Atheists:

[xisnotx]

Atheist taken literally means "not theist". Anything and everything is necessarily classified as atheist or theist. You can't be not atheist and not theist. If you aren't atheist or theist, then you aren't.

 

[xisnotx]

Okay. How does he know what they can't know, if he doesn't know what exists?

Haha..
I won't speak for him, but..
I know what I think people can't know.
However, I know that what I actually know is limited.
So basically, I don't know.
But, I assume no one does either.

I think it boils down to this. No one "knows", some choose to believe, and some choose to just be happy with the knowledge that no one knows (or if they do, it isn't provable to them, so it doesn't matter).

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

It depends on how they behaved afterwards, which has to do with why they abandoned their religion. If they matured and grew their own principles and values and decided religion was just a fiction, they'd behave ethically. If they had an existential crisis, they could either lose their shit (if immature and dimwitted) or pursue some other kind of purpose.

As much as Dawkins would disagree, I think religion does restrain some people from doing awful things. It also gives them an excuse to do bad things, but like others said, they'd probably be doing those things anyway. Maybe not after being educated and civilized, though.

 

[Mole]

Non-Astrologers

Atheist taken literally means "not theist". Anything and everything is necessarily classified as atheist or theist. You can't be not atheist and not theist. If you aren't atheist or theist, then you aren't.

So why don't we say anything and everything is necessarily classified at astrological or non-astrological?

I mean we just don't have people who call themselves non-astologers. It's faintly ridiculous, isn't it?

So from a logical point of view it is equally ridiculous to call ourselves atheists.

 

[ajblaise]

As much as Dawkins would disagree, I think religion does restrain some people from doing awful things. It also gives them an excuse to do bad things, but like others said, they'd probably be doing those things anyway. Maybe not after being educated and civilized, though.

I used to think that, it makes sense, but the prison population is more religious than the general one. Christianity labels everyone a sinner, so maybe the emphasis of "everyone is forgiven just accept Jesus" makes it easier to murder and wear a cross at the same time.

Atheists tend to be more educated and crime and poverty tend to match up, it's more about your options.

 

[A window to the soul]

So why don't we say anything and everything is necessarily classified at astrological or non-astrological?

I mean we just don't have people who call themselves non-astologers. It's faintly ridiculous, isn't it?

So from a logical point of view it is equally ridiculous to call ourselves atheists.

Do you think there is a stigma associated with it?

 

[A window to the soul]

Atheists tend to be more educated and crime and poverty tend to match up, it's more about your options.

Is that a fact or your opinion? Jung says something to the contrary.

 

[Mole]

Do you think there is a stigma associated with it?

I think it is a stategic error to call ourselves atheists because theists have their stock arguments against atheism. I think it is far better to focus on the individual teaching of a particular religion. For instance, it is better to focus on jihad than defending oneself as an atheist.

 

[ajblaise]

Is that a fact or your opinion? Jung says something to the contrary.

Federal Bureau of Prisons had this study, which puts the atheist number at .209 % near the bottom. Haven't seen a study about the general population with a percentage less than that.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#note-6

 

[Red Herring]

Federal Bureau of Prisons had this study, which puts the atheist number at .209 % near the bottom. Haven't seen a study about the general population with a percentage less than that.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#note-6

I find those prison statistics little informative though, considering the link between atheism and education (and thus indirectly socioeconomic status) and that a large share of those Catholics is probably young male Hispanics from, ehem, rough neighborhoods (the alternative explanation would be that Catholicism entices violence and crime on an enormous scale!).

But I guess you just wanted to underline your statement that there are correlations. A quick google search will show dozents of studies proving your point that there is a positive correlation between atheism and education. I find that more important than the link to crime (which would only be relevant if anybody seriously believed that atheists were somehow totally without morals, but I hope that enoying idea has been cleared up once and for all). As for poverty, isn't that also linked to education? At least partially? Not that your general life situation doesn't play a role in your desire for a higher power. Of course it does. Big time.

 

[A window to the soul]

I think it is a stategic error to call ourselves atheists because theists have their stock arguments against atheism. I think it is far better to focus on the individual teaching of a particular religion. For instance, it is better to focus on jihad than defending oneself as an atheist.

As in, if you can't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything? I'm totally reading between the lines!! :>

 

[Not_Me]

Because God is the value.

So if God told you to torture your love ones to death, then that would make it morally acceptable?

 

[freeeekyyy]

So if God told you to torture your love ones to death, then that would make it morally acceptable?

Yes.

Not that that would happen, because that would pretty much be in violation of God's nature.


Assuming the existence of a God, what do you think would be a better determiner of morality than the creator of the universe?

 

[Not_Me]

Yes.
Assuming the existence of a God, what do you think would be a better determiner of morality than the creator of the universe?

But what if he told you there will be no repercussion if you refused?

 

[freeeekyyy]

But what if he told you there will be no repercussion if you refused?

I don't understand how that question follows from what I posted. Right and wrong has nothing to do with consequence. Otherwise, it would be fine to do anything if you didn't get caught.

 

[Not_Me]

I don't understand how that question follows from what I posted. Right and wrong has nothing to do with consequence. Otherwise, it would be fine to do anything if you didn't get caught.

You said god's will is value itself. If it was his will for you to do something horrible, would you still do it if there were no threat of punishment?

 

[freeeekyyy]

You said god's will is value itself. If it was his will for you to do something horrible, would you still do it if there were no threat of punishment?

In this theoretical situation, it wouldn't be horrible, because it would be what God wanted. Morality is determined by his will.

God is also unchanging though, so something being normally horrible and suddenly not being doesn't make any sense.

 

[Not_Me]

In this theoretical situation, it wouldn't be horrible, because it would be what God wanted. Morality is determined by his will.

Why would it be considered "good" to torture your loved ones to death simply because it pleases a powerful being?

 

[Thalassa]

Why would it be considered "good" to torture your loved ones to death simply because it pleases a powerful being?

I'm with you. What the fuck.

My friends, loved ones, kitties, puppies, and random children come before the declarations of some imaginary daddy in the sky.

Pardon me, but I care more about real daddies.

Sometimes I think agnosticism or atheism allows a person to be more moral. But I say that through the lens of thinking what promotes life and health is moral...not by some arbitrary rules that once made sense 1000 years ago, but today have very little relevance because of what we've discovered and invented with science.

 

[Santosha]

Do you think it would be better if everyone were an atheist?

(please explain)

It would sure take alot of spice out of life.

I always like spicey things. =)