This is going to sound ignorant, a question for Atheists [Archive]

ianzin

11-13-2003, 09:32 PM

An atheist, to take the word literally, means one who does not believe in a god or gods.

Strictly speaking, it would be possible to be an athiest and to believe in a soul of some kind, but I think it's safe to say most atheists would have no belief in a metaphysical construct such as a soul.

Your question presupposes there is some link between one's belief in a soul, and one's view of the morality of suicide, killing, murder and abortion. There is not necessarily any link at all. For most atheists, morailty derives neither from metaphysical concepts nor the supposed prescriptions of a given deity, but the sense of right and wrong applicable to one's society, culture and context derived from the contract of responsibilities one has with regard to oneself and others.

Your question also lumps together 'suicide, killing, murder and abortion' as if one's attitude towards any one must necessarily apply to the other three. It is possible for someone to have distinct views about the morality of all four.

Lobsang

11-13-2003, 09:37 PM

suicide/killing/murder is bad to this atheist because it resluts in the dramatic lowering of the quality of life of the relatives/friends of the dead.

Also, life, while we take it for granted mostly, is a wonderful thing. The end of life is very sad.

CaptBushido

11-13-2003, 09:37 PM

I wouldn't say that at all.

It's a person's potential, aspirations, and personal happiness that give their lives value, to me at least.

But then again, technically I am not one to whom you are phrasing the question. I'm an agnostic. Atheism requires just as big an unscientific leap of faith as any religion.

Lobsang

11-13-2003, 09:40 PM

I look forward to my own death (apart from the sadness it will cause to my relatives) for several reasons - I get to find out what actually happens to my consciousness/self-awareness.

Assuming death is the end of consciousness - there stops being a 'me' to suffer.

Assuming death isn't then end of consciousness - I get to say to myself - "I am dead now. Anything I do won't matter. I can't kill myself because I am already dead"

Electronic Chaos

11-13-2003, 09:40 PM

Ditto. On everything.

I hate the assumption that just because I have no diety, then I have no morals. If the only reason you haven't murdered someone is the fear of eternal damnation, then you have problems. Looking back it seems as I have strayed from the OP, but regardless, morals are not derived from belief in a diety and/or a soul.

teemingONE

11-13-2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by ianzin

Your question presupposes there is some link between one's belief in a soul, and one's view of the morality of suicide, killing, murder and abortion. There is not necessarily any link at all. For most atheists, morailty derives neither from metaphysical concepts nor the supposed prescriptions of a given deity, but the sense of right and wrong applicable to one's society, culture and context derived from the contract of responsibilities one has with regard to oneself and others.

So, ending life is wrong because society doesn't accept it?

( That sounded kinda snobbish, don't take it that way.)

Mr. Blue Sky

11-13-2003, 09:42 PM

The following are my opinions based on the OP (not interested in debates, at least not here):

Souls: nope, don't believe in them. nor an "afterlife". when you die, you're dead. the end.

abortion: up to the woman, but she should at least discuss it with the father unless it's rape or incest.

suicide: a personal choice, especially when terminal illness is involved.

murder: only in self defense or in the defense of someone who is unable to defend themselves (mentally or physically unable to defend themselves such as children and the elderly)

capital punishment: in favor of under certain circumstances (see above; anyone who deliberately and knowingly kills a child should die)

Lobsang

11-13-2003, 09:43 PM

CaptBushido I don't mean to argue but that is rather pedantic of you. Technically all atheists are agnostic if you can prove to them that a human being is incapable of knowing any 'truths'. Technically I am agnostic, but if you remove the pedantry - I am almost totally atheist, since I find the existence of God extremely unlikely.

teemingONE

11-13-2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by xgxlx
Ditto. On everything.

I hate the assumption that just because I have no diety, then I have no morals. If the only reason you haven't murdered someone is the fear of eternal damnation, then you have problems. Looking back it seems as I have strayed from the OP, but regardless, morals are not derived from belief in a diety and/or a soul.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I made that assumtion, I assure you I didn't.

