Atheistic morality

[chang50]

Where does everyones "internal moral compass" come from?

Did Saddam have one? How about Bin Laden? Bush? Hitler? Bundy?

Please describe how and why an atheist becomes atheist.

Personally I believe I was born an atheist as I believe you were too.Not everyone subscribes to this idea,but if you accept my definition of atheism all newborn babies are lacking a belief in the existence of gods.At some later point you acquired your belief.
My best guess for an explanation of the development of the human conscience is an evolutionary one but I'm not a scientist.The people you quote are extreme abberrations and I won't pretend to understand all the complex factors behind them.Perhaps their lack of a conscience is no different to any other handicap?

[BigBallinStalin]

Dude, they are not just creating pollution, they are intentionally putting hazardous waste into the water supply.

Where I'm going with this is: the theory which promotes wealth makes us all wealthy is nonsense.

Where I am going with this is: you, BBS, yes you, are the person who is going to come up with a better theory.

The wealthy consider the population to be bison, a mob impeding "their" progress. Just about everyone would call this a conspiracy theory if the good ol' Harvard name wasn't on that study. For decades they called people who had concerns about fluoride conspiracy theorists.

What you, BBS, yes you, are going to do is explain the economic mechanism behind dumbing down the population. You are going to explain why free markets fail when enough wealth is concentrated in a few hands. I'm going to be so proud of you.

Previously, this was a good enough summary of your position:

Sure, the interactions among bureaucrats, politicians, special interest groups, and many voters ("the powers that be"?) have resulted in the deaths of people abroad, a greater control over technology to some degree for some groups, and the derailing of science and philosophy to justify pro-government bias.

But now it doesn't hold! Who are the "powers to be"? Who's "they"? Now, it's only "wealthy people"? So, Bill Gates is putting hazardous waste into the water supply, funding wars abroad, dumbing down the population, while donating a buttload to charity?

I can't address your position if you keep changing it.

[shickingbrits]

Donating a buttload to charity?

Is this atheistic morality in action?

Bill Gates wants to depopulate Pakistan cuz climate change. Bill Gates is funding policies to do so. Bill Gates is sad people in Pakistan don't want to be depopulated .

Bill Gates is part owner in Monsanto, which is a JV with Cargill who produces 70% of the said hazardous waste.

Bill Gates buys up technology. The breakthrough battery described as the missing link in clean energy was bought by Gates. I guess we will see it on the market one day...since he is so concerned with climate change.

[BigBallinStalin]

Donating a buttload to charity?

Is this atheistic morality in action?

Why not include benefits in your cost-only analysis?

Bill Gates wants to depopulate Pakistan cuz climate change. Bill Gates is funding policies to do so. Bill Gates is sad people in Pakistan don't want to be depopulated .

Vague.

Bill Gates is part owner in Monsanto, which is a JV with Cargill who produces 70% of the said hazardous waste.

How many people own shares in corporations? They're all owners, so why not blame everyone who buys and sells stocks and bonds? What about everyone who buys US government bonds? Will you blame them too?

So, by your logic, you should be blaming about... 25% of the world?

Bill Gates buys up technology. The breakthrough battery described as the missing link in clean energy was bought by Gates. I guess we will see it on the market one day...since he is so concerned with climate change.

If he wants to make a profit, then sure. If the allegedly breakthrough battery is not profitable enough to be marketable, then it'll stay wherever it is. There's plenty of planning required to make something marketable (R&D, safety concerns, regulations to surmount, marketing plans, production plans, etc.). It's not as simple as, "i have battery; therefore, produce it nao, world saved."


Again, Who are the "powers to be"? Who's "they"? Now, it's only "wealthy people"? Or is it "everyone who owns securities"?

[ooge]

This may have already been said. Do atheist value human life or all life more than a religious person? because for an Atheist when you die thats it no kingdom in heaven to go to or whatever else the religious believe in.If the Atheist values life more, than the Atheist is more moralistic than the religious.

