The problem with moderate atheists < this as you might have guessed is a reaction to a post of opposite title


There are two branches of Atheism the weak and the strong


The weak- This type believes there is no god but believes in good and evil

Their phrase is 'live and let live' they believe morality is ingrained in us they are liberalists so let's call them that

The Strong- This type believes there is no God, no good and evil they view laws as inventions of those in authority therefore everyman should strive to be the authority, they summarize their beliefs in one phrase 'Survival of the fittest'

These atheists usually believe in violence as the best solution in life they are models of fascists let's call them supremacists



The liberalists often accuse Christianity of inequality they point at the Atlantic slave trade, they point at women's right, they call Christianity a slave religion "slaves obey your earthly masters" most of them don't see anything wrong with homosexuality as long as it's within the legal age of consent..


they say the world was a better place until Christianity came along


The Supremacists e.g Fredriche Nietzsche believed the exact opposite 'the ancient Romans were not Christians yet they believed women were household properties they were not Christians but they believed Slavery was good' he accused Christianity of being the first religion that tolerated and promoted weakness 'Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth' they believe Christianity is the source of all equality..


most of them don't see anything wrong with homosexuality especially if it is practiced among children

likewise they also say the world was a much better place until Christianity came along


Now in this day and age supremacists are very few, liberalists keep pointing at themselves as the true atheists, they say atheists like Stalin killed for political reasons (what other reason should an atheist kill for? Religious?)


They are always preaching 'live and let live' but always failing over and over again to tell us upon what authority their beliefs are based... God? Satan? surely not Nature, where in the wild have you seen living organisms minding their own business?...the grass blocks the sunlight of other grasses, the deer eats the grass the lion eats the deer other animals fight against the lion for territory and so on, for one organism to live successfully others around it must perish whether by peaceful slow competition or by a violent sudden one

like Richard Dawkins postulated ideas are living organisms called memes

for one idea to survive and reproduce it must out of necessity bring down those around it whether slowly or instantly the only way two different organisms can truly live together is if they mutually work together to bring the downfall of other living organisms


These liberalists often accuse modern Christians of being affected by secularism while it's the direct opposite... IT IS THEY that have been affected by secularism


They frequently contradict themselves in their daily lives, when you ask what is the source of morality? expect an epistle

They talk about legal age of consent, who made legal legal? Legality is an invention of man what man has made...man can destroy

The problem with them is they make it very hard to stamp out the true radical Atheists they protect evil by calling themselves good... these wolves in sheeps clothing are much more dangerous than the true atheists always preaching what they don't believe... they don't believe in evolution they don't believe in creation in summary they fight against everything that Christians are already fighting against yet accusing Christians of being the cause like a parasite their very movement is suicidal all it aims to do is bring down Christianity and other religions with it so the true Atheists the true supremacists can reign as lords forever in the end there would be a huge clapback these moments of freedom is expiring women would be slaves permanently blacks would be slaves permanently because they did give us freedom just to prove to us why they should take it.

.

In general , there is problem with atheism itself. Not just being moderate alone. Atheism totally reject all the moral value and the ethical considerations of theism .The hierarchy in which it was established , the purpose and meaning in life, the claimed benefits and justice etc. and replaces them with precisely…. nothing........

vaxx:
Atheism totally reject all the moral value and the ethical considerations of theism.

So, the atheists you know totally reject the honouring of their parents, and they murder, steal, and lie?

Have you handed your account on here to that ape friend of yours?

budaatum:

So, the atheists you know totally reject the honouring of their parents, and they murder, steal, and lie?

Have you handed your account on here to that ape friend of yours?

The voice of the weak athiest according to the op...

I am an atheist and I believe that like any other living thing i have two basic functions: to survive and to reproduce. I know this because when i look at all the organs in my and other animals bodies, their function is either something that helps me survive or to reproduce. survival is the most important thing to me. I know that you will assume that a person that thinks like this will be evil but let me tell you about my day.

i woke up this morning in a house built by somebody else.
I dont own a house and i cant sleep outside because it is dangerous so i live in somebody's house and pay rent.

our ancestors use to sleep on very hard ground or mats but i woke up this morning on a soft bed that was made by somebody else.

I dont know how to cook so i went to a restaurant and ate beans and bread. the owner of the restaurant doesnt know how to farm so he was given the beans he cooked by a farmer. same with the baker that baked the bread.