Ringo

11-13-2003, 09:46 PM

It's an accounting question, methinks. Suicide affects more than just the deceased, but the perpetrator in that case is the only one who can weigh those outcomes. Generally, I see it as selfish.

Killing another/murder, outside of war, which is a special case, implies taking another's account into hand. Generally speaking, you don't have the right to exercise control over that account, and if you overstep your bounds and (attempt to) exercise that degree of control, we, as a society, must step in and either prevent that or sanction you for it.

This is far different from exercising some societal control over your economic activities, as the life and breathe of an individual is directly concerned.

CaptBushido

11-13-2003, 09:52 PM

Lobsang

Yeah, I understand that, but I've seen way too many atheists that actually swear that they believe without a doubt that there is no divine being of any sort.

I find that just plain asinine, and try to distance myself from them at every opportunity. I find the definition of God as defined in all of the various religions to be quite doubtful, but I do believe that there is significant evidence, simply in the way the universe is structured, to imply some sort of powerful sentient intervention.

Lobsang

11-13-2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by CaptBushido
LobsangBut I do believe that there is significant evidence, simply in the way the universe is structured, to imply some sort of powerful sentient intervention.

life/ the universe/ and everything is agreeably insanely non-comprehensible. But why assume this is due to some supreme being? Why not accept that it is simply a scientific question that will take a very long time to answer? (but must be answerable because surely there is no god, as there is no logic behind the existence of a god. If there was logic in the existence of god then who created god? It is not logical for there to exist a concept that was not it'self brought into being by another)

Lobsang

11-13-2003, 10:16 PM

I believe I have just contradicted myself. I am drunk, but I may have applied the same logic to the non-existence of god to the non-existence of the big-bang.

we assign levels of believability to everything that enters our brain via our senses. I do not assign total believability to the big bang theory. It is only a gap-filler until science is clever enough to find out what actually happened.

<hic>

cajela

11-13-2003, 10:17 PM

The OP makes no sense ot me. Wouldn't having a soul make murder a lesser, rather than a greater crime?

If when you're dead, you're dead and that's it, then murder has deprived someone of their existence entirely - which is clearly much worse than if they've just floated off to heaven.

So does this make Christians less moral than atheists? (Yes, yes, not a fit question for MPIMS, but that could go to GD or BBQ depending on how you put it.)

Already in Use

11-13-2003, 10:19 PM

An equally valid question would be, "Does believing in an afterlife make certain religious believers more likely to kill others, because killing someone isn't really ending his life, but 'sending him home'?" It pretty much exposes the absurdity of the idea that people who don't believe in souls are OK with going around bumping people off.

I'm not an atheist, but I don't believe in a "soul" (to me an almost undefinably vague concept, and one that's not a necessary condition for human consciousness) or an afterlife, and furthermore don't believe that morality should be looked at as something given to humans by God. Rather, I think morality should be derived from examining the consequences of one's actions. In the case of killing a person, the consequence is denying that person the freedom to live out the rest of his life, for better or worse, and denying his loved ones the joy of interacting with him. I believe those reasons are a sufficient explanation of why murder is morally abhorrent.

CaptBushido

11-13-2003, 10:36 PM

Lobsang: Fair enough, we both seem to agree that we don't know what the hell is up with universe, and that works for me!

Askance

11-13-2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by teemingONE
Just to be clear, you guys don't believe in souls, correct?

If this is so, then is suicide/killing/murder ... as bad to you guys as it is to us religous folk?

Worse, since there is no after-life afterwards. Death is final. Statements like "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" could never be made by an atheist.

racinchikki

11-14-2003, 12:17 AM

I agree with AndrewT. Hypothetically, one who believed in an afterlife could kill someone and not feel too bad about it - he didn't end his life, he just moved it to a different place. But as an atheist, I believe that if someone is killed, they are gone, and snuffing out a life completely is IMHO much worse than kicking some soul's ass into Kingdom Come literally.