[shickingbrits]

What benefits?

Sorry, you'll have to get further clarification from Bill.

Don't know how many people have $2.7bn shares in Monsanto. I'm sure I could find out.

"If he wants to make a profit." . Trapped in an ideology, a wee, aren't we?

Isn't Gates donating buttloads to charity? Isn't he concerned bout climate change? Wouldn't those two things suggest he make the battery available? BTW, it wasn't called the missing link because it sucks. It's quite simple and is composed of some of the most widely available materials on earth.

[BoganGod]

This may have already been said. Do atheist value human life or all life more than a religious person? because for an Atheist when you die thats it no kingdom in heaven to go to or whatever else the religious believe in.If the Atheist values life more, than the Atheist is more moralistic than the religious.

Very valid point, this point is made quite strongly in "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I mentioned early and the shrill simple shrickstik troll ignored.
If you only have one life to lead, and your only eternity or posterity is what you leave. Then you make sure you do your best to live life well.

[ooge]

This may have already been said. Do atheist value human life or all life more than a religious person? because for an Atheist when you die thats it no kingdom in heaven to go to or whatever else the religious believe in.If the Atheist values life more, than the Atheist is more moralistic than the religious.

Very valid point, this point is made quite strongly in "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I mentioned early and the shrill simple shrickstik troll ignored.
If you only have one life to lead, and your only eternity or posterity is what you leave. Then you make sure you do your best to live life well.

Hitchens had a big brain as well as Gore Vidal.They were smart.

[BigBallinStalin]

What benefits?

Charity. Having a cost-only view of the world is narrow-minded because you omit a large chunk of reality.

Sorry, you'll have to get further clarification from Bill.

Don't know how many people have $2.7bn shares in Monsanto. I'm sure I could find out.

"If he wants to make a profit." . Trapped in an ideology, a wee, aren't we?

Not really. You and I wish to make a profit when we exchange our labor services for goods such as money. You wouldn't sell your labor at a price which was lower than your costs because doing so would result in a loss--not a profit. That would be dumb. Bill Gates wouldn't do the same for the alleged breakthrough battery. You're getting upset about someone who's acting rationally. Think about that.

Isn't Gates donating buttloads to charity? Isn't he concerned bout climate change? Wouldn't those two things suggest he make the battery available? BTW, it wasn't called the missing link because it sucks. It's quite simple and is composed of some of the most widely available materials on earth.

I'm sorry, but you're still refusing to explain who or what you're talking about exactly ("them," "the powers that be," "wealthy people--but and if not maybe owners of shares and bonds," "breakthrough battery earth materials," "sheep on a flagpole"), so you're not making sense.


I strive to be scientifically minded with my judgments of people, and initially I thought you didn't want to examine your own beliefs, so I gave you a good trial-run. It's become apparent that you consistently adhere to a batshit crazy worldview, and you don't realize it because you refuse to think critically about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

This may have already been said. Do atheist value human life or all life more than a religious person? because for an Atheist when you die thats it no kingdom in heaven to go to or whatever else the religious believe in.If the Atheist values life more, than the Atheist is more moralistic than the religious.

Very valid point, this point is made quite strongly in "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I mentioned early and the shrill simple shrickstik troll ignored.
If you only have one life to lead, and your only eternity or posterity is what you leave. Then you make sure you do your best to live life well.

I think it's a crummy argument.

Let's say that you'll get a $1 million dollars 20 years from now if you follow these reasonable and good rules.* You then act in a good way for 20 years, and cha-ching! cha-ching! ya get the $1,000,000.

Now, consider the same scenario, but you don't get $1 million dollars 20 years from now. All else being equal, would the average person be more likely or less likely to act morally good without this reward?

Less likely.