I dont have a car so an okada rider took me to where i work. the okada rider did not also produce the okada by himself.

while i was at work i used several things made by other people.

why am i telling you this? It is because i want to let you know the importance of living as a group.

living as a group makes my survival easier. if i want to eat beans and bread i dont have to plant beans and corn and watch it grow. then harvest it then cook it etc. we live dependently which is very very beneficial.

living in peace as a group is very important so laws are set down to guide people to live peacefully.

by common sense this laws should be laws to protect members of the group from bullies. so i support laws against stealing, murder etc.

What i am against are the so called divine laws especially when they condone slavery,misogynity and are against homosexuality. dont get me wrong, these laws were useful for the societies that created them thousand of years ago but they are now outdated.

vaxx:
The voice of the weak athiest according to the op...

And there was me thinking you were capable of reasoning!

Kindly accept my most profound apologies for the mistake.

budaatum:

And there was me thinking you were capable of reasoning!

Kindly accept my most profound apologies for the mistake.

ad hominem 1....am not surprised.

vaxx:
ad hominem 1....am not surprised.

I wonder how you managed to miss the ad hominem in the op and your following post. Selective perception, perhaps?

adoyi8:
I am an atheist and I believe that like any other living thing i have two basic functions: to survive and to reproduce. I know this because when i look at all the organs in my and other animals bodies, their function is either something that helps me survive or to reproduce.

Just wanna focus on this


If a thief steals to survive do you think it's evil?

danvon:


Just wanna focus on this


If a thief steals to survive do you think it's evil?

yes it is evil because
If you had read all my comment you will have seen where i explain how society makes my survival easier.
stealing can destroy the society which makes it evil but homosexuality is not evil because it does no harm to anybody

adoyi8:


yes it is evil because
If you had read all my comment you will have seen where i explain how society makes my survival easier.
stealing can destroy the society which makes it evil but homosexuality is not evil because it does no harm to anybody

but politicians steal all the time people call it embezzlement policemen also collect bribes from drivers and I'm sure you haven't stolen

The strongest ‘argument’ that religious apologists have against atheism is to define atheism as something that it is not. Strong atheism doesn’t mean having no morals. It means holding a belief that there is no God. Weak atheism means not holding a belief in God.

The most “extreme” atheists are gentlemen like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The Communists don’t fight for atheism but for communism.

Seun:
The strongest ‘argument’ that religious apologists have against atheism is to define atheism as something that it is not. Strong atheism doesn’t mean having no morals. It means holding a belief that there is no God. Weak atheism means not holding a belief in God.

The most extreme atheists are people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The Communists don’t fight for atheism but for communism.

Seun to be honest, from your writing, you yourself can see the problem with atheism. It is ambiguous ..


This is what Carl Sagan says ""An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.""

This thread has been created before. It's always the same thing "atheists have no morals, blah blah blah".

All I have to do is find a few links that show the exact opposite and you will see these guys either keep quiet or start to talk outta their asses

Seun:
The strongest ‘argument’ that religious apologists have against atheism is to define atheism as something that it is not. Strong atheism doesn’t mean having no morals. It means holding a belief that there is no God. Weak atheism means not holding a belief in God.

The most extreme atheists are people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The Communists don’t fight for atheism but for communism.

Agnosticism is the only valid view about the non-existence of God while atheism is outrightly invalid based on theory, logic, facts or evidences. The worst view or proof anyone can have about the non-existence of God is 50/50 I.e maybe or maybe not he exists uncertain but to categorically say God doesn't exist is impossible and 100% wrong, that is why atheism itself is based on 100% falsehood. There no discovery, proof, evidence, research, in the past, now or in the future that can prove that God doesn't exist. There is no way to prove God doesn't exist, that is why atheism is false and invalid only agnosticism seem valid and logical.

RuthlessLeader:
This thread has been created before. It's always the same thing "atheists have no morals, blah blah blah".

All I have to do is find a few links that show the exact opposite and you will see these guys either keep quiet or start to talk outta their asses

. What is your source for morality?

Seun:
The strongest ‘argument’ that religious apologists have against atheism is to define atheism as something that it is not. Strong atheism doesn’t mean having no morals. It means holding a belief that there is no God. Weak atheism means not holding a belief in God.

The most extreme atheists are people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The Communists don’t fight for atheism but for communism

Where did I mention communists?

danvon:
. What is your source for morality?

Society.

common sense.

RuthlessLeader:

Society.

common sense.

And who controls the society? Talk about common sense?

The society is not a person it's not a living organism it's the combination of people, if people can simply decide on what is good and bad doesn't that mean there's no morality



By the way most members of your society are Christians and Muslims

danvon:
And who controls the society? Talk about common sense?

Nobody controls society as well as common sense.

