ChatterBank1 min ago
Atheist Confusion?
174 Answers
Its about time the AB atheists had a big fat believer to sink their teeth into, and tear to shreds, all red in tooth and claw.
Like fox hunting, it is an acceptable blood sport :-)
So, Richard Dawkins has stated that the universe is simply blind indifference, (paraphrased), that we simply dance to the demands of our DNA.
Yet he has said that science has put men on the moon, yet evil religion flies planes into towers.
Do you see the inconsistency?
This raises questions about morality, and maybe, just maybe, we could discuss it without spilling too much blood, burning too many martyrs, or sending hate mail?
(But just in case I shall be wearing full body armour and a crash helmet :-)
Like fox hunting, it is an acceptable blood sport :-)
So, Richard Dawkins has stated that the universe is simply blind indifference, (paraphrased), that we simply dance to the demands of our DNA.
Yet he has said that science has put men on the moon, yet evil religion flies planes into towers.
Do you see the inconsistency?
This raises questions about morality, and maybe, just maybe, we could discuss it without spilling too much blood, burning too many martyrs, or sending hate mail?
(But just in case I shall be wearing full body armour and a crash helmet :-)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland; what's your point? Your post seems a bit unclear to me. I don't think that atheists here sink their teeth and enjoy red blood under their claws. That's more of a fundamental christian thing isn't it? You say that some people will go to hell for eternal torment; atheists just say that you might be wrong - they don't predict eternal torment for believers.
One thing I have noticed about us atheists, Theland, is that we're not constantly attempting to re-assure ourselves that the path we have chosen is the correct one. Unlike you god-botherers greedily consuming all the religious YouTube videos you can cram into your ever-so-busy lives just so you allowed to pass beyond the Pearly Gates. Why can't you just leave us alone? If we are condemned to spend eternity in hell, so be it. More room for you in heaven:-/ Besides, I've always loved an open fire.
Unsure what the inconsistency is. If free will is an illusion, then morality is simply an idea that was bound to surface, but it doesn't stop those whose brains don't work too well* from getting some idiot to fly into towers. Or indeed working well* enough to visit the moon.
*well from the point of view of those who can grasp the concept of morality and immorality (whether they think they want to or not).
*well from the point of view of those who can grasp the concept of morality and immorality (whether they think they want to or not).
Morality isn't rocket science. Morality stems from a recognition and acknowledgement of our mortality, that our lives, well-being and happiness are conditional and that without life there is no means of or purpose for consciousness, belief, choice and action. From this essential starting point we begin to realise that cooperation and rational thought is in our mutual best interest. Moral virtues are to be realised and rewarded in life, not in death.
Ken, I am not o God botherer as I try not to bother him.
I certainly have no intention of bothering you or anybody else.
My intention was to simply initiate a discussion, not a debate with winners and losers.
OG - The inconsistency is that Dawkins has stated that there is no such thing as good and evil.
That is a very strange statement, as you and I can readily recognise evil.
Is that not so?
MIBs, with the greatest of respect, your description of the basis of morality sounds more like a social contract between people, tribes or nations, with no acceptance of absolute values.
That is a weak basis for good behaviour.
And thank you for your interest and response.
I certainly have no intention of bothering you or anybody else.
My intention was to simply initiate a discussion, not a debate with winners and losers.
OG - The inconsistency is that Dawkins has stated that there is no such thing as good and evil.
That is a very strange statement, as you and I can readily recognise evil.
Is that not so?
MIBs, with the greatest of respect, your description of the basis of morality sounds more like a social contract between people, tribes or nations, with no acceptance of absolute values.
That is a weak basis for good behaviour.
And thank you for your interest and response.
//MIBs, with the greatest of respect, your description of the basis of morality sounds more like a social contract between people, tribes or nations, with no acceptance of absolute values.
That is a weak basis for good behaviour//
Why is that a weak basis for good behaviour?
(I would just change your 'social contract' for social *construct* though)
That is a weak basis for good behaviour//
Why is that a weak basis for good behaviour?
(I would just change your 'social contract' for social *construct* though)
Theland; Dawkins has not said that there is no good or evil, he simply says that these concepts are innate and not reliant on the opinions of men (not women) who lived many years ago. If you didn't have innate concepts of good and evil you would not have been able to choose the bible as the book in which you wish to believe - you have chosen to believe it because it fits in with your human instincts. Why don't you follow the Q'ran or any of the other holy books? Because you prefer your favourite. Why do you have a favourite? Because it corresponds to your instincts. Do you see any sense in what I am saying? And, please, I don't really want to hear a reiteration of what the bible tells you to think, just what you as a rational person make of my remarks.
Atheist - From his book, River Out Of Eden, Richard Dawkins says :-
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
//Nailit - Yes the bibles morality is the actual absolute authority of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the gospel of the New Testament.//
Then, as Russel points out, Jesus had a great moral flaw in his character...he believed in Hell. Eternal, never ending torment for those that could not / would not accept him.
Preaching ''Forgive your enemies'' and the subjecting his own 'enemies' to agonies that we cant even conceive of is not moral.
Do I (or other atheist on AB) deserve to be tortured? Forever? Because we simply CANNOT accept the Bible as the word of God?
Or perhaps you think that ETERNAL TORTURE is moral?
Then, as Russel points out, Jesus had a great moral flaw in his character...he believed in Hell. Eternal, never ending torment for those that could not / would not accept him.
Preaching ''Forgive your enemies'' and the subjecting his own 'enemies' to agonies that we cant even conceive of is not moral.
Do I (or other atheist on AB) deserve to be tortured? Forever? Because we simply CANNOT accept the Bible as the word of God?
Or perhaps you think that ETERNAL TORTURE is moral?
