johnydon22:


You claim to know so many things but can't substantiate any.

How do you do it witha straight face?

Lol

Sometimes you just know some things based on life experiences

NLmember:


Lol

Sometimes you just know some things based on life experiences

And your life experience is an objective paremeter to make a general conclusion.

Is that how it works?

johnydon22:


And your life experience is an objective paremeter to make a general conclusion.

Is that how it works?

Isn't it?

NLmember:


I don't believe good atheists exist. Some might not be outrightly bad because they have a strong conscience but their ethics are not strictly guided or defined so it can change anytime and they will very well justify cheating of infidelity in their minds so that their conscience is no longer affected by it.

So you are just conjecturing? You have no proof?

Besides how is this different from the Christian who is a cheat?

Michellekabod2:

Next please

Let be straight which definition are you going with.

johnydon22:


Interesting; Why do you think Atheists have no morals and can't have morals?

Ask yourself what moral is. Then them separate morals from religion and see what left.

johnydon22:


I think their arguments can be summarized as

1. An atheist lacks the fundamental foundation necessary to cultivate a moral conclusion.

That is 'belief'

They are just wording it wrong by saying 'atheists can't have morals'

Do they mean, belief is the fundamental foundation necessary to cultivate a moral conclusion, and atheists don't believe so can't have morals?

If so, all I can say is thankfully, it does not matter what one believes in ones head, the wages of sin is still death. They should show me anyone, atheist or theist, who does not know their action has an opposite and equal reaction

NLmember:


I don't believe good atheists exist.

I guess its a case of your beliefs against the evidence. You'd rather make things up in your head than check the evidence. Makes me wonder if you know the definition of "stupid", and "foolish", and at the least, "inexperienced". You might find they apply.

hucknall:
Ask yourself what moral is. Then them separate morals from religion and see what left.

I don't understand how this answers my question. My question was intended to make you clarify your point not ask me to do it, I may get quite the contrary result to the one you intended.

So please answer the question.

Why do you think Atheists have no morals and can't have morals?

budaatum:

Do they mean, belief is the fundamental foundation necessary to cultivate a moral conclusion, and atheists don't believe so can't have morals?

Let's do it this way. Morality require a distinction in moral subjects in order to establish a basis for consideration.

Example: Eating a human and eating a chicken.

One is more abhorrable than the other in human moral consideration, and this is because humans believe one to be more special than the other and this is either explicit or implied.

If chickens and humans are held in the same value level, there is absolutely no way humans would abhor killing humans more, they both would either be equally abhorrable or an equal indifference is exerted to both.

This belief is the basis for moral weight.

Another close example is Killing a cow in India and Killing a dog.

Indians believe cows are sacred hence comes with a much bigger moral weight.

So, theists invoke moral value as an intrinsic quality instituted through a transcendent authority - God.

Someone who lacks such belief have no actual reason to say human is more sacred than a cow - You simply think killing humans is wrong because, yeah why not?

Every moral conclusion begins with a basis, a fundamental belief about the subject, secular morality skips this belief and goes right to the conclusion.

If so, all I can say is thankfully, it does not matter what one believes in ones head, the wages of sin is still death. They should show me anyone, atheist or theist, who does not know their action has an opposite and equal reaction

I do not understand this one

NLmember:


Isn't it?

No it isn't.

I'd say it is religion actually, that "skips", and "goes right to the conclusion", a conclusion in the form of "God said", in fact. You are aware, I hope, that we do not leave you, or shall I say, the subject, to form any beliefs they want in their heads right? We taught their parents to believe the desired beliefs, i.e. don't eat human beings, and we are certain they made that a desired belief of their offsprings too. But if perchance we missed them in the desired belief education, I'm certain those we did not miss and who have the desired beliefs will have something to say about eating human beings. And we don't have to invoke a deity or a "fundamental belief" or "skip", since reason should suffice, or imprisonment.

Moral conclusions can begin with thought about the subject, and reasoning, as opposed to a belief, and even the conclusion does not need to be something they believe since we can educate them to know if they can be bothered to learn.

johnydon22:


Let's do it this way. Morality require a distinction in moral subjects in order to establish a basis for consideration.

Example: Eating a human and eating a chicken.

One is more abhorrable than the other in human moral consideration, and this is because humans believe one to be more special than the other and this is either explicit or implied.

If chickens and humans are held in the same value level, there is absolutely no way humans would abhor killing humans more, they both would either be equally abhorrable or an equal indifference is exerted to both.

