Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Atheist v/s Spirituality/Christianty


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#31    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,887 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:54 AM

View PostCosmic Radiant, on 16 April 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Why do good and have morals if you are an atheist? As an atheist, you believe that when you die, you no longer exist, and your body decomposes into the ground. So, why have morals if there is no consequence for anything you do in life, because everyone dies eventually?

I personally believe in karma, so that's why I choose to go good things and be as honest and loving as I can. I do not call myself an atheist, but more of an agnostic. I have my reasons for not being religious, but I feel as if we all have Souls and there is a great mystery that religion has tried to solve but cant.


Do you believe in anything life that? Cause to my understanding, atheists do not believe in any of that, including karma.

Im not starting a debate, just curious what kind of atheist you are.

I think you may be doing yourself down a bit here. Is it really only fear of the consequences that keep you from doing bad things (or the rewards of doing good)?

I'll bet you're not that different to me. I'm an atheist. I don't believe that I will face the consequences of anything bad I do, in the next life or an afterlife. Yet I don't steal, I try not to harm others, I've never struck any of my children and never in my life thrown a punch (and as I'm getting on a bit now I don't intend to start soon). So, why not?

I believe it's because I see value in other people's lives that I see in my own. I empathise with others. I believe if you do right by someone, they'll do right by you. I won't do to others that which I wouldn't want done to me, etc....

Edited by Arbenol68, 18 April 2012 - 04:55 AM.


#32    CommunitarianKevin

CommunitarianKevin

    Fact Corrector

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Apple Valley, MN. Wrestling Capital of the U.S.

  • Now we know that heedless self-interests is bad economics.-FDR

Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:21 PM

View PostParsip, on 16 April 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

- post removed -
I would argue that religious people still have their own personal opinion. That is called theology. What does a non-spiritual person have besides their opinion? Science, philosophy, history, experience...


View PostArbenol68, on 18 April 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

One more thing, as I said before, morality is not about personal opinion. You say: "  One human says murder is wrong, another says it's right. " but this isn't so. One may say it's right, but millions will say it's wrong. And when this goes wrong the whole world sees the damage that is done. This is why autocracies and dictatorships are often so malign. Democracies (for all their faults) would not allow this to happen, because it isn't about personal opinion, it's about collective opinion.

If you think democracies would not allow these types of things I think you need an American History lesson.

My screen names may change. My real name is Kevin. You can call me that in the threads...
My "about me" page...
http://www.unexplain...showentry=24860
http://athans-athansblog.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/KevinAthans

#33    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,887 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:46 PM

View PostParsip, on 19 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

- post removed -

All due respect, but you could make this argument for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

View PostParsip, on 19 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

- post removed -

I know it's not objective morality. I'm arguing that it does not exist anyway. Your comment makes the assumption that it exists and your argument stems from that assumption. If your assumption is incorrect, then your entire argument is void.

Why would any society take to sacrificing toddlers? If it was their own toddlers, then they wouldn't be around for long. Do you mean toddlers from a different society or tribe? Well, I guess that has happened in the past, where children have been directly or indirectly targetted. Not that long ago European children were stuffed up chimneys to do a days work, and the equivalent of this still happens in many parts of the world. Clearly the children's rights movement has not reached everywhere. But that just illuminates the point that morality is relative. I find it abhorrent that children are treated so poorly. I also find the death penalty abhorrent. You don't have to go back too far to a time when slavery was seen as acceptable, women were burned as witches, etc. If you lived in these societies at these times you would probably see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they believed they were doing the right thing. You might even have taken your kids to a public execution for a nice day out.

Moral standards change over time. We look back at history and are appalled by much of the behaviour of our ancestors. Our distant descendants will probably look back at us and consider that we were morally retarded (for the way we still farm and butcher animals, for example). Who knows how things will change?

Morality is relative to time and place. There is no absolute truth. We often get things badly wrong, but I believe that most people try their best to do what is right. It's a work in progress.


#34    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,887 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 19 April 2012 - 11:18 PM

View PostHuttonEtAl, on 19 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

If you think democracies would not allow these types of things I think you need an American History lesson.
True democracies are a relatively new invention. If you look at America historically you can't claim that is was a democracy when only white males got to vote.

Although point taken. It would be more accurate to have said: 'Democracies (for all their faults) would generally not allow this to happen'


#35    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:11 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 19 April 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

All due respect, but you could make this argument for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.


Posted Image so true  lol

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#36    Parsip

Parsip

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Joined:01 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:03 AM

View PostHuttonEtAl, on 19 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

I would argue that religious people still have their own personal opinion. That is called theology. What does a non-spiritual person have besides their opinion? Science, philosophy, history, experience...

