certain type of person; not because of fear of retribution, but the point of the religion is to help people be better people in the end regardless of gain/loss to that person specifically.

We can debate all year how there are "good" acting atheists, and Hitleristic Christians, but that's a pointless argument of statistics. My point is in the overriding concepts of religion, and lack thereof.

 

[Xaquin44]

There is nothing in the doctrine of atheism that would have someone be good, because there is no "good" in atheism.

there is no 'doctrine of atheism'.

 

[This_person]

Atheism isn't lack of belief in 'anything', it's the lack of belief in a supreme being.

And, everything that goes with that supreme being, right? The concepts of higher power, higher authority, higher experience.... It's the belief that what we are for our century on the planet is all there is, just like the cow in the field and the sparrow by the barn.

Everything above the cognitive powers of the cow in the field comes from the concept of a supreme being. Otherwise, we're just smart, opposible thumb owning cows.

 

[Xaquin44]

And, everything that goes with that supreme being, right? The concepts of higher power, higher authority, higher experience.... It's the belief that what we are for our century on the planet is all there is, just like the cow in the field and the sparrow by the barn.

Everything above the cognitive powers of the cow in the field comes from the concept of a supreme being. Otherwise, we're just smart, opposible thumb owning cows.

if that's how you see it.

 

[This_person]

there is no 'doctrine of atheism'.

a·the·ism
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless


Atheism IS a doctrine

 

[This_person]

if that's how you see it.

That's not how I see it, I'm religious

What higher power is there in a doctrine of no higher power?

 

[Xaquin44]

a·the·ism
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless


Atheism IS a doctrine

ah apologies

I was thinking of some mythical document atheists read or something (there isn't hehe).