I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
Actually a lot of us use our own, internal moral compass for that. Most of it is just what we were taught as children as far as interpersonal relations. But give me a few minutes and I might be able find something that might fit your needs.
Try this one. It's available for free in the Kindle edition on Amazon.
And if you don't have a Kindle there is a downloadable "Kindle" you can use on your PC or Mac. Also free. :) I might download this one myself.
Yes i am a Kindle-a-holic. Thanks.
Mine's a KOBO! I prefer audio books lately as my vision gets worse.
I really gotta say, Wretched, that I would like to know where you think Christians draw their morals from. I mean, if you started hearing a voice that told you to kill your own child - would you act on it, or would you seek psychological help? Are you morally opposed to owning slaves? Do you think it's wrong to hamstring horses while smiting your enemy? Would you really cut your own right eye out if it were drawn to pornographic images?
If any of the above questions seem disturbing to you - then it is unlikely that you draw your morals from the bible. Given that you do not actually hear the voice of the deity in which you believe - how have you arrived at any moral positions that run contrary to the bible?
Watched the video. For the sake of argument, Blaine, let's go with that. Where are we drawing the axioms for controlling the morality? We are saying it is scientific but wouldn't greater scientific knowledge be leading us to a more unified ethic? (I don't see that happening).
There is no "best moral philosopher of atheism." I don't understand why this is so hard for xians to get through there head, but ***ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM OR PHILOSOPHY***. Atheism is simply not being a theist. It is simply the lack of belief in any supernatural phenomena. The only thing that atheists have in common is that we don't by into delusional superstitions. Period. There are some good philosophers that try to scientifically explain where morals come from *FOR EVERYONE*, but there is no "moral characteristics" in atheism.
I, myself, follow Zen Buddhism as a moral philosophy. Others, more basically, follow the Golden Rule. We, as a group, are just as diverse as any other demographic.
Your question is akin to asking "what is the moral philosophy of people living in South America?" or "what is the moral philosophy of people who collect stamps?" In other words, it's a nonsensical, irrelevant question. If you want to know where people *GET* their morals, that is a completely different question and there is tons of information about that on the web. But none of it applies to *only* atheists.
Everyone has some kind of belief system and thing in which they base their axioms, no? For much of time it has been from a belief I believe there is a God, you believe there is not one. I believe their are no such things as UFO's and unicorns. I am comfortable saying I believe that they do not exist, not merely that I am not a unicornist. I actively and with positive rational cognition believe they don't exist.
I am asking a group of people who all say they have morals who would disavow a divine source of them where they draw their concepts of right and wrong from. I am not expecting a unified "this is official atheist" perspective. I am simply asking each as an individual to explain it though I might expect some commonality.
@Wretched - "I believe their are no such things as UFO's and unicorns. I am comfortable saying I believe that they do not exist, not merely that I am not a unicornist. I actively and with positive rational cognition believe they don't exist."
Oh, that is TOO FUNNY! Why do you not believe in UFOs and unicorns? You claim because it is a position from "positive rational cognition"? You disbelieve in UFOs and unicorns, despite there being no conclusive evidence that they do not exist, but merely from the position that there is no evidence supporting their existence and therefore no reason to believe in them.
Yet you believe in a super-sky fairy overseer, again for what reason? You don't believe in UFO and unicorns because there is no valid reason to, right? And yet, with all of the evidence disproving your god, proving beyond all reason that your bible is fallacious and cannot possibly be the the word of any "perfect being", you still choose to believe?
So, why do you believe in yhwh and not UFOs and unicorns?
My "rough tone" is because you are not interested in answers. You are performing a softball type of religious proselytization.
If anyone really wanted to understand atheism, all they have to do is read any or all of the following: Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Ingersoll, Russel, Hitchens, to name a few. Articles, books, and videos by these great thinkers are readily available on the net. All of your questions and many that you do not raise will be completely answered.
What you will find is that all religious claims have been thoroughly refuted many times. And, all religious questions have been thoroughly answered many times. What the religious do, because of psychological reasons having nothing to with truth or fact, is ignore the refutations and answers, and keep repeating the same lame, refuted, and tired nonsense.
Wretched Saint, Will you go and read the sources, and listen to the video debates by these great thinkers, as Jack Howard has suggested? It would be a fine start for you, if you are sincerely curious. Or is he right, that you are a soft ball proselytizer?