Fear of Atheism

[Taichiliberal]

You are extremely mistaken if you believe a moral subjectivist cannot have the opinion that what the Nazis did was abominable.

You are deluding yourself if you think you can BS past the declarative statement you made with a no-uncertain term conclusion. That you just can't concede a point speaks volumes of your insipidly stubborn bias. It is what it is, Cy. Deal with it. Posts #76 & #78.

 

[Cypress]

You are deluding yourself if you think you can BS past the declarative statement you made with a no-uncertain term conclusion. That you just can't concede a point speaks volumes of your insipidly stubborn bias. It is what it is, Cy. Deal with it. Posts #76 & #78.

Maybe you don't speak and read English very well.

Being a subjective moralist, nothing is stopping them from choosing to act in a way you and I would consider to be moral; to be a decent person.

More importantly, if all that exists is matter and energy, please explain to the board how electrons and quarks have innate objective morality.

 

[Cypress]

Google AI

"Nietzsche believed morality, as we typically understand it, is a subjective construct, not an objective truth, arising from human interpretation and value judgments rather than inherent reality. He challenged traditional morality, viewing it as a tool for power and control rather than a reflection of true values."

Anyone who claims subjective morality supposedly insinuates that they must be a bad person either doesn't understand the English language, doesn't understand the topic, or both.

Frederich Nietzsche believed in subjective morality, but that did not make him a bad person. By all accounts Nietzsche was a decent person who behaved ethically.

 

[Daylight63]

That's how atheism is defined by history's most famous atheist intellectuals, from Nietchze, to Sartre, to Camus, to Schopenhauer, to Richard Dawkins. It's not me defining it.

You have demonstrated time and again your understanding of atheism is limited to one variety and even then you can't seem to understand the technical details.

It's very revealing that you don't want to pay the intellectual price for the consequences of materialistic atheism.

It is very telling that you want to continually misrepresent things and then lambaste people for not living up to your version of things.

It's called a Strawman argument.

That's why you should probably reflect on whether you actually believe in atheism, and examine the reasons for your hesitancy of living out your atheism to it's logical conclusion.

Why do you always assume you are never wrong? I mean you're wrong on atheism in SO MANY ways it actually kind of makes me embarrassed for you when you try to debate atheists. You come across like a strident thumper and you certainly don't seem to understand the topic.

 

[Daylight63]

Google AI

So now you are asking Google to write your posts for you?

 

[Cypress]

You have demonstrated time and again your understanding of atheism is limited to one variety and even then you can't seem to understand the technical details.



It is very telling that you want to continually misrepresent things and then lambaste people for not living up to your version of things.

It's called a Strawman argument.




Why do you always assume you are never wrong? I mean you're wrong on atheism in SO MANY ways it actually kind of makes me embarrassed for you when you try to debate atheists. You come across like a strident thumper and you certainly don't seem to understand the topic.

So since you have this allergic reaction to embracing subjective morality and moral relativism, almost a hypersensitive aversion to being associated with it, then I can surmise you finally agree with me that objective morality and absolute right and wrong are perfectly reasonable to believe in.

You're really taking the opposite position that history's most famous atheist intellectuals did, who to a man denied objective values and morals.

That's why I think you need to reflect on whether you actually can live an atheist philosophy to it's logical conclusion.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Maybe you don't speak and read English very well.

Being a subjective moralist, nothing is stopping them from choosing to act in a way you and I would consider to be moral; to be a decent person.

More importantly, if all that exists is matter and energy, please explain to the board how electrons and quarks have innate objective morality.

YOU keep attaching various definitions to justify your initial generalizations.
History PROVES that more people have been murdered in the name of religion than anything else.
Doesn't mean all religious folk are like that. Similar goes for atheists and agnostics (of which I am of the latter).
That's why we have laws that gives us freedom of and from religion. The "moral" balance can be
and is constantly redefined.
Capice'?

 

[Neoclitorus]

Seems that for one poster, merely questioning the veracity of the Gospels is considered "insulting". And that poster doesn't even think Jesus' teachings are worth his while.

Very strange what fear of atheism does to a person.

its not a fear of atheism, its a healthy fear of atheists, who generally believe in nihilism, eugenics and mass death by any means necessary.

social darwinists are to be ridiculed.

 

[Cypress]

YOU keep attaching various definitions to justify your initial generalizations.
History PROVES that more people have been murdered in the name of religion than anything else.
Doesn't mean all religious folk are like that. Similar goes for atheists and agnostics (of which I am of the latter).
That's why we have laws that gives us freedom of and from religion. The "moral" balance can be
and is constantly redefined.
Capice'?

You appear to be incapable of understanding English, or you are high on crack cocaine.

I said nothing - nada - zilch about religions or whether they are superior to anything else.

But you seem incapable to responding to what I actually wrote, and only choosing to respond to what you wish I wrote.

For the record, Plato and Socrates were not Christians, Jews, or Muslims, but they believed there is an objective morality.
This tangent was about absolute objective morality and subjective morality. Neither of which guarantees any Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist is going to be a decent person.

 

[Daylight63]

You're really taking the opposite position that history's most famous atheist intellectuals did,

No I'm not. You just don't understand atheism. That's the issue.