He seems to assume that non-afterlifers would behave better than the religious even though they receive a less profitable reward (what reward is greater than Totes Awesomeness Afterlife?). His claim may be true, but it's an empirical matter. His conclusion rests upon an unsound assumption.

*If you don't like the "reasonable and good rules" part, it doesn't matter because that's a different issue. If Hitchens wanted to argue about religious rules, he'd have to choose a different argument. (note: I'm working with ooge's bland summary of his argument).

[warmonger1981]

The Jewish Freemasonry through Jewish Illuminati run shit. How's them apples. Carol Quigley wrote about connections. There is a book called Bloodlines of the Illuminati that shows like 500 pages of connections. Antony Sutton wrote 1000's of pages with a lot of stuff. You may want to look into 120 Broadway and all the companies and people who were Skull and Bones members connections. The Pilgrims Society is another society of high society connections. The lists go on and on. I could go for days. There are two classes of people in this world. People like the Rothschild's that matter. The rest of us are trash. If you don't own a country and have billions you ain't shit.

[ooge]

This may have already been said. Do atheist value human life or all life more than a religious person? because for an Atheist when you die thats it no kingdom in heaven to go to or whatever else the religious believe in.If the Atheist values life more, than the Atheist is more moralistic than the religious.

Very valid point, this point is made quite strongly in "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I mentioned early and the shrill simple shrickstik troll ignored.
If you only have one life to lead, and your only eternity or posterity is what you leave. Then you make sure you do your best to live life well.

I think it's a crummy argument.

Let's say that you'll get a $1 million dollars 20 years from now if you follow these reasonable and good rules.* You then act in a good way for 20 years, and cha-ching! cha-ching! ya get the $1,000,000.

Now, consider the same scenario, but you don't get $1 million dollars 20 years from now. All else being equal, would the average person be more likely or less likely to act morally good without this reward?

Less likely.

He seems to assume that non-afterlifers would behave better than the religious even though they receive a less profitable reward (what reward is greater than Totes Awesomeness Afterlife?). His claim may be true, but it's an empirical matter. His conclusion rests upon an unsound assumption.

*If you don't like the "reasonable and good rules" part, it doesn't matter because that's a different issue. If Hitchens wanted to argue about religious rules, he'd have to choose a different argument. (note: I'm working with ooge's bland summary of his argument).

I never said I was using anyones argument other than my own.and my argument has nothing to do with monetary gain. I was agreeing with Bogan that Hitchens was a smart guy.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's why I'm addressing BoganGod.

[jonesthecurl]

It doesn't say anything about traffic lights in the Good Book, and yet most people, even Christians, obey them, despite the lack of impending eternal damnation.

[shickingbrits]

What benefits?

Charity. Having a cost-only view of the world is narrow-minded because you omit a large chunk of reality.

Sorry, you'll have to get further clarification from Bill.

Don't know how many people have $2.7bn shares in Monsanto. I'm sure I could find out.

"If he wants to make a profit." . Trapped in an ideology, a wee, aren't we?

Not really. You and I wish to make a profit when we exchange our labor services for goods such as money. You wouldn't sell your labor at a price which was lower than your costs because doing so would result in a loss--not a profit. That would be dumb. Bill Gates wouldn't do the same for the alleged breakthrough battery. You're getting upset about someone who's acting rationally. Think about that.

Isn't Gates donating buttloads to charity? Isn't he concerned bout climate change? Wouldn't those two things suggest he make the battery available? BTW, it wasn't called the missing link because it sucks. It's quite simple and is composed of some of the most widely available materials on earth.

I'm sorry, but you're still refusing to explain who or what you're talking about exactly ("them," "the powers that be," "wealthy people--but and if not maybe owners of shares and bonds," "breakthrough battery earth materials," "sheep on a flagpole"), so you're not making sense.


I strive to be scientifically minded with my judgments of people, and initially I thought you didn't want to examine your own beliefs, so I gave you a good trial-run. It's become apparent that you consistently adhere to a batshit crazy worldview, and you don't realize it because you refuse to think critically about it.

