Really, point to the place where I said something about ‘all atheists’.
Reality can be changed randomly by people’s actions. Your assertions about morality are arbitrary as well. The results of people’s actions define the reality we live in. That’s what society is all about.
People have different views on this. Yours seems to be a minority viewpoint. Most people seem to disagree with you about what is best for humanity. How do we determine what is best for humanity?
So what if killing you makes my life better? Is not the condition of my life a subjective measure?
What does this even mean? “The effects of morality on people?”, how do you determine what is right? Some people think that homosexuality is immoral. Some people think it’s immoral to think that homoexuality is immoral. How do I choose between them?
There have been many threads in this forum that consisted of atheists misrepresenting what believers believe. Is there any example where the responses to such had the same insult/argument ratio as this thread?
The sort of thinking would lead to mental paralysis, so I don’t bother with it. I was merely pointing out to Baldwin that this forum alone isn’t a good proof of widespread superior behavior by atheists.
Um, no, I’m not. I’m attempting to use my powers of reasoning to determine, rationally, what make right things right. That’s not a “personal code of ethics”, that’s “morality.” When you’ve taken some rudimentary philosophy classes, you’ll know the difference.
If your only reason for not killing people is God’s decree, then you’re merely a well-disguised sociopath who fears punishment, not a moral being. If you don’t know the difference, you really need to read the books I suggested earlier. The fact that you ask in a later post:
suggests that you haven’t read Mill or Kant, or even the wikipedia articles I linked, which will provide a good springboard for your future study on the subject. Seriously, go read them and stop flailing.
You didn’t need to. As has been pointed out already, if some atheist posted an “I have decided to believe in God” thread where he talked about being a blithering idiot you sacrifices his children, everyone would accurately see it as a slam aimed at all religious people.
No, it can’t. Reality is what it is.
No, society is about cooperation for mutual benefit. Not “defining reality”.
Experimentation.
But if people in general take that attitude, everyone is worse off. Thus, the “killing is bad” rule.
What we have done; millennia of trial and error, debate, reasoning, and with a bit of science in modern times.
Easy. The people who believe that homosexuality is immoral are trying to harm people who don’t threaten them, and have no rational basis for their attitude. They are on the side of malice, irrationality, and bigotry, and are therefore the enemy of everyone.
Sure it is. The choice of human emotion as a foundation is entirely arbitrary.
It’s like basing morality on an itch. There is no real reason for those who don’t feel the itch, or don’t think the itch is important, to be convinced.
We have kicked this around several times. Absent any objective standard, there is no basis for arguing that the Holocaust is “worse” than the color green.
When in the history of human societies has that ever happened? Isn’t it more typical that schisms appear with perceived differences either hair-splitting or huge? I don’t know how you can claim a unifying theme, when history suggests civil wars are more likely.
So one irrational over-reaction justifies another eh?
I’m not talking about you, Miller or Hentor. If you can’t accept that, that’s your problem. If you really need to cling to that straw man, that’s your business.
So society and its makeup is not a part of reality?
Absolutely. I understand why it applies in a general sense. This assumes that I should care about the fate of society.
The millenia of debate and trial and error was largely carried out by priests in temples.
But there are arguments that homosexuality hurts society. You take it as a given that this is not true. That’s just your opinion though. The moral imperative to reproduce has some rational bases. You are still claiming a higher moral virtue than the vast majority of people. As though somehow YOU know what is best, whereas most people are too stupid to get it.
Schisms occur, but that doesn’t negate the idea that large groups of people can agree on a set of normative values. Schisms occur BECAUSE of those normative values. When a division in the group based on what the normative values are occurs, that’s a schism.
In the long run, people or groups of people who do care survive, and those that don’t care, die. The survivors tend to win arguments.
No, it wasn’t. They have largely been parasites, and have held back humanity’s moral development immensely. They argued over competing lies and delusions, not morality or the real consequences and needs of real people. As I said, the first step on the path to civilized, moral behavior is to reject or ignore religion; secularism or atheism.
There is no moral imperative to reproduce; we have far too many people. There are no truthful arguments that homosexuality hurts society.
You implied that the nature of people’s posts in this thread would indicate whether those people were moral and empathetic.
If you were not implying that the result of this exercise would tell you anything about whether atheists are moral or empathetic, then you are absolutely correct that I imputed something that was not present. If so, I am sorry. I just can’t see why you would post something like that without having a point.
Yes, I would wager so. I’d suggest that posts by Der Trihs, for example, tend to have rather a larger ratio of insult to argument. He obviously is considerably more vitriolic than mswas, but I would say the level of misrepresentation is about the same.
I’d point out to you that it’s not merely misrepresentation in part, but a misunderstanding of the entire idea of atheism and what it means. I would wager that yes, a thread in which the OP explains how he can’t understand why all Christians (for example) aren’t huge sociopaths would get rather a pretty impressive amount of insults to argument.
No, you were not. You were asserting that in most cases, atheist posts in this forum did not show moral or empathetic points. There’s a considerable difference between “No, atheists aren’t superior to theists in this capacity” and “No, most atheists in this forum post like arses”
As for leading to mental paralysis; what I asked of you is only what you asked of Baldwin. You pointed out a premise for which a particular piece of evidence would convince you. I suggested an entirely similar premise with exactly the same evidence required. So i’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say, here.
The single shared idea which connects all atheism is the lack of belief in gods, to one extent or the other.
The problem is that this is what you indicted. If you had wondered about something like atheist culture, or a particular argument against gods, then no, you wouldn’t have been talking about all atheists. But the entire concept of this thread was “What would it be like, for me, if I did not believe in a god?” - the one concept that does bind all of atheism. By your posting that you don’t understand how anyone who did not believe in god could be anything other than a huge sociopath, you did indeed indict all atheism.
China exists as it is in the short term. It will change drastically in the long term because of this behaviour (more accurately, because of the ideology of which that behaviour is a symptom), and far more than other countries (everything changes in the long term by virtue of existing, but this is a different scenario).
