Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 14, 2010 at 9:23pm

I know. But the way you were framing what you were saying was confusing me on where you were coming from.

And my point is that when they check to see if God is okay with whatever, they are actually checking with themselves. So, to say that they base their morality on the Bible or a "theistic base" is incorrect, unless the theistic base is their modern church. And I don't know if you meant to say it that way or not, but that is what I got out of it and I was just looking for clarification.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 15, 2010 at 3:26am

We're talking about the same basic thing, but at different levels. To be clear, I pretty much agree with everything you've said, but it doesn't alter my point. I'm not talking about what motivated a person/ people to adopt certain moral values; I am talking about how those values are formalized using God/ Jesus as the base of moral arguments.

God approves of x; therefor, x is good.
God disapproves of x; therefor, x is bad.

I am not talking about how well this premise is supported for any given moral value or what actually motivates the creation of that moral value. I am stating only that this is the end product included in the moral philosophy.

For example: (hypothetical) a church opens its doors to homosexuals and counts them in the congregation. This is a change from the previous policy of condemning homosexuality as a sin.

What prompted the change? In reality, the church needed more members due to declining attendance, advances in research were making it harder and harder to claim that homosexuality is a choice, social trends were changing and people were realizing that gays are actually human and it's not that much fun to spit on them anymore.

So they realize all those things and start accepting gays, right? No, not yet. Accepting gays is still a morality issue for them, and simply realizing that they want to change their actions based on the reasons listed above is not sufficient. Why? Because they have defined morality as abiding by God's will. So what do they do? They reinterpret their bibles in a way that is favorable to their new stance. When they make their new statement on morality concerning homosexuals, they set Jesus as the base of the argument.

-Jesus wanted us to love and accept all of our fellow human beings.
-'All of our fellow human beings' includes homosexuals.
-Therefore, Jesus wanted us to love and accept homosexuals.

-Jesus approves of accepting homosexuals; therefore, accepting homosexuals is good.

Remove Jesus from that argument and there is no argument. All I am referring to is the formalization of moral code under that... 'logic'. What truly motivates it all and how well it truly stacks up to the theology, mythology, and history of Christianity is a much larger subject. Is Jesus' name nothing more than a tool for rationalizing what that church wanted to do anyway in that scenario? In practice, yes, but initially, I was never going that far with my statement.

point of clarification: that hypothetical is only there to show what, specifically, I am focusing on: not the back story of the church's decision, but the final argument they present to me. If the only argument I get from someone is 'Jesus said so', that's the only logic I can address with them. I can't insert ulterior reasoning into someone's mouth.

Permalink Reply by Becca on March 14, 2010 at 5:40pm

Atheist - lack of belief in god.
Agnostic - god existence is unknown and unknowable.
Free Thinker - one who's viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. (definition form Wikipedia)
Secular Humanist - is a humanist philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives. (Definition from Wikipedia)

All atheism is, is a lack of belief in god. There are plenty of atheists out there who aren't free thinkers and who aren't secular humanists or are plain not secular. There are atheists who are also agnostic ect...

Secular Humanism and free thinker are not just atheist cop outs they have their own valuable meanings. I dislike it when atheists use themas cop outs though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 14, 2010 at 5:59pm

There are plenty of atheists out there who aren't free thinkers and who aren't secular humanists or are plain not secular.

Atheism is a statement about one's unbelief. It doesn't state anything about if the person is a Secular Humanist or a Tarot Card reader. But being a Secular Humanist doesn't say if you like the outdoors or if you are a red head. How much definition do we need from a label? Atheism deals with a simple concept. Do you belief in a god or gods or not?

There are atheists who are also agnostic ect...

Almost all atheists are agnostics (technically, everyone is agnostic about everything, but that is being pedantic). It is a redundant term unless we are to believe that atheists are making claims of absolute certainty. Being fairly certain and absolutely certain are starkly different things. And being fairly certain does not necessitate, in my opinion, the use of "agnostic" or some other qualifier for atheism.

Secular Humanism and free thinker are not just atheist cop outs they have their own valuable meanings. I dislike it when atheists use themas cop outs though.