Batshit crazy, indeed. I find it very telling that almost no one has commented on the fact that a Nazi concentration camp policy, fluoridating water, which has been conclusively proven against the claims of the health, dental and government to lower your IQ, damage your teeth and weaken your immune system, is being practiced.

I find it interesting that for decades people who have been publishing information on fluoride were called "batshit crazy" and now that they have been proven correct, they are "batshit crazy". BBS definition of batshit crazy: someone who refuses to ignore information.

I enjoy your other definitions as well. Charity: depopulating the world. Gates spending on vaccines and GMOs is charity. Gates spending on green tech is business. Do you find this in anyway contradictory? On the one hand, you equate his drive to helping people, but when presented with evidence that he is actually doing the opposite, it is conveniently reshelfed as business. Please make up your mind.

Who are they? Let's stick with Gates before we move on. If you're going to pursue such logic in regards to "them" as you do with "him", then I expect this to take a while.

[shickingbrits]

Where does everyones "internal moral compass" come from?

Did Saddam have one? How about Bin Laden? Bush? Hitler? Bundy?

Please describe how and why an atheist becomes atheist.

Personally I believe I was born an atheist as I believe you were too.Not everyone subscribes to this idea,but if you accept my definition of atheism all newborn babies are lacking a belief in the existence of gods.At some later point you acquired your belief.
My best guess for an explanation of the development of the human conscience is an evolutionary one but I'm not a scientist.The people you quote are extreme abberrations and I won't pretend to understand all the complex factors behind them.Perhaps their lack of a conscience is no different to any other handicap?

When were you first presented with the idea of God?

Let me put it this way. When genetic mutation leading to diversity was first presented, was the concept new? Did everyone at the time think that we all had the same eye color, skin color, hair color, that we were all the same height, weight, that we were identical? If we already understood that we looked different from our parents and we equated this to God, why then was this used to claim there is no God? Is that the only reasonable conclusion that could be reached from this "new" evidence?

Did the chicken come before the egg? Did people look at the evidence and reach the conclusion that there was no God, or did people who already believed there was no God latch onto this as evidence of their prior belief?

Do those people lack a conscience? Or did temptation to be more equal lead them to subvert it?

[shickingbrits]

It doesn't say anything about traffic lights in the Good Book, and yet most people, even Christians, obey them, despite the lack of impending eternal damnation.

I would choose my arguments more carefully.

There is nothing which equates laws to morality. All immoral acts were legal once and many still are, and are obeyed. You're suggesting that morality is based on strength to impose, when morality is overcoming the desire to impose when you have the strength to impose.

That the US can enforce sanctions that starve 2,000,000 Iraqis legally, does not make it right to do so. Unless you subscribe to survival of the fittest. If might makes right, then anything might accomplishes is "moral" by such a position.

I don't think it's in the publics best interest to conform to a might makes right belief system. That's what we have and that is what we will continue to have so long as we don't have a backdrop to judge the laws against.

If atheists are moral, then please define your morality beyond Hitler has the publics consent to execute the public so its right. Or describe it as such. Say it loud and clear. Hold each other to it openly.


You will know them by their fruits (no matter how they try to hide those fruits).

[tzor]

Personally I believe I was born an atheist as I believe you were too.Not everyone subscribes to this idea,but if you accept my definition of atheism all newborn babies are lacking a belief in the existence of gods.

First of all, it is very silly to say that the lack of knowledge constitutes a believe in the non existence of the knowledge. One might argue that babies are born agnostic, but that too is a complex issue; they don't know that they don't know.

In fact I would opposite the opposite, all babies are born with a notion of "god." In time they learn to give that a name, "MOMMY" is a common one.

[chang50]

Where does everyones "internal moral compass" come from?

Did Saddam have one? How about Bin Laden? Bush? Hitler? Bundy?