This belief is the basis for moral weight.

Another close example is Killing a cow in India and Killing a dog.

Indians believe cows are sacred hence comes with a much bigger moral weight.

So, theists invoke moral value as an intrinsic quality instituted through a transcendent authority - God.

Someone who lacks such belief have no actual reason to say human is more sacred than a cow - You simply think killing humans is wrong because, yeah why not?

Every moral conclusion begins with a basis, a fundamental belief about the subject, secular morality skips this belief and goes right to the conclusion.




I do not understand this one

johnydon22:
I don't understand how this answers my question. My question was intended to make you clarify your point not ask me to do it, I may get quite the contrary result to the one you intended.

So please answer the question.

Why do you think Atheists have no morals and can't have morals?

nah.. It better if you do it.

Kay, lemme help you.

Moral -------------------------

standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong.

Do you agree?

hucknall:
nah.. It better if you do it.

No. It isn't.

Kay, lemme help you.

Appreciated

Moral -------------------------

standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong.

Do you agree?

Ok. Agreed.

Go on.

johnydon22:
No. It isn't.

Appreciated

Ok. Agreed.

Go on.

Now who sets the standards?
Re


God, Religion, the State, people, you.

budaatum:
I'd say it is religion actually, that "skips", and "goes right to the conclusion", a conclusion in the form of "God said", in fact.

Invocation of transcendental authority is a belief not a conclusion.

Ascertaining value as intrinsic is implied in the assumption of 'intent' as a requirement for creation.

I'm afraid this doesn't show religious people skip the basis - they really don't.

You are aware, I hope, that we do not leave you, or shall I say, the subject, to form any beliefs they want in their heads right? We taught their parents to believe the desired beliefs, i.e. don't eat human beings, and we are certain they made that a desired belief of their offsprings too. But if perchance we missed them in the desired belief education, I'm certain those we did not miss and who have the desired beliefs will have something to say about eating human beings. And we don't have to invoke a deity or a "fundamental belief" or "skip", since reason should suffice, or imprisonment.

what

Moral conclusions can begin with thought about the subject

Any thought about a subject that instill value or distinction in value is a belief.

and reasoning, as opposed to a belief, and even the conclusion does not need to be something they believe since we can educate them to know if they can be bothered to learn.

Educate to know what, I'm not getting this at all

hucknall:
Now who sets the standards?

An intersubjective deliberation and agreement between a group of humans


Continue.

johnydon22:


An intersubjective deliberation and agreement between a group of humans


Continue.

who are these humans.

hucknall:
who are these humans.

A group of homo sapiens at any localized environment or socioeconomic clique at any point in time.


Go on

johnydon22:
Invocation of transcendental authority is a belief not a conclusion.

Ascertaining value as intrinsic is implied in the assumption of 'intent' as a requirement for creation.

I'm afraid this doesn't show religious people skip the basis - they really don't.

Not all religious people are the same I suppose. As we see here, the op is presenting his belief as a conclusion, but that's not to assume such behaviour is religious only as I find atheists do the same, "invoke authorities", at least.

The entire education system depends on invocation of authorities so I will call it a thing humans do.

johnydon22:
Any thought about a subject that instill value or distinction in value is a belief.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. A thought about a subject that instills value or distinction in value may be from the result of an understanding too, or knowledge even, and does not have to be a belief.

(I see argument that an understanding or knowledge, is a mere belief, but I'm making a distinction here.)

johnydon22:
Educate to know what, I'm not getting this at all

Educate to know, instead of tell to mere believe. The difference is, in educating, one must give background, present reasons, lead to understanding, etc, while to believe is to just accept a thing as so with little or no consideration whatsoever. An example of the a belief would be the ops statement: "I don't believe good atheists exist." And an example of the former is what we are doing to op here, educating him.

johnydon22:


A group of homo sapiens at any localized environment or socioeconomic clique at any point in time.


Go on

1.) Okay what made those human make such decisions?

2.) why where they accepted?

3.) where the decisions void of believes on supernaturals?

buda and Ihead are reading through

NLmember:


He he, not necessarily true.
Some people are born with a conscience though, and they work with it whether religious or not but the truth is that an atheist has nothing to fear aside the law if they wrong or hurt their fellow human.
Unlike religious people that fear hell.