Extraneous

11-14-2003, 12:37 AM

This atheist does believe in a soul - a.k.a. spiritual component of life (all life, not just vertebrates with large brains). It ends with death, just as does personality, knowledge, memory, etc.

Murder - wrong. Bad karma, that kind of thing - as a society, we have an interest in preventing/punishing.

Suicide - the right of all living things.

Abortion - the sentient one gets to decide, and it's no one else's business

"Killing" - an everyday thing. Be more specific, and we can discuss detailed opinions. One adult human killing another adult human? Well, that's why we have the different terms "kill" and "murder", isn't it?

Diogenes the Cynic

11-14-2003, 12:49 AM

Murder is bad.

I have no problem with suicide or abortion.

SanguineSpider

11-14-2003, 12:55 AM

Humanity, not deity!!!! Goddamn it!

Eternal

11-14-2003, 01:20 AM

I'm one of those selfish types of athiests. I don't really care about murder or any of that. I only care about my own comfort.

Derleth

11-14-2003, 03:12 AM

Eternal: But murder does impact you. Imagine if a random person were killed in your town, a janitor, say. That janitor's family is going to be pretty well screwed up over it, especially his son, who is now bereft a positive role model. That son decides to gulp booze and get in his car, thereby killing both himself and you when he runs a red light right into your vehicle.

See? Murder is wrong. It eventually impacts everyone in a negative way. That isn't why it's wrong, but it's a good example of an instance of it being wrong.

Murder would be wrong even if it impacted nobody but the decedant. It is simply a moral crime, irrespective of the flavor-of-the-month religion people seem to adhere to.

CaptBushido: I'm an atheist and I don't believe in anything whatsoever. In fact, that is the real definition of an atheist, as opposed to the simplistic rendering of the Latin roots or the even more simplistic re-defining of it some seem to do.

I don't have any beliefs. I only accept evidence and facts, and I make conclusions from logic as often as I can. My mind can always be changed by evidence. I have no patience for handwaving or bullshit, however, and that is all the concept of a deity has to back it up. The supernatural as a whole, in fact, falls into the handwaving and bullshit camp. Is that my belief? No, it is my informed opinion after actually hearing out both sides (again and again).

UncleBeer

11-14-2003, 05:44 AM

Great Debates.

adaher

11-14-2003, 05:50 AM

I am an atheist, and against abortion, although I would not make it illegal for practical reasons.

Just suffice to say that I think it's a hateful thing to do and should only be done in extreme circumstances.

elfje

11-14-2003, 06:50 AM

I believe in souls, I just call them by a different name.

And yes, killing/murder/abortion are "bad" as you describe them, but for completely different reasons then yours, I'd imagine.

I'm against the death penalty, but pro-choice.

there's so many different shades of gray, here, I don't even know where to begin.

Shade

11-14-2003, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by teemingONE
Just to be clear, you guys don't believe in souls, correct?Some people believe that a soul persists after death, but don't believe in God. AFAIK they are athiests, but for the purposes of this debate, I'll assume we're talking about the standard western sort of Athiest.

On that note, people define soul in different ways. In this post I'll use persisting-soul to mean an aspect of you that persists after death.If this is so, then is suicide/killing/murder and abortion as bad to you guys as it is to us religous folk? [/B]I think many people have answered your question, but it made me want to ask:

Did you think that not believing in persisting-souls would make dieing less bad? If so, can you explain why?

adaher

11-14-2003, 06:56 AM

I would think that not having a soul that lives on after you die would make life even more precious.

But anyway, on the death penalty, I'm in favor in principle. I have no objections to murdering murderers. But in practice, there is evidence that to many innocents are on death row.

gum

11-14-2003, 06:58 AM

another 'ask the atheïst' thread? Wow, we must be hot.

This atheïst doesn't believe in souls.

