Why I am an atheist

[Starlight]

Atheism isn't happy unless it's trying to destroy religion, which is why you are here on Tweb.

Most atheists couldn't care less about religion.

And posting on TWeb is hardly a sensible method to destroy religion. I post on TWeb mainly because I used to post here ten years ago when I was a Christian, and more recently because I wanted to discuss politics with US conservatives to see if they were really as insane as US media was making them seem.

[Cow Poke]

Most atheists couldn't care less about religion.

You, no doubt, have some scientific poll backing this up, yes?

And posting on TWeb is hardly a sensible method to destroy religion.

Come on, it's TAZZY we're talking about -- you expect "sensible"?

[Darth Ovious]

Then there is no point in raising it as an issue in the first place then since we know various parties can all be guilty of it which was my point.



Buddhism *cough* *cough* There is a difference though when we are talking about specific ethics. There is no difference in the function if all you're doing is changing God for the state.

Atheists don't

Humanists are atheists who got together to produce a set of ethics, which makes the bolded part of what you said downright wrong. Honestly you just contradicted yourself with this statement too.

To be honest, you're better just going on my ignore list too because I don't really care about what you have to say. Your input into matters is usually about as useful as a chocolate teapot or a condom machine in the Vatican.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Humanists are atheists who got together to produce a set of ethics, which makes the bolded part of what you said downright wrong. Honestly you just contradicted yourself with this statement too.

I think it's clear that what Tass was implying, there, is that there is no overarching hierarchy of atheists which convenes to determine an ethical standard to be followed by all atheists. Humanists produce Humanist ethical standards. Buddhists produce Buddhist ethical standards. Atheist Neopagans, such as myself, produce Neopagan ethical standards. Ethical standards are determined by one's positive beliefs about the world; a lack of belief in deity does not make any better a platform for ethics than does a lack of belief in faeries or tengu or the Baba Yaga.

[Darth Ovious]

I think it's clear that what Tass was implying, there, is that there is no overarching hierarchy of atheists which convenes to determine an ethical standard to be followed by all atheists. Humanists produce Humanist ethical standards. Buddhists produce Buddhist ethical standards. Atheist Neopagans, such as myself, produce Neopagan ethical standards. Ethical standards are determined by one's positive beliefs about the world; a lack of belief in deity does not make any better a platform for ethics than does a lack of belief in faeries or tengu or the Baba Yaga.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

????? What exactly is this supposed to be addressing? Starlight's post was basically a nonsensical rant and all I was doing was showing him that it was nonsense. My point was that even atheists have to come up with a moral code and get it wrong sometimes. Also I pointed out that he shouldn't group all religions together because not all religions share the same ethical standards. I'm sure you can understand that.

I didn't respond to anything you said about Starlight's post, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. But, yes, I agree that one should not lump all religions together as if they share the same ethical standards. The ethics of my religion are very different from those of Christianity, for example.

You're ignoring the entire context of what Tass said. Here's the whole quote:



It's rather obvious that he was not claiming that there are no atheists who get together to produce sets of ethics. He acknowledges right in there that humanists attempt to develop ethical frameworks, and that humanists are atheists.

Now, if you feel that his point was ultimately moot, that's all well and good. I'm just pointing out that you seemed to be misinterpreting what Tass had originally written.

[Tassman]

Atheism isn't happy unless it's trying to destroy religion,

Most atheists I know are utterly indifferent to religion.

which is why you are here on Tweb.

Yep! Just call me Abaddon, Ab for short.

OK, so maybe Tazzy is a defective atheist.

Just what constitutes a "defective atheist" in your view.

ETA: In fact, I'll dial that WAY back: SOME atheists, like Tazzy, aren't happy unless they're attacking religion.

Lots of things make me happy, not just attacking religion...pan fried livers of virgins with some fava beans and a nice chianti for example. (Courtesy, Thomas Harris).

(Though I suspect Tazzy is never truly happy)

I'm never happier than when I'm miserable! Such insight CP!