Conscience is not tangible: just like the spiritual, subjective.
Hence any Atheist with a conscience is religious but only denying God

MJBOLT:

at least atheists do not support slavery,genocide etc

They do, it's called survival of the fittest. If they do not support it, it is purely from the relics of religion they subconsciously carry around

johnydon22, budaatum you guys are the one still keeping me online
Let meet later.. (quietly logs out)

hucknall:
1.) Okay what made those human make such decisions?

1. Necessity of order within the circle for each to thrive
2. Obligation as a commodity for unity
3. Understanding that interpersonal interaction is inevitable

2.) why where they accepted?

1. necessity of interpersonal interactions
2. Conceived advantages of an orderly community
3. Belief in a central authority
4. Shared imaginary order/belief

3.) where the decisions void of believes on supernaturals?

Depends the specimen your are considering since these humans are enshrined within social orders such as country, continent, states, hamlets, towns, families, religion.


Continue

budaatum:

Not all religious people are the same I suppose. As we see here, the op is presenting his belief as a conclusion, but that's not to assume such behaviour is religious only as I find atheists do the same, "invoke authorities", at least.

Understand that concepts take on different contexts at different times depending on their uses.

When someone says God is the reason for morality.

This doesn't present God the conclusion on cosmic cause and effect but rather as a basis on the assumptive bases for good and bad.

I suppose we are using 'belief' 'conclusion' 'basis' here differently it feels to me we are not within the same context.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. A thought about a subject that instills value or distinction in value may be from the result of an understanding too, or knowledge even, and does not have to be a belief.

Lol. Morality is an idea, it is conceptual hence there is no moral fact.

If there is no moral fact, there is no way understanding or knowledge factors into moral conclusions.

E.g: Science says the earth is warming

Doesn't mean that science says burning bushes is morally wrong.

Knowledge doesn't come with moral weight, the moral weight is ascribed to things fundamentally from the position of belief since morality itself is immaterial.

You can't know what is not there.

You can know physical or material things but you can't know things that aren't physical there are contingent on a fundamental belief.

Such things are conceived or assumed not known.

E.g; There are physical difference between a human and a cow.

In what way does this factor into their moral difference?

So yes, belief is a necessity in morality.

You may however argue by pointing out that humans can exercise belief as a form of imaginary order independent of external authority therefore belief in God doesn't necessarily present the only approach towards moral derivation and that would be correct.

(I see argument that an understanding or knowledge, is a mere belief, but I'm making a distinction here.)

Not necessarily. A fact is known. There are no moral facts.

Educate to know, instead of tell to mere believe. The difference is, in educating, one must give background, present reasons, lead to understanding, etc, while to believe is to just accept a thing as so with little or no consideration whatsoever. An example of the a belief would be the ops statement: "I don't believe good atheists exist." And an example of the former is what we are doing to op here, educating him.

Moral basis
Imaginary orders

Can't be known, they are rather believed.

No matter how you approach morality whether implicitly or explicitly, belief is at basis of it all.

You can educate people that rape hurts people (Fact)

That's not same as telling them that rape is morally wrong (Belief)

budaatum:

I guess its a case of your beliefs against the evidence. You'd rather make things up in your head than check the evidence. Makes me wonder if you know the definition of "stupid", and "foolish", and at the least, "inexperienced". You might find they apply.

Hahaha
See stylish insult o

In your mind blowing big grammar shows you are intelligent abi? Typical arrogant atheist.

Why are you atheists not answering the question this thread asks? Because you guys know you cannot marry an atheist woman or what?

johnydon22:
No it isn't.

Would you choose a hardcore atheist wife over a liberal and open minded christian woman?

shadeyinka:

Conscience is not tangible: just like the spiritual, subjective.
Hence any Atheist with a conscience is religious but only denying God

Conscience is not religion or symptom of religiousness.

Its just an evolutionary instinct to promote easy coexistence.

NLmember:


Would you choose a hardcore atheist wife over a liberal and open minded christian woman?

I haven't actually thought about it since whether someone is a Christian or atheist has never come up in my considerations when deciding why I want to date or marry someone.

NLmember:


Conscience is not religion or symptom of religiousness.

Its just an evolutionary instinct to promote easy coexistence.

Conscience is informed.

It is shaped.

It may not necessarily be religiously influenced but it is aa a result of a prevailing moral provision learnt/followed by an individual

There is no such thing as a pre-installed moral compass (conscience) due to evolutionary reasons.

That's absurd.

That would suggest morality is intrinsic (objective) which I doubt you'd agree to.