Atheism = Moral Bankruptcy
Written by admin on March 1, 2009 – 8:30 am -Tags: atheism, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, paleocrat, rational, relativity, responders, Richard, Sam, sapient
Posted in Atheism in Politics | 25 Comments »
Tags: atheism, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, paleocrat, rational, relativity, responders, Richard, Sam, sapient
Posted in Atheism in Politics | 25 Comments »
By Childinfaith on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
He didn’t say they …
He didn’t say they have no morals, he says that they can’t account for them.
By Cordman1221 on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Yes, somehow I can …
Yes, somehow I can kill Muslims with one hand and preach the bible with one hand while screaming “ATHEISM HAS NO MORAL!”
Honestly, screaming that Atheists can have no morals holds no truth in reality. Get real before you post dumb lectures on YouTube.
By wimscheers on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
If morality would …
If morality would be relative, things would be bad, so therefore it’s objective?
By fede2 on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
frankly, paleocrat, …
frankly, paleocrat, you haven’t managed to adress atheism, you’ve only adressed certain atheists.
you also seem to imply that moral standards are merely a logical conclusion derrived from a preconcieved existance of some diety. that’s not nearly enough to have any bearing in reality.
morality is a human conception reflected on a particular aspect of reality (human behavior). it is by this definition as relevant as math or science and demands, as such, objective standards.
By sweetsweatyfeet on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Theists do not have …
Theists do not have a monopoly on morality. A proper code of human morality is determined by reason. Not by inexplicable commandment by some some supernatural entity in the sky. That is not morality, that is obedience.
There are countless religious faiths across the globe each with unique and often conflicting moral codes.
Some of the bloodiest atrocities, murder and suffering in man kinds history came from religious conflict, and intolerance towards those who did not share a particular faith.
By paleocrat on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
I deal with the …
I deal with the connection between atheism and ethics in two recent videos:
1. Some Atheists Just Don’t Get It
2. Bobin for Answers
By Beskargam on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Well, my own take …
Well, my own take on morals is that if something harms someone and it can be avoided, then it is immoral. I guess my morals spring from empathy, which is a trait necessary to human society. Granted, it’s not really a Deist take on morality (I’m not even sure there is one), but there it is.
I’m not seeing the connection between Atheism and morality though. Take an Atheist Buddhist for example, I know one, and he doesn’t buy into moral relativism any more than you do.
By paleocrat on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Anyone is welcome …
Anyone is welcome to comment on my channel. I deny no one, and I only block those who flood my site with nonsense. To date, I have only done this to two or three people, all but one being permitted back on after promising to discontinue flooding.
Deists are a rare breed, so your take will be insightful.
By Beskargam on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
I know this little …
I know this little comment section is dedicated to Atheists and their morality, but are Deists welcome as well?
By anavarre on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
What a person …
What a person believe morally is irrelevant to their atheism. Atheism means a lack of a belief in gods. Nothing else. It doesn’t even mean no objective morality. It doesn’t mean a thing besides a person’s position on god.
By fede2 on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
morality is a …
morality is a separate notion from faith.
By butchkitties on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
You don’t …
You don’t understand moral relativism at all. It is not majority rules. Moral relativism is the position that acts must be judged individually and objectively by their circumstances and, more importantly, by their consequences. Moral absolutism judges acts in a vacuum, with no regard to consequences. It’s LAZY morality, not perfect morality. Moral absolutism is for people who don’t want to think before they act.
By dangerouslytalented on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Your argument does …
Your argument does not hold true:Those who supported slavery turned to the BIBLE to support their views.The Spanish inquisition?Where did they get their inspiration?Where did the 911 hijackers get their inspiration?Belief in god only reinforces our own belief structure, and it is easy for a “holy man” to warp those beliefs for their own uses, as in Jonestown.The only reason why a lot of moral concepts ended up in the bible, (and koran and torah) is because PEOPLE put them there.
