This is going to sound ignorant, a question for Atheists

Great Debates
41

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.

42

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.

43

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.

44

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.

45

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.

46

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.”

47

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.”

48

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.

49

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?

50

The Great Unwashed

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

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.

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!

51

[sarcasm]
We all get together in our little covens every four years to decide what is ‘bad’, and the anti-suicide folks won last time.
[/sarcasm]

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.

52

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.

53

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.

54

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:

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.

55

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.

56

** 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 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 Laws: Worse.

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

57

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.

58

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.

There was no before the big bang. According to the theory (which has some evidence for it), time started at that point.

59

The existence of souls doensn’t mean god exists… nor supernatural phenomena. (Also known as things we can’t explain).

I’m an atheist… against Death Penalty because its so badly managed…

Why would anyone thing suicide/murder is good ? Those are fully fledged and working adults.

Abortion is killing little unfinished fetuses… so no problem there.