Killing + murder = bad
suicide + abortion = is not.

[I said this atheïst, meaning me, gum.]

godzillatemple

11-14-2003, 07:36 AM

I am an atheist and I don't believe in souls.

I do, however, believe that life is precious and should only be taken in exceptional circumstances (self-defence, for example).

I have mixed emoptions on abortions, mostly because I am not a woman and can't really appreciate the ramifications of the whole "right to choose" concept. In other words, I think that abortion is, by itself, a bad thing, but I really can't comment on whether the need for a woman to have control over her own body constitutes an "exceptional circumstance" that would justify it.

Personally, I think that any orderly society needs for life to be given the utmost respect. After all, my life is certainly precious to me, and if I want other people to respect that, I need to be willing to respect that their lives are just as precious.

Barry

RedFury

11-14-2003, 07:38 AM

MrO

11-14-2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by CaptBushido
. . . I've seen way too many atheists that actually swear that they believe without a doubt that there is no divine being of any sort.

Those are strong atheists, and do not represent all atheists. Even strong atheists, in my view, have a stronger case than theists, but that's another argument.

To the OP: some atheists believe in souls; some don't. Many Buddhists, pagans, etc. lack any belief in gods, but nevertheless believe in souls, and lots of other hocus-pocus.

As for this atheist: I think that suicide and abortion are always sad, unfortunate, probably indicative of some failure or mistake somewhere, but not necessarily wrong. Murder, as I understand the term, is always wrong. Killing? Well, usually wrong, but justified in some cases involving defense. I've read few books with as much killing as the Christian Bible, and to my mind, much of that was unjustified. Killing is clearly not bad to all religious folks.

gex gex

11-14-2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by CaptBushido
. . . I've seen way too many atheists that actually swear that they believe without a doubt that there is no divine being of any sort.
Just wondering whether you'd place me in that camp. I believe in a divine being about as much as I believe that two suns will rise tomorrow morning rather than one. It's feasible, but there's no evidence to suggest it'll happen.

As for the OP, like others, killing is bad because people only get one life. How could a soul discourage killers? Surely people who believe in souls would be doing religious folk a favour by murdering them, and hence expediating their passage to the divine joys of the afterlife?

Now I'm wondering... why doesn't the OP kill people?

The Great Unwashed

11-14-2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by CaptBushido
...Atheism requires just as big an unscientific leap of faith as any religion.
Oh no it doesn't. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=215227) The atheist position is a) falsifiable, and, b) a consequence of the application of Occam's Razor -- these are two of sciences major footholds -- but read the thread if you care to, I'd be interested to see if you have any arguments to support your oh-so-scientific fence-sitting.

yoyodyne

11-14-2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by gex gex
Now I'm wondering... why doesn't the OP kill people? I believe the OP is looking at the murder's side, i.e. believers in souls won't commit murder because they're afraid of their soul being dammed. Since atheists don't believe in souls, they are free to murder all they want.

jimpatro

11-14-2003, 11:54 AM

Gotta supportCaptBushido's view.
Athiests know for sure and spiritualists know for sure.

Agnostics don't yet have enough information to commit.
We may never. Don't see that it makes any difference in my life.

I think life is more precious if in fact we have no souls.
And I also don't neccessarily associate the existence of the soul with the existence of any deity or deities.

UrbanChic

11-14-2003, 12:11 PM

Excuse the slight hijack but I thought Eternal was a Christian (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4216629#post4216629). Have I been whooshed?

blowero

11-14-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by teemingONE
Just to be clear, you guys don't believe in souls, correct?

If this is so, then is suicide/killing/murder and abortion as bad to you guys as it is to us religous folk?
Suicide is a very sad thing, but in the case of a painful terminal illness, I can see where it might be better than the alternative. It's just unfortunate that its biggest proponent is a nut-case like Kevorkian. I don't get exactly how you think believing in a soul would change anything; the way I understand your soul-belief, the soul survives the death of the body and goes on to its eternal reward. So shouldn't you believe that it's better for the soul to get there sooner?