Please describe how and why an atheist becomes atheist.

Personally I believe I was born an atheist as I believe you were too.Not everyone subscribes to this idea,but if you accept my definition of atheism all newborn babies are lacking a belief in the existence of gods.At some later point you acquired your belief.
My best guess for an explanation of the development of the human conscience is an evolutionary one but I'm not a scientist.The people you quote are extreme abberrations and I won't pretend to understand all the complex factors behind them.Perhaps their lack of a conscience is no different to any other handicap?

When were you first presented with the idea of God?

Let me put it this way. When genetic mutation leading to diversity was first presented, was the concept new? Did everyone at the time think that we all had the same eye color, skin color, hair color, that we were all the same height, weight, that we were identical? If we already understood that we looked different from our parents and we equated this to God, why then was this used to claim there is no God? Is that the only reasonable conclusion that could be reached from this "new" evidence?

Did the chicken come before the egg? Did people look at the evidence and reach the conclusion that there was no God, or did people who already believed there was no God latch onto this as evidence of their prior belief?

Do those people lack a conscience? Or did temptation to be more equal lead them to subvert it?

I was first presented with the idea of god about the same time as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny..4 or 5 years old,can't honestly remember taking any of them too seriously.So unlike you I never converted to Christianity.

[chang50]

This may have already been said. Do atheist value human life or all life more than a religious person? because for an Atheist when you die thats it no kingdom in heaven to go to or whatever else the religious believe in.If the Atheist values life more, than the Atheist is more moralistic than the religious.

Very valid point, this point is made quite strongly in "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens which I mentioned early and the shrill simple shrickstik troll ignored.
If you only have one life to lead, and your only eternity or posterity is what you leave. Then you make sure you do your best to live life well.

Shick will never understand this,because atheism would lead him to behave badly it follows it would lead to everyone behaving badly.He judges us by his very low standards.

[chang50]

Personally I believe I was born an atheist as I believe you were too.Not everyone subscribes to this idea,but if you accept my definition of atheism all newborn babies are lacking a belief in the existence of gods.

First of all, it is very silly to say that the lack of knowledge constitutes a believe in the non existence of the knowledge. One might argue that babies are born agnostic, but that too is a complex issue; they don't know that they don't know.

In fact I would opposite the opposite, all babies are born with a notion of "god." In time they learn to give that a name, "MOMMY" is a common one.

Never argued that, the definition of atheism I hold to relates to an absence of belief not knowledge.Nowhere have I even mentioned knowledge.How silly is it to misrepresent an argument and then knock the resulting strawman down?
Please explain how a newborn baby has a belief in anything at all?

[shickingbrits]

But of course it isn't an absence in belief.

When presented with the idea that the basic ingredients of the universe inherently had the recipe for life, you are suggesting a belief, the belief that the Big Bang was random. This is of course not the only conceivable position to take, but it is the one you have taken, the belief you hold.

While you may not personally take this to its logical conclusions it doesn't mean that others don't. When others do take it to their logical conclusions, you can't even say they are wrong. Your conclusions allow for the conclusions of others who do take this to the extreme.

I believe that the Big Bang was God and it was a recipe that those ingredients were following. From this, I can then say that life is the combination of those ingredients in action. Such a combination of ingredients lead to Buddha, Jesus, and other prophets. I can then say the one whose conclusions create the best result for people is the best guide in this swirling mass.

Jesus, not the Pope, not Paul, not Peter, not Bogangod's cult leader, but Jesus.

I can use the guidance that Jesus provided to assess my moral position. I can use Christ's guidance to assess the morality of the Church. By what standard can you judge the Church? By what standard can you judge your moral position?

Your standard is not unbiased, it was bias that lead to it. You actively chose life to be random. And from this bias you have reached your beliefs. That your beliefs have no standard and they encompass all the evil ever done bothers you not a whim, because that the acts were evil can not be confirmed within your beliefs. The only evil which can be condemned is the unsuccessful attempts made by the weak against the strong. Those random inferior lives going against all that is required for survival, strength.