I agree they are not "cop outs". They are different labels with different definitions. I'm an atheist. But, I'm also a Skeptic. Actually, I'm an atheist because I'm a Skeptic, but not all Skeptics are atheists and neither are all Secular Humanists.

If you don't believe in a god or gods or you don't know, then you are an atheist. At least that is what I will argue until I am blue in the face or am presented with a more convincing argument otherwise. ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becca on July 26, 2010 at 1:48am

I know it's been a while since I've been on this thread but I'm always at a loss with how to respond to a person who has basically restated much of what I just said but phrases it as if it's an argument against what I just said.

Perhaps some clarification (if you even remember this post well enough) is needed here?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on July 26, 2010 at 2:08am

As an impartial third party, his response doesn't really read all that much like arguments against what you wrote. His third paragraph even states flatly, 'I agree...' to the point which it addresses.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan Hargrave on March 14, 2010 at 6:27pm

as you can see, its sunday. i have nothing to do....

before i pitched a fit i certainly double checked definitions.

agnostic can not at all ever one bit be said to be an atheist. atheist is CERTAIN that there are no gods. agnostic, they arent sure.

free thinker.... i can only assume that a person who does not believe in the existence of a higher power or god would be using the opinions of science, logic, reason, and are notinfluenced by traditions or dogma.

and again, the whole humanist thing.... since i am an atheist there is no way possible that i can draw my morality from supernatural or religious influence. as far as being the kind of person who espouses reason, ethics and justice.... like i said, i dont need a fancy word to state if i am an ass or a good person. i will let my actions do that. you should be a good person regardless of religious stance. you shouldnt have to specify that you are a humanist. really, if you arent for humans, what are you for and why the hell are you not in prison?

to state that you are not an atheist when asked your religious stance, means that you do believe in a god or gods or that there is a possibility of higher power and intelligent design. if you answer atheist in some other form, you are simply answering questions that were not yet asked of you. very much like "im an atheist but i am pro life and anti death penalty". no one asked you about your morals, they asked about your religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 14, 2010 at 6:39pm

as you can see, its sunday. i have nothing to do....

Me too!

agnostic can not at all ever one bit be said to be an atheist. atheist is CERTAIN that there are no gods. agnostic, they arent sure.

I do not agree with this definition, among others, for atheism. What sort of certainty do you mean? I've read definitions of atheism as being "a denial of God". Would you say that this is true because it was defined that way by a reputable source?

I say no way. "Agnostic" pulls punches with religion where we would not pull punches in other arenas. From Russell's teapot to fairies in the garden. We are not eager to express our agnosticism about those. But neither are we absolutely certain that they do not exist (can't prove a negative and all). There are no compelling reasons to believe any of it, so we don't. And that is how, I think, the modern definition of atheism should take form.

Saying you don't believe in dinosaurs on the Moon does not mean that they don't exist, but the concept is so improbable, that we can cut the ped-antics and just drop any agnostic flair about it. We are agnostic about almost everything, so why do we only trot the term out for religion? Maybe it is a vestige of the religious reverence that most people carry?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan Hargrave on March 14, 2010 at 6:40pm

ah ha, i thought of something....

when someone asks you if you are a christian, do you say "no, im a republican" or "no, im a democrat"

certainly either of those answers is going to admit some of the morals that you hold near and dear... but neither of them are the proper answer. im a simple fact, answering anything other than atheist does not answer the question at hand.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 14, 2010 at 6:42pm

I'm a Capricorn!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carolanne on March 14, 2010 at 5:41pm

I agree with you. When people ask me what I am, I say "Anti-theist." I think trying to make it sound "better" or "less rude" is ridiculous and insulting to people who are proud to call themselves Atheists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hellard on March 14, 2010 at 6:58pm

In Melbourne, over here in Australia, I reckon it is perfectly safe to shout out that you are an atheist, from the rooftops. We've just had the World Atheism Convention last weekend. Dawkins was here with a rockstar status. Unlike in some US states.

When I was growing up here, the smartest, most independent, wittiest and cutest girls at parties always had the attitude that religion was evil and had a lot to answer for.

Now in my 40s, I don't think anyone would give a shit either way. It's almost irrelevant. It's the god-botherer who has the problem. They can't pull the audience anymore over here anymore, and it's becoming embarrassing to the church.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page