As for murder, of course I think it's bad. But again, I don't get your point; if you didn't believe in souls, would you think murder was OK? Seems to me that not believing in a soul makes murder worse, because a life and all its potential is forever ended. If that life merely moves on to another realm, then killing the body wouldn't be so bad, right?

Abortion is not as cut-and-dried. I don't see a problem with the abortion pill; I can't imagine that the embryo has any sort of developed consciousness at that point. So that might be an area where soul-belief would make a difference. If you believe that a fully functional adult consciousness somehow resides in the unformed embryo, then I can see how you could be against aborting it at that stage. Of course, that raises all kinds of other questions: How did the soul get there? Does it enter the embryo at some point? Is it present in the sperm or in the egg or both? Is there a soul in every sperm cell? It all seems quite silly to me.

In general, I think abortion is something to be avoided. I'm very much in favor of education on birth-control.

slu

11-14-2003, 12:20 PM

I am an atheist and I don't believe in souls or heaven or santa and I don't believe in killing of any type. I am against capital punishment. I am against any killing that is not directly self defense (including military). I am personally against suicide and abortion, but I repesct an individual's right to make that choice.

The reason for all this is that I believe that everyone should have an equal shot at living their life the way they want. And killing someone certainly takes away that chance from someone. I respect individual freedom and killing someone takes away their freedom.

Dangerosa

11-14-2003, 12:25 PM

jimpatro....

Atheist - a theist - no god.

Can mean both no belief in god or belief in no god. Ony the second is a belief statement, the first is neutral.

Technically, agnostism means the philosophical position that God is unknowable, has nothing to do with belief. It just means whatever you do believe - it can't be proven. The common use of agnostism is nearly the same as weak atheism - I don't know if God exists or not, I have no belief in God.

Shade

11-14-2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by yoyodyne
I believe the OP is looking at the murder's side, i.e. believers in souls won't commit murder because they're afraid of their soul being dammed. Since atheists don't believe in souls, they are free to murder all they want. Is "not doing bad things because you're scared of punishment" being enough to get you into heaven consistent with the new testament? I haven't read any of the bible for ages but I would have said that loving and accepting jesus, or at the very least being vaguely nice or moral, is necessary.

CaptBushido

11-14-2003, 01:47 PM

Damn, I wrote clever and witty (hey, you don't know, I could have) responses to all who called on me to defend myself, but the hamsters ate the post, so I'll just go through a quick fly-by.

gex gex: I wouldn't classify you all the way into the extreme that I mentioned, but you obviously take a stronger position than me. I believe there is significantly more evidence that there is a divine being than that two suns will rise tomorrow.

That noted, is the difference between the beliefs of atheism and agnosticism merely a reflection of degree?

The Great Unwashed: I originally wrote a ripping barb about how I did not intend to be facetious and I'd appreciate it if you did the same, but it was a little rude. Therefore: I'm sorry, my statement that atheism requires as much faith as theism applied only to the extreme straw man which I had in mind.

Was I wrong in stating that a general unscientificness existed in popular atheist views? I don't know and being the through-and-through agnostic that I am, I really don't care.

Cervaise

11-14-2003, 03:54 PM

I'm an atheist and I think murder is just dandy. We should have a lot more of it, in fact. I also enjoy punching pregnant women in the belly.

Yep, the fact that there's no God means that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

The Great Unwashed

11-14-2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by CaptBushido
...The Great Unwashed: I originally wrote a ripping barb about how I did not intend to be facetious and I'd appreciate it if you did the same, but it was a little rude. Therefore: I'm sorry, my statement that atheism requires as much faith as theism applied only to the extreme straw man which I had in mind.

Was I wrong in stating that a general unscientificness existed in popular atheist views? I don't know and being the through-and-through agnostic that I am, I really don't care.