That you have failed to reach these conclusions suggests that you weren't seeking a better story than God, it suggests that your motive was merely to rebel against God at the first possible choice without much consideration.

[BoganGod]

Personally I believe I was born an atheist as I believe you were too.Not everyone subscribes to this idea,but if you accept my definition of atheism all newborn babies are lacking a belief in the existence of gods.

First of all, it is very silly to say that the lack of knowledge constitutes a believe in the non existence of the knowledge. One might argue that babies are born agnostic, but that too is a complex issue; they don't know that they don't know.

In fact I would opposite the opposite, all babies are born with a notion of "god." In time they learn to give that a name, "MOMMY" is a common one.

Never argued that, the definition of atheism I hold to relates to an absence of belief not knowledge.Nowhere have I even mentioned knowledge.How silly is it to misrepresent an argument and then knock the resulting strawman down?
Please explain how a newborn baby has a belief in anything at all?

Damn good question chang. I can imagine some of the more sincere disturbed believers seriously rehashing old religious court arguments like - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....... What type of angel? What type of dance? How big is the pin? What is the pin made out of? Are the angels also playing musical instruments? If so what type of instruments?

Babies have needs, not wants, not beliefs, not a burning desire to seek spiritual fulfilment. Religions as well as harbouring and enabling child abusers(not that child abusers are confined to religion), actively take part in child abuse by demonising the other or different, manipulating a child's yearning for acceptance, threatening separation(you won't see mummy if you don't go to heaven) and many other examples of rehensible emotional blackmail.

[chang50]

But of course it isn't an absence in belief.

When presented with the idea that the basic ingredients of the universe inherently had the recipe for life, you are suggesting a belief, the belief that the Big Bang was random. This is of course not the only conceivable position to take, but it is the one you have taken, the belief you hold.

While you may not personally take this to its logical conclusions it doesn't mean that others don't. When others do take it to their logical conclusions, you can't even say they are wrong. Your conclusions allow for the conclusions of others who do take this to the extreme.

I believe that the Big Bang was God and it was a recipe that those ingredients were following. From this, I can then say that life is the combination of those ingredients in action. Such a combination of ingredients lead to Buddha, Jesus, and other prophets. I can then say the one whose conclusions create the best result for people is the best guide in this swirling mass.

Jesus, not the Pope, not Paul, not Peter, not Bogangod's cult leader, but Jesus.

I can use the guidance that Jesus provided to assess my moral position. I can use Christ's guidance to assess the morality of the Church. By what standard can you judge the Church? By what standard can you judge your moral position?

Your standard is not unbiased, it was bias that lead to it. You actively chose life to be random. And from this bias you have reached your beliefs. That your beliefs have no standard and they encompass all the evil ever done bothers you not a whim, because that the acts were evil can not be confirmed within your beliefs. The only evil which can be condemned is the unsuccessful attempts made by the weak against the strong. Those random inferior lives going against all that is required for survival, strength.

That you have failed to reach these conclusions suggests that you weren't seeking a better story than God, it suggests that your motive was merely to rebel against God at the first possible choice without much consideration.

I will assume this was a response to my post although why you cannot use quotes like everyone else.?..my counter response is brief.My atheism IS an absence of belief,who are you to say otherwise?And I don't accept your unfounded assertion that what you claim are the logical conclusions of atheism are what you say they are.Please refrain from telling me and countless millions of others what they believe and the consequences thereof when you know so very little about us.

[BigBallinStalin]

chang50, don't bother. I've patiently spent the past few pages trying to welcome shickforbrits into the army of clarity: science and logic. He can't even science, bro.

His muddled thinking is responsible for many of the problems in representative democratic governments: crony capitalism, government waste, excessive pollution, and stupid laws.