[Tassman]

Then there is no point in raising it as an issue in the first place then since we know various parties can all be guilty of it which was my point.

truly

Buddhism *cough* *cough* There is a difference though when we are talking about specific ethics. There is no difference in the function if all you're doing is changing God for the state.

Humanists are atheists who got together to produce a set of ethics, which makes the bolded part of what you said downright wrong. Honestly you just contradicted yourself with this statement too.

To be honest, you're better just going on my ignore list too because I don't really care about what you have to say. Your input into matters is usually about as useful as a chocolate teapot or a condom machine in the Vatican.

OH NO!!!

Uh, you have a list???

[Darth Ovious]

I didn't respond to anything you said about Starlight's post, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. But, yes, I agree that one should not lump all religions together as if they share the same ethical standards. The ethics of my religion are very different from those of Christianity, for example.

You responded to my response to Tassman which was originally based on Starlights post. The issue originated from his post to begin with. I know you weren't responding to my post to starlight but the issue was raised from there. I'm glad you agree and that was the point I was making to Starlight and Tassman.

You're ignoring the entire context of what Tass said. Here's the whole quote:



It's rather obvious that he was not claiming that there are no atheists who get together to produce sets of ethics. He acknowledges right in there that humanists attempt to develop ethical frameworks, and that humanists are atheists.

Now, if you feel that his point was ultimately moot, that's all well and good. I'm just pointing out that you seemed to be misinterpreting what Tass had originally written.

Have a look at what I originally wrote and what Tassman was replying too in the first place.

You don't half talk a lot of nonsense. The fact that you group all religion under the same banner as well without recognising the difference between religions just proves this too. You make it sound like atheists don't get together to produce a set of ethics at any time................... oh wait, I think I hear the humanist movement calling. They want you to shut up and stop embarrassing yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto

So just what is Tassman exactly challenging here then? Because his statement to me would seem to suggest he disagrees with that but you are now telling me that he doesn't.

Someone can get awfully dizzy in here when talking to internet anti-theists at times. It would help if they made sense.

[Darth Ovious]

truly

He did the same thing though didn't he by excluding non-religious people from his list

You're having a go at me though and not him. Funny that. This is mainly because you agree with his assessment that religion is evil and makes people do bad things. Also I hope you attend Communist forums as much as the Christian ones to argue about how they all believe in something dangerous. I however doubt that you do.



Buddhists don't believe in God Kind of blows your point out of the water doesn't it?



My original statement said nothing about an "overarching hierarchy"

This is what I said:

You don't half talk a lot of nonsense. The fact that you group all religion under the same banner as well without recognising the difference between religions just proves this too. You make it sound like atheists don't get together to produce a set of ethics at any time................... oh wait, I think I hear the humanist movement calling. They want you to shut up and stop embarrassing yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto

OK Tassman, I concede the point. Atheists don't do morals and never have done and never will. Atheists don't care about morals at all. You have convinced me of this since you adamantly contest this point that I made.

OH NO!!!

Uh, you have a list???

Yep, Jaecp and Shunny are already on it because they are doing what you are doing right now.

Let me ask you a question Tassman. Why are you on this message board? Your opinion on religion is that it is evil and causes humans to do bad things. With this opinion then I can't really expect to have a conversation with you at all can I? What is your interest in religion if you think if it's really bad?

For instance, if a person dislikes something because they think it's harmful then the only real reason they can be on a message board arguing with all the people that think differently is to have a go at them. They are not there for intelligent conversation but they are there to just argue and wrestle with those people to change their minds. In that case anything I say isn't really going to change your mind on the subject and I already know what you have to say because we have had these discussions many times in the past.

I didn't come back to TWeb to get dragged into these long drawn out arguments where people are going to contest the smallest points in ridiculous ways. If you really think that my religion is so evil and causes me to do bad things then fine, you can think that and I don't care. Don't expect me to pay any attention to you though and don't be surprised if I don't want to talk to you afterwards.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So just what is Tassman exactly challenging here then? Because his statement to me would seem to suggest he disagrees with that but you are now telling me that he doesn't.