Well, even though you don't care, I would have liked to have seen it. I just can't get enough of dem ripping barbs.

You seem to be equating agnosticism with some sort of universal indifference -- or is it apathy? It's so hard to tell. But tell me, if you really do not care, then why post your unsupported, and unargued viewpoints in the first place? Do you think that is what I come here for? "Oh great, here's another guy who will tell me I am wrong, but not have the decency to discuss it, civilly."

The Great Unwashed

11-14-2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Cervaise
Yep, the fact that there's no God means that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Just sayin', I don't see the maxim "Do what thou wilt..." to be necessarily odious.

I try and live my life as a good person, and I fail to do this in all the ways that people fail -- I am selfish, driven by emotion, somewhat egotistic, kind of weak, etc. But I still try to be good, because that is what suits me; that is what makes me happiest. If I was to do as my will asked of me, I would be better person.

yoyodyne

11-14-2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Shade
Is "not doing bad things because you're scared of punishment" being enough to get you into heaven consistent with the new testament? I haven't read any of the bible for ages but I would have said that loving and accepting jesus, or at the very least being vaguely nice or moral, is necessary. Hell, I don't know, I'm a suicidal, murdering, abortionist atheist. I suppose I was conflating "belief in souls" with "belief in jesus." I'm not sure the fear of punishment applies anyway. Can't a murder confess the sin, say 10 hail marys, and still go to heaven?

CaptBushido

11-14-2003, 07:24 PM

The Great Unwashed

Argh, despite my repeated attempts to avoid this debate, you have thrown the gauntlet, apparently.

You seem to be equating agnosticism with some sort of universal indifference -- or is it apathy?
Well... yeah. The point my original statement was implying was that most of the self proclaimed ATHEISTS that I know tend to exist for the sole purpose of contradicting theists. They believe there is no God, and will at many times spend time finding evidence to "prove" that there is no God. As to whether this is more or less scientific than theism, I have clearly conceded the point to you, and I'm sorry for drawing that comparison.

Most AGNOSTICS (including me) that I know tend to take the view that no one (in some cases, even atheists) has made a very convincing point, and until something substantial develops on the topic: WE DON'T CARE and will just get on with our lives as if it doesn't matter.

That may not agree with the literal definition of those terms but in MY experiance, at least, it holds true. Also, of course it is a generalization, and thus may not apply to all.

But tell me, if you really do not care, then why post your unsupported, and unargued viewpoints in the first place? Do you think that is what I come here for? "Oh great, here's another guy who will tell me I am wrong, but not have the decency to discuss it, civilly."
Okay, now this is getting irritating; the original comment was not regarding the topic of atheism vs. agnosticism at all, I was simply responding to the OPs question about the non-religious view of human life. I did not INTEND an innocuous statement thrown at the end of that comment to become a point of debate, and THAT is why I did not wish to stick around and argue about it.

I never said you were wrong. I never professed my viewpoint as the only correct one. When asked to defend it by a less confrontational person who disagreed (gex gex) I confessed to letting my typing fingers jump ahead of my brain, and even offered an interesting question that the issue brought up.

Now if you REALLY want to get this worked out, go open another thread about it, and I'll happily discuss it with you, but quit accusing me of jumping on a high horse, and quit being so damn confrontational!

j666

11-14-2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by teemingONE
Just to be clear, you guys don't believe in souls, correct?

If this is so, then is suicide/killing/murder and abortion as bad to you guys as it is to us religous folk?

We all get together in our little covens every four years to decide what is 'bad', and the anti-suicide folks won last time.

Define 'God'; the chances are that by your definition I am an atheist.

Define 'soul'; then we can discuss this.

Define 'religious'; include three examples.

GodlessSkeptic

11-15-2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by CaptBushido
I wouldn't say that at all.

It's a person's potential, aspirations, and personal happiness that give their lives value, to me at least.

But then again, technically I am not one to whom you are phrasing the question. I'm an agnostic. Atheism requires just as big an unscientific leap of faith as any religion.