Indeed. But objective morality isn't derived from those things.

View PostArbenol68, on 19 April 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

All due respect, but you could make this argument for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

I'm aware of that. The point is about solid evidence that can be presented to other people, such as a photo, or a body part. If you go to Loch Ness and come across Nessie, and see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, on several occasions, then it does exist, regardless of whether you can prove it to other people.

Quote

I know it's not objective morality. I'm arguing that it does not exist anyway. Your comment makes the assumption that it exists and your argument stems from that assumption. If your assumption is incorrect, then your entire argument is void.

Why would any society take to sacrificing toddlers? If it was their own toddlers, then they wouldn't be around for long. Do you mean toddlers from a different society or tribe? Well, I guess that has happened in the past, where children have been directly or indirectly targetted. Not that long ago European children were stuffed up chimneys to do a days work, and the equivalent of this still happens in many parts of the world. Clearly the children's rights movement has not reached everywhere. But that just illuminates the point that morality is relative. I find it abhorrent that children are treated so poorly. I also find the death penalty abhorrent. You don't have to go back too far to a time when slavery was seen as acceptable, women were burned as witches, etc. If you lived in these societies at these times you would probably see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they believed they were doing the right thing. You might even have taken your kids to a public execution for a nice day out.

Moral standards change over time. We look back at history and are appalled by much of the behaviour of our ancestors. Our distant descendants will probably look back at us and consider that we were morally retarded (for the way we still farm and butcher animals, for example). Who knows how things will change?

Morality is relative to time and place. There is no absolute truth. We often get things badly wrong, but I believe that most people try their best to do what is right. It's a work in progress.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, but how do know objective morality doesn't exist? Perhaps it does but we don't know it yet. No one has proved the nonexistence of objective moral truth.


#37    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,887 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:45 AM

View PostParsip, on 20 April 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

We'll have to agree to disagree then, but how do know objective morality doesn't exist? Perhaps it does but we don't know it yet. No one has proved the nonexistence of objective moral truth.

I don't know it doesn't exist. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something (just like you can't prove that God doesn't exist).

Sure, we can agree to disagree. But I'm open to persuasion. The idea of an absolute truth of objective morality is a concrete concept. It isn't something vague and nebulous. If it does indeed exist then it really should be more apparent than this.

Is there anybody that can provide an example of something that reflects an absolute and objective morality? Or is that a dumb question?


#38    ZaraKitty

ZaraKitty

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I can see it in their eyes, they've already died.

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:56 AM

I see atheists, christians or whoever both sticking their beliefs in other peoples faces, thats what everyone doesn't like and what gives them both the bad name. I don't think it's much to do with morals as much as it is being an annoyance. I'm not saying everyone does it, but the bad ones do give everyone else a bad name.

The internet is a series of tubes, and those tubes are full of cats.

#39    Alzimba

Alzimba

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2012

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:37 AM

View Postwillowdreams, on 16 April 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

i like what you said, you arnt as wordy/long winded as i am and you said it better :)



#40    Meiliken

Meiliken

    Repository of human knowledge

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,764 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:louisville ky

  • How good can good men be if good men do nothing?

Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:42 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 16 April 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Just for the sake of interest, are you aware how insulting that sounds, to state that someone who ends their journey at religion is "stunted".  I mean, I'm growing my beliefs daily so I can't say my journey is at an "end".  No true human being will stop growing in their beliefs or non-beliefs.  But the way I interpret your words here, it sounds as if those who hold a religious faith are people worthy of pity for not being able to "grow" beyond faith in a particular deity.  And that is just plain insulting, whether you intend it to be or not.

Just a thought,

With that rationale, if you went back in time and talked to the smartest of cavemen, do you not think they would think you were insulting to them, even if you weren't outright insulting them?  My rationale would equate to what the tv show star trek has.  If we ever do become interstellar, and we find another species that is far less advanced than us, if we spoke to them, doubtless they would think we were talking down to them, even though we weren't.  You may feel insulted, but I am not insulting you.  Religion is the beginning but not the end, just as emotion is the beginning but not the end.  So yes, if one stays with religion only, and does not grow beyond it, they are stunting their growth.  It isn't insulting just as someone who only learns english but not math wouldn't be insulted if they came upon a mathematician.  That is the growth I speak of.

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself
Sir Richard Francis Burton

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance
Hippocrates

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
David Hume

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley

#41    Meiliken

Meiliken

    Repository of human knowledge

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,764 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:louisville ky

  • How good can good men be if good men do nothing?

Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:49 AM

View PostShadowSot, on 18 April 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Why do good? Personally I always feel doing good to be the default position, doing harm to be the abnormal behaviour.

  And why not? What do I gain from acting immorally?

Life is short, and to make life worthwhile most of us require friends and family. Acting immorally will usually not reward you with a large amount of worthwhile friends, and might separate you from your family as well.

  
  And yes, your body may just rot in the ground, but hopefully your memory will live on. And for myself at least, I wish to be remembered well. It's not as lasting as the immortality offered in myths and legends, but if I were to die tomorrow I know for a fact people will miss me, my nieces will remember the time I spent helping them, my friends will remember what times we had, and hopefully I've provided some example (I  won't kid,mostly a bad example,but even so.) of how to find worthwhile things.


Mankind is barbaric.  That is natural.  The abnormality is doing the opposite.  Though perhaps on an evolutionary ideal, perhaps as time goes on then perhaps doing good will become the norm, but with the way things go, that is going the route of the dodo.  The gain from acting morally is survival.

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself
Sir Richard Francis Burton

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance
Hippocrates

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
David Hume

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley

#42    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,930 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 23 April 2012 - 06:24 AM

View PostMeiliken, on 23 April 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

With that rationale, if you went back in time and talked to the smartest of cavemen, do you not think they would think you were insulting to them, even if you weren't outright insulting them?  My rationale would equate to what the tv show star trek has.  If we ever do become interstellar, and we find another species that is far less advanced than us, if we spoke to them, doubtless they would think we were talking down to them, even though we weren't.  You may feel insulted, but I am not insulting you.  Religion is the beginning but not the end, just as emotion is the beginning but not the end.  So yes, if one stays with religion only, and does not grow beyond it, they are stunting their growth.  It isn't insulting just as someone who only learns english but not math wouldn't be insulted if they came upon a mathematician.  That is the growth I speak of.
Ok, so you weren't insulting us religious types, you just feel that religious people are less evolved than those who have managed to move beyond religious ideology.  In order to be "less evolved" it implies an evolutionary superiority on your part.  Sure, you may not intend to be insulting, but nevertheless you are.  That's just how I see it.

~ Regards,

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#43    Meiliken

Meiliken

    Repository of human knowledge

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,764 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:louisville ky

  • How good can good men be if good men do nothing?

Posted 23 April 2012 - 06:41 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 23 April 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Ok, so you weren't insulting us religious types, you just feel that religious people are less evolved than those who have managed to move beyond religious ideology.  In order to be "less evolved" it implies an evolutionary superiority on your part.  Sure, you may not intend to be insulting, but nevertheless you are.  That's just how I see it.

~ Regards,

I wouldn't say that religious types are unevolved just because they follow religion.  I would say the same about someone that is pure logic.  One that stops at one and refuses to go forwards is in effect stunting themselves.  That's a fact.  You think it is insulting when it is not.  But if you feel that way, nothing I can do about it.  Make sure you never go to a tribe thats never seen "civilized" people before, they may think you're insulting them. :rolleyes:

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself
Sir Richard Francis Burton

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance
Hippocrates

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
David Hume

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley

#44    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,930 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:00 AM

View PostMeiliken, on 23 April 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

I wouldn't say that religious types are unevolved just because they follow religion.  I would say the same about someone that is pure logic.  One that stops at one and refuses to go forwards is in effect stunting themselves.  That's a fact.  You think it is insulting when it is not.  But if you feel that way, nothing I can do about it.  Make sure you never go to a tribe thats never seen "civilized" people before, they may think you're insulting them. :rolleyes:
I think it's more the manner in which you say it.  You used the word "stunted", and just checking the online dictionary, stunted is defined as "retarded of growth or development".  Moreover, your use of the caveman analogy and us going back to see even the smartest of them.  Then linking that to religious folk being the analogous caveman, even the smartest of us religious folk are still not as evolved as someone like you.

I don't see you as anything different to I.  We are all human beings following our hearts and minds to wherever it leads us.  Obviously you don't return that concept of equality.  You may treat us equally, but you believe you are evolutionarily superior.  I simply think we are all in the same boat called "humanity".  

~ Regards,

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#45    wittyusernamefailed

wittyusernamefailed

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 135 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Still in frikkin kansas toto.

  • "Well, this is gonna be a wipe"

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:05 AM

So religious people imply atheist are immoral and hold up Pol pot, Stalin, and Mao as examples. Atheist say people who believe in religion are stupid and violent people that have yet to evolve; and hold up the Crusades, Inquisition, and modern day religious terror as examples. Why don;t we all just agree the human race is stupid and self destructive as a whole, and leave it at that?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users