The society is not a person it's not a living organism it's the combination of people, if people can simply decide on what is good and bad doesn't that mean there's no morality

Peole can't simply decide on what is good and bad en masse(unless religion like christianity is involved). Society decides that something is good when it benefits them or they think it does as a whole and that something is bad if it harms them or they think it does as a whole.

By the way most members of your society are Christians and Muslims

By the way, religion is a poor indicator of morality, I can bringout a lot of bible verses that have horrible laws that would get you imprisoned in today's society.

RuthlessLeader:

Nobody controls society as well as common sense.

Peole can't simply decide on what is good and bad en masse(unless religion like christianity is involved).
Society decides that something is good when it benefits them or they think it does as a whole and that something is bad if it harms them or they think it does as a whole.



By the way, religion is a poor indicator of morality, I can bringout a lot of bible verses that have horrible laws that would get you imprisoned in today's society.

What is your source for morality? The society


Peole can't simply decide on what is good and bad en masse (unless religion like christianity is involved).


Society decides that something is good when it benefits them or they think it does as a whole and that something is bad if it harms them or they think it does as a whole.


Conclusion: Religions like Christianity is the source for your morality

danvon:
Where did I mention communists?

You mentioned Stalin who was a communist dictator. I also mistakenly thought Neitsche was one of them.

danvon:
What is your source for morality?

There is no “source” of anyone's morality. Rather, there are a multitude of factors which influence your moral judgments as a person. Asking for the “source” of someone's morality is like asking someone “what is the ingredient in your soup?” or “what is the food that you eat?”

danvon:


What is your source for morality? The society


Peole can't simply decide on what is good and bad en masse (unless religion like christianity is involved).


Society decides that something is good when it benefits them or they think it does as a whole and that something is bad if it harms them or they think it does as a whole.


Conclusion: Religions like Christianity is the source for your morality

Religions like christianity aren't the source of my morality. About the first bolded statement, you can see that Islamic countries have barbaric laws that they see as good and christians used to have barbaric laws itself before the reneissance.

Christianity get's it's morality from society itself.

And what about japan, a country with a high percentage of atheists and one of the lowest crime rates in the world?

Seun:
You mentioned Stalin who was a communist dictator.


There is no “source of morality”. Morality is the judgment of the acceptability of actions. Dozens of factors influence this judgment. Asking for the “source” of someone's morality is like asking someone “what is the ingredient in your soup?” or “what is the food that you eat?” There is no “source” of anyone's morality. Rather, there are a multitude of factors which influence your moral judgments as a person.

There is a/are "source(s) of morality", there is also a "standard for morality" generally as human beings and further specifically, based on religious belief, society, culture, environment and many other things, just like u also said there are multitude of factors which influence moral judgment as a person . That is why we have generally moral standard and ethics that pertains to everyman in the world regardless of location or race and we also have moral standard specific to each religion, race, society of each person.
Now to the 'source(s) of morality'. First source, which is also the general standard for all humans is Conscience and also the logical instinctive natural ethics of all men so that no matter where you go in the world, some things will always be considered morally wrong or right.
The other 'source of morality' is Religious belief, this controls the specific morals of each religion as against the general morals. Some things are right according to some religions and wrong according to other religions.
Other sources of morals are the society/cultures etc. These are also specific and not general to everyone.

RuthlessLeader:


Christianity get's it's morality from society itself.

Again I ask what is the society you seem to have confused society for something it's not

RuthlessLeader:



And what about japan, a country with a high percentage of atheists and one of the lowest crime rates in the world?

LMFAO the same Japan that teamed up with Hitler almost a century ago?

vaxx:
Seun to be honest, from your writing, you yourself can see the problem with atheism. It is ambiguous ..


This is what Carl Sagan says ""An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.""

Every belief system on earth is ambiguous. Ambiguities are the reason for the thousands of Christian denominations. That atheists may have different levels of convictions in their belief is little different from the different levels of convictions Christian groups have to the trinity doctrine, or the veneration of Mary and saints, or the divinity of Christ etc.

I'm sure Carl Sagan is a very smart man, but those sophist musings rely on the classic strawman of distorting or inventing a position and arguing against that strawman.

Gratefulheart1:

Agnosticism is the only valid view about the non-existence of God while atheism is outrightly invalid based on theory, logic, facts or evidences. The worst view or proof anyone can have about the non-existence of God is 50/50 I.e maybe or maybe not he exists uncertain but to categorically say God doesn't exist is impossible and 100% wrong, that is why atheism itself is based on 100% falsehood. There no discovery, proof, evidence, research, in the past, now or in the future that can prove that God doesn't exist. There is no way to prove God doesn't exist, that is why atheism is false and invalid only agnosticism seem valid and logical.