Atheism requires no leap of faith. Are you a theistic agnostic then? I am an atheistic agnostic. Agnostics can be either according to the Huxlian definition.

Atheism, like any word, shifts meaning with context and usage.

When it comes to claims of superntural gods I have heard thus far, I am an athiest becuase I do not assent to these claims. I find them implausible.

When it comes to natural gods such as divine emporers, statues, the sun etc. I am an atheist because I do not willingly worship these things as gods.

I am an agnostic becuase I do not think the question of God's existence is soluable.

GodlessSkeptic

11-15-2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by teemingONE
Just to be clear, you guys don't believe in souls, correct?

If this is so, then is suicide/killing/murder and abortion as bad to you guys as it is to us religous folk?

A great many atheists DO believe in souls(Buddhists for example).

A great many atheists are also religious(again, buddhists).

Atheism means(primarily) "without gods", not "without religion".

There is nothing aside from lack of god-belief that atheists have in common. We have no atheist "worldview" or agreed upon ethics or politics.

For me personally:

Suicide is the right of the individual. I do not see how you can force someone to value their life as you do. I view life as a rollercoaster. Some get on and don't want to get off. Some ride the coaster and become violently ill and do not want to continue riding the coaster.

Killing is not inherantly wrong itself but depends upon the context, I suppose.

Murder...you will have to define this one for me. DOes murder mean unjustified homocide of an innocent? I am thinking about the hypothetical of going back in time and murdering Adolph Hitler before he became Chancellor.

Abortion is a woman's right in my book until I am convinced that life begins at conception.

gex gex

11-15-2003, 08:15 AM

originally posted by CaptBushido
I never said you were wrong. I never professed my viewpoint as the only correct one. When asked to defend it by a less confrontational person who disagreed (gex gex) I confessed to letting my typing fingers jump ahead of my brain, and even offered an interesting question that the issue brought up.
I hope to remain non-confrontational, because these sort of debates are repeated ad-nauseum and are much more pleasant if civil, but I'm afraid that I agree somewhat with The Great Unwashed.

In answer to this:
That noted, is the difference between the beliefs of atheism and agnosticism merely a reflection of degree?
I believe so. To me, your agnosticism sounds like wishy-washy theism. People dismiss ideas every day for which there is no evidence. Someone looking at the washing on the line does not need a leap of faith to decide not to take it in before it's dry. They see no evidence that it's about to rain and leave the washing out.

As The Great Unwashed said, atheism is falsifiable, and an application of Occam's Razor. It is not a leap of faith. It is about not seeing any evidence offered for the hypothesis advanced (a divine entity being responsible, in some way, for the universe), and hence, do not treat it with any more seriousness than any other unsupported hypothesis, be that the possibility of two suns rising tomorrow morning, NASA faking the moon landings or a man hiding behind a grassy knoll and shooting JFK.

However, considering your statement that you "believe there is significantly more evidence that there is a divine being than that two suns will rise tomorrow" suggests you see things in theism that I do not. This supports my (perhaps offensive) view that agnosticism is wishy-washy theism.

Imagine if we treated all questions as agnostics treat religion. Will tomorrow see the passing of a giant red rubberball across the heavens, rising in the east and setting in the west?

An athiest would assume the natural position is to say, no, there, is no evidence that this will occur (without straying into can-we-ever-really-know-anything? philosophy); this won't happen.

It seems that an agnostic would say "there is no evidence that this will or will not happen, I refuse to take a position either way." In short, an agnostic who is not a wishy-washy theist can not dismiss any proposition, no matter how little evidence for it is offered. After all, nothing is completely impossible.

CaptBushido

11-15-2003, 11:50 AM

I think Godless Skeptic hit a lot of nails, simultaneously, on a lot of heads. I'd agree with what he said.