That's why I think you need to reflect on whether you actually can live an atheist philosophy to it's logical conclusion.

Why is it important to you that I NOT be an atheist? I'm genuinely curious. Because you don't seem to understand it and you seem to have a lot of hatred of it. Your posts drip with it.

Curious behavior for someone who claims to not be a religious bible thumper. (But then it's also quite clear you've read vanishingly little of the Bible as well! Seems maybe this whole topic is beyond you.)

 

[Cypress]

So now you are asking Google to write your posts for you?

That's really funny that you believe the content and organization of my posts are so impressive they must have been created by AI and sophisticated software programs.

 

[Cypress]

No I'm not. You just don't understand atheism. That's the issue.

You are an obscure and totally unknown internet poster. You don't have the status to define atheism. I learned about atheism from the most famous and highly regarded atheist intellectuals of history.
To a man, they all maintain there is no innate objective morality and universal moral truth.

Why is it important to you that I NOT be an atheist? I'm genuinely curious. Because you don't seem to understand it and you seem to have a lot of hatred of it. Your posts drip with it.

I don't care what you are. But I do expect intellectual consistency. While you claim to be atheist, it's obvious you are highly reticent to actually live atheism out to its logical conclusions. I surmise that you aren't really sure if you are a committed physical materialist after all. That's fine. I'm not really sure exactly what I am, I am still searching.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You appear to be incapable of understanding English, or you are high on crack cocaine.

I said nothing - nada - zilch about religions or whether they are superior to anything else.

But you seem incapable to responding to what I actually wrote, and only choosing to respond to what you wish I wrote.

For the record, Plato and Socrates were not Christians, Jews, or Muslims, but they believed there is an objective morality.
This tangent was about absolute objective morality and subjective morality. Neither of which guarantees any Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist is going to be a decent person.

Your first sentence is a regurgitation of a previous post that is more projection than addressing the key points of my responses.

Puh-leeze, Cy! Spare us this lame attempt at smoke blowing and dodging .... you're not smart enough or adept enough to pull it off (only the smiling joker you see in the mirror nods in approval of your tactic). THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS BASED UPON DISCUSSION OF THOSE WHO REJECT (wait for it) RELIGION AND THE CONCEPT OF GOD AS BEING SOMEONE TO FEAR! YOU attempted to caste all atheists as prone to be (and I'll cut you some slack by inserting "potentially") morally deficient based on their beliefs. I correctly pointed out that "moralism" is no more or less imbued in human beings regardless of whether they are religious, atheist or agnostic ... as I pointed out the historic records of whole sale murder in the name of religion (i.e. Crusades, Jihads, Inquisition, America's and Australia's "Native" schools).

Now you keep waffling and BS'ing, name dropping objective/subjective morality do bolster your basic intention.

I'll dumb it down for you with regards to the subject title of this thread; THERE IS NO MORE NEED TO FEAR ATHEISM THAN THERE IS TO FEAR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR AGNOSTIC BELIEFS. EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF GOOD OR EVIL. SO THE VERY PREMISE OF THE OP IS INACCURATE AT BEST.

Got that, Cy? Because if you agree with that then we're pretty much done here. But if you continue to try and split a hair or claim I staged something that doesn't exist in the chronology of the posts, then you're just being insipidly stubborn with a heavy dose of foolish pride. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

its not a fear of atheism, its a healthy fear of atheists, who generally believe in nihilism, eugenics and mass death by any means necessary.

social darwinists are to be ridiculed.

That's a sweeping generalization. Do all religious folk believe in riding the train of imperialism? Of what was done to Native Americans in the "Boarding Schools"? The Crusades? The Inquisition? Hell, this country was "founded" by a bunch of religious zealots who were pushed out of their native land for being pains in the ass. Are all religious folk down with the christo-fascist agenda that started with Reagan and is now imbodied by the likes of Spkr. Johnson?

If not, then you are hypocritical to assign a generality to others without proof.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Google AI

"Nietzsche believed morality, as we typically understand it, is a subjective construct, not an objective truth, arising from human interpretation and value judgments rather than inherent reality. He challenged traditional morality, viewing it as a tool for power and control rather than a reflection of true values."

Anyone who claims subjective morality supposedly insinuates that they must be a bad person either doesn't understand the English language, doesn't understand the topic, or both.

Frederich Nietzsche believed in subjective morality, but that did not make him a bad person. By all accounts Nietzsche was a decent person who behaved ethically.

Nietzsche is NOT the be all, end all of the theory/belief of atheism. He had his viewpoint, but so did others. For your education:

www.humanreligions.info/atheism_history.html

 

[Neoclitorus]

That's a sweeping generalization. Do all religious folk believe in riding the train of imperialism? Of what was done to Native Americans in the "Boarding Schools"? The Crusades? The Inquisition? Hell, this country was "founded" by a bunch of religious zealots who were pushed out of their native land for being pains in the ass. Are all religious folk down with the christo-fascist agenda that started with Reagan and is now imbodied by the likes of Spkr. Johnson?

If not, then you are hypocritical to assign a generality to others without proof.

you're an idiot.

all vocal atheists are genocider Nazis.