By Wilyam23 on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Great job Paleo. …
Great job Paleo. Evidence of a God and of a loving one is all around us – except for the willingly ignorant. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, etc. all concluded that there had to have been an intelligent, prime mover, and it wasn’t them despite their efforts to prove otherwise. I suppose all these hacks attempting to debate the side of no God are more intelligent than these fellows.
By YaMumYaNanYaGran on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Listening to …
Listening to asinine rubbish like this should be considered immoral for wasting peoples time.
By paleocrat on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
On the one hand you …
On the one hand you aren’t a fan over debating where (if anywhere) a line may be drawn. On the other hand you say that my examples are extremes. Furthermore, you admit to there being a line dividing right and wrong! You even list some rights and wrongs. Then comes the bare assertion, begging the question.
I’m talking about this on my radio show tonight. Feel free to listen. Calling in would be classic. Most atheists chicken out… with lame excuses. Unfortunate, but predictable.
By Cybersonic5 on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
I see you want to …
I see you want to win this by using a term to it’s extremes. You don’t need a bible or any religous text to know what is right and what is wrong. This includes murderers, rapist, thieves, and child molesters being bad. Exploitation is also bad (like religous figures).
Take it that if an old lady is crossing a street and it looks like she needs help. Naturally you would think “She needs to be helped” and you would help her out for her not because the bible says so.
Take care!
By paleocrat on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Alright. Then let’s …
Alright. Then let’s play without lines. No lines drawn. Let the murderers, rapists, thieves, and child molesters free. If we can’t draw a line, then there is no line. If there is no line, then there is no crossing it. No rights, no violation of rights, no tyranny or freedom.
“Open minded” people like you can talk all day long. But it would be on earth if you got your way. Thank God we have enough “closed minded” people smart enough not to fall for your nonsense.
By Cybersonic5 on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
I hate the “where …
I hate the “where do you draw the line?” argument! Close minded thinking like that counts as a loss. It always comes down to being afraid of change and uncertainty of what the future holds. Not like people in power like the church hasn’t done enough damage. How much money does the vatican get from people every year and what is it spent on? People in third world countries like africa could thrive with pocketmoney that the Vatican has!
lol, does the Pumpkin Pie Baking Granny use Hitler’s ovens?
By mitchewawa2 on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
I especially like …
I especially like the moral bit in the bible where it says to kill all non-believers, people with long hair, gays and thieves.
Then it condradicts iself by saying that all murderers have to be killed.
Moral. Really…
By aleebannister on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
But isn’t it funny …
But isn’t it funny that this video isn’t even dealing with whether people consistently live out their espoused ethical presuppositions? Nobody here is saying that Christians or atheists consistently live out their espoused worldview. The issue under discussion was with how we come to ethical conclusions and how these findings are in any way binding.
In short, your point here is worthless… at least for this video. It may work (not likely) on another, but not here.
By jadziafreedom on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
But isn’t it funny …
But isn’t it funny that Atheists only make up 2 (or was it .2?) percent of the jail population.
By TheAgnosticAspie on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Christians pretty …
Christians pretty much just want to convert the world because they want everybody else to be just as miserable as they are.
By GronTheMighty on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
hello, i am the …
hello, i am the nicest human being to have ever existed on the face of the earth, and i dont believe in neither god nor allah, nor do i believe any teaching should nor could really tell anyone how to live, for it is already in each and everyone of us to understand that the way we ourselves like to be treated is the same way we should strive to treat others that surround us to acheive the maximal amount of happiness for all – religion and such aside, just be nice and that’s all there is to it
By Silam81 on Mar 1, 2009 | Reply
Your quote of …
Your quote of Exodus is from a 20th century bible version. The Bible was not written in the 20th century. Older Bibles do not have the word ‘slave’ every other chapter. Bible condemns oppression.
I do not hate atheists. Non-religious fought the nazis also, as the case with Denmark.
There are atheists who are moral and do not hate religion. see youtube videos by Stolyarov.
Time magazine has an article called ‘German martyrs.’ Nazis hated Christian religion. Jesus was Jewish.