As for what you're saying, gex gex, well, though among us non-religious folk, it's something of an insult, you are right - I may have some theistic views. But I don't commit to them, because I see a mound of evidence AGAINST it, too, and my simple mind just stays the hell out of the ordeal. THAT is what makes me agnostic.

The problem with atheists is that you are applying scientific logic to an area which science as not even begun to cover, yet. If I were to ask you, using Occam's Razor and other logical technique's to tell me why and how the singularity was in existence before the big bang, would you be able to? That is something that we do NOT have sufficient scientific evidence to postulate, all we can do is guess.

The leap of faith for atheists is in assuming you have enough evidence to draw conclusions. Until we learn the "hows" and "whys" of the universe, I don't think it is possible for anyone to put a sufficiently strong case AGAINST the existence of a divine being.

ronbo

11-15-2003, 12:23 PM

teemingONE: Ignorance is the human condition, the ability to evolve is divine.

Some would call me an Atheist, Infidel, Apostate, Goyem, Non-believer, etc. So I feel qualified to answer:

I will define morality (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality) as the distinction between good and bad.

Short answers:
1) Belief in the Soul (e.g. eternal life in Heaven or Hell): Some of us do not need Bribes or Threats to know Good from Bad and therefore try to do Good.
2) S/K/M&A as bad as: Yes, but there are other considerations.

I suggest that the MORE RELIGIOUS one is, the LESS MORAL one is likely to be. Religion can give the idea to believers that they have the moral obligation to enforce their "morality" on others. The overly religious seem to think that their concept of God’s morality applies to other people. They then force (as opposed to offer) their beliefs on the unwilling.

Note to the Religious: Your covenant with God is for you and you alone. Period.

Morality does not distinguish between "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Spiritual" or "Religious". You either understand morality or not, you either follow a moral life or not.

The Law of Morality:
All people are created equal and have the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
Treat others as you would be treated.

Specific answers:
Suicide: If you can guide someone away from suicide, offer. But everyone has the right to their own life. It is between them and God, not you. Terminal Condition Suicides: Who are you to say that God wants someone die an agonizing death? Or live an agonizing Life?

Suicide: Bad.
Laws prohibiting Suicide: Worse.

Killing: A person threatening loss of life of another forfeits his right to life. Defense is an obligation, killing is the last resort.

Killing: Bad.
Allowing Murder: Worse.

Murder: This is the ultimate immorality, even if you wish someone else would murder you.

Murder: Bad.

Abortion: No one has the right to live at the expense of someone else (See Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, not to mention LIFE). This includes a fetus.

Abortion: Bad.
Unconstitional (http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html) Laws: Worse.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.....

The Religious Right is PROUD that they are establishing their religious morality in government. They believe that they have the “higher moral authority” to impose their laws on people.

Sorry about entering so late.

Peace

panache45

11-15-2003, 03:59 PM

This atheist generally avoids using the word "soul," just as I avoid the word "sin." There's just too much religious baggage attached to these words. But I wholeheartedly believe in something that's related to sentience and consciousness and personality, which makes each of us (and many animals) unique. I don't, however, see any evidence of its existence outside of this lifetime. That's precisely why I consider a single, irreplaceable life to be the supreme value.

gex gex

11-18-2003, 07:33 AM

originally posted by CaptBushido
The leap of faith for atheists is in assuming you have enough evidence to draw conclusions. Until we learn the "hows" and "whys" of the universe, I don't think it is possible for anyone to put a sufficiently strong case AGAINST the existence of a divine being.
God/Divine Beings have historically been held to have an impact on the world. The only way we can have insufficient evidence to at least dismiss the idea of a god as unsupported, is to define god as something that cannot have an impact on the universe. After all, if god has an impact on the universe, we can test for it. If god does not have an impact on the universe, it might as well not exist.

If I were to ask you, using Occam's Razor and other logical technique's to tell me why and how the singularity was in existence before the big bang, would you be able to?
There was no before the big bang. According to the theory (which has some evidence for it), time started at that point.