Someone can get awfully dizzy in here when talking to internet anti-theists at times. It would help if they made sense.

Heheh, understandable. But, you are right-- it does seem that Tass's original point was moot, and now I see where the confusion set in. You never suggested, in the first place, that all atheists get together to determine a set of ethical standards for Atheism. Rather, you simply stated that there do exist atheists who get together to discuss ethical standards. This is a brute fact, and one acknowledged by Tass in his post, so it seems like he misinterpreted your post, first.

Sorry about that! My mistake, for not having read the earlier dialogue properly!

[Darth Ovious]

Heheh, understandable. But, you are right-- it does seem that Tass's original point was moot, and now I see where the confusion set in. You never suggested, in the first place, that all atheists get together to determine a set of ethical standards for Atheism. Rather, you simply stated that there do exist atheists who get together to discuss ethical standards. This is a brute fact, and one acknowledged by Tass in his post, so it seems like he misinterpreted your post, first.

Sorry about that! My mistake, for not having read the earlier dialogue properly!

No problem.

[Tassman]

He did the same thing though didn't he by excluding non-religious people from his list

You're having a go at me though and not him. Funny that. This is mainly because you agree with his assessment that religion is evil and makes people do bad things.

or

Also I hope you attend Communist forums as much as the Christian ones to argue about how they all believe in something dangerous. I however doubt that you do.

Communism is not a force in the West, whereas religion is (although declining), so why attend Communist forums?

Buddhists don't believe in God Kind of blows your point out of the water doesn't it?

My original statement said nothing about an "overarching hierarchy"

This is what I said:



OK Tassman, I concede the point. Atheists don't do morals and never have done and never will. Atheists don't care about morals at all. You have convinced me of this since you adamantly contest this point that I made.

Yep, Jaecp and Shunny are already on it because they are doing what you are doing right now.

...you mean debating? Isn't that's what Discussion Boards are all about?

Let me ask you a question Tassman. Why are you on this message board? Your opinion on religion is that it is evil and causes humans to do bad things. With this opinion then I can't really expect to have a conversation with you at all can I? What is your interest in religion if you think if it's really bad?

your religion of course.

For instance, if a person dislikes something because they think it's harmful then the only real reason they can be on a message board arguing with all the people that think differently is to have a go at them. They are not there for intelligent conversation but they are there to just argue and wrestle with those people to change their minds. In that case anything I say isn't really going to change your mind on the subject and I already know what you have to say because we have had these discussions many times in the past.

I didn't come back to TWeb to get dragged into these long drawn out arguments where people are going to contest the smallest points in ridiculous ways. If you really think that my religion is so evil and causes me to do bad things then fine, you can think that and I don't care. Don't expect me to pay any attention to you though and don't be surprised if I don't want to talk to you afterwards.

[Jichard]

Why do you think he isn't?

Because he's using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in multiple ambiguous ways, that conflate metaphysical meanings of those terms with epistem meanings of those terms. That, and the fact that he isn't using the terms in the way they are used in meta-ethics to characterize things like moral objectivism and moral subjectivism.

[Jichard]

No, it was a question.

It's a non sequitur. Your question is based on the presupposition that if one denies that God exists, then one will not be able to "objectively measure good" (whatever that means) and "objectively determine what is 'progress' for a society" (whatever that means). That presupposition is a non sequitur.

And yes, questions can presuppose a claim. It's called implication by question.

Uh-huh. Which one of those is the correct one?

You're moving the goalposts. For the purposes of rebutting your point, it's irrelevant which one of those is the right one. What matters is that those examples rebut your presupposition that if one rejects the existence of God, then moral objectivism is off the table. Those examples show that there are other options on the table, options you have not addressed.

What do you think I mean by them?

Something incoherent/self-contradictory that conflates metaphysical interpretations of "objective" and "subjective", with epistemic interpretations of those terms.