I'm agnostic and I'm more than happy to identify as atheist too. Atheism is broadly defined in the English lexicon as a lack of belief, or disbelief in the existence of deities: a broad definition that includes agnosticism. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Agnosticism itself also has broad definitions including those who believe deities to be unknown and those who believe deities to be unknowable. It's all quibbling over semantics and trifles and is not a substantive argument.

danvon:


What is your source for morality? The society


Peole can't simply decide on what is good and bad en masse (unless religion like christianity is involved).


Society decides that something is good when it benefits them or they think it does as a whole and that something is bad if it harms them or they think it does as a whole.


Conclusion: Religions like Christianity is the source for your morality

Even if I took your argument that the source of morality is religion (and it is certainly not), morality as you've defined it would still be a product of human choice. Before Western religions touched some climes, there have been religions where human ritual sacrifice for example would have been acceptable. Those cultures made a choice to adopt more"progressive" religions who find such things abominable. A choice still had to be made. They didn't adopt those moral codes because God threw down commandments from the heavens. The adopted those moral codes because they passed human judgement on what is fair and what is morally defensible.

To say people can't decide what is good and bad is a strange assertion. Human beings have incredible intellectual capacity. If even animals like dolphins, orcas and elephants are intelligent enough to work together in very tight knit pods and families caring for one another, raising each other's offspring, protecting other members from outside threats etc, it's a weird thing to think human beings cannot codify laws that seek to protect the interests of all members of a society. I guess the behavior of orcas is from their intense study of the bible.

Obi1kenobi:


Even if I took your argument that the source of morality is religion (and it is certainly not), morality as you've defined it would still be a product of human choice. Before Western religions touched some climes, there have been religions where human ritual sacrifice for example would have been acceptable. Those cultures made a choice to adopt more"progressive" religions who find such things abominable. A choice still had to be made. They didn't adopt those moral codes because God threw down commandments from the heavens. The adopted those moral codes because they passed human judgement on what is fair and what is morally defensible.

To say people can't decide what is good and bad is a strange assertion. Human beings have incredible intellectual capacity. If even animals like dolphins, orcas and elephants are intelligent enough to work together in very tight knit pods and families caring for one another, raising each other's offspring, protecting other members from outside threats etc, it's a weird thing to think human beings cannot codify laws that seek to protect the interests of all members of a society. I guess the behavior of orcas is from their intense study of the bible.

Please learn how to conduct yourself if you want to post, stop using my mention for someone else see what he posted first

Obi1kenobi:


Every belief system on earth is ambiguous. Ambiguities are the reason for the thousands of Christian denominations. That atheists may have different levels of convictions in their belief is little different from the different levels of convictions Christian groups have to the trinity doctrine, or the veneration of Mary and saints, or the divinity of Christ etc.

The problem here is not about the believe system , it is about the philosophy that hold atheism. As far as it is known, Christianity benchmark is crucifixion of the Christ. No matter your bible understanding, you must subscribe to this concept to be labelled a Christian. And that of Muslim is the five pillar, every Muslim, regarded of their quran interpretation holds this as an articule of faith. But when it comes to atheism, it begins to beg for question, who is weak, strong and moderate ? All sort of confusing. An athiest is ready claim his line of thought is not a believe system which even make it more complex than others faith of religion. You can't hold a position of nothingness as that it a fallacy on its own.

I'm sure Carl Sagan is a very smart man, but those sophist musings rely on the classic strawman of distorting or inventing a position and arguing against that strawman.

Carl Sagan is some of the few that argue against the unscientific and illogical ground of atheism.

vaxx:
The problem here is not about the believe system , it is about the philosophy that hold atheism. As far as it is known, Christianity benchmark is crucifixion of the Christ. No matter your bible understanding, you must subscribe go this concept to be labelled a Christian. And that of Muslim is the five pillar, every Muslim regarded of their quran interpretation holds this an articule of faith. But when it comes to atheism, it begins to beg for question, who is weak, strong and moderate ? All sort of confusing. An athiest is ready claim his line of thought is not a believe system which even make it more complex than others faith of religion. You can't hold a position of nothingness as that it a fallacy on its own.

Carl Sagan is some of the few that argue against the unscientific and illogical ground of atheism.

And the common benchmark of all atheists is a lack of belief in supreme deities: whether strong, weak or whatever. Everyone that is atheist has no belief in the supernatural. It's not that complex at all. And I'm not sure why you're making it sound like atheism should have some kind of codified tenets or something. That is for religious people. We don't get to rehearse our beliefs or unbeliefs to get them to rhyme in perfect symphony.