The Atheist Thread

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: progismylife wrote: ^^ I don't get what you said about the motives. Please explain.    It's not about anything you said my friend, it's because some Atheists say we only do what is right for fear of God or searching a reward in the afterlife, maybe some, most of us because we try to do the right thing.   The point is that despite the motives we follow any moral code, moral codes are right and positive.   Iván

Who then, decides what is the right thing to do?

The problem with religion, as you present it, is that the reflective background of an action is too much based on premises one cannot question. An individual justification of an action is not based on individual reflection, only acceptance of a presented world-view. The implication is a reflexive emptiness. An ethic coming from a god is a bad ethic, at least in its foundations (and its psuedo-implications, as presented in Paul's letter to the Romans). It tries to escape intersubjectivity (or divinizes certain subjective opinions), the only possible source of a given perspective. Religion is all about definition power. One obviously does not need god to be a moral person.

Religious faith represents intellectual laziness and immaturity when its premises are not allowed to be questioned. Especially when its premises and implications are so tragically out of the blue (or only to be considered a limited shared opinion with an ufortunate amount of power)



And what on earth do you mean by following ANY moral code???

I'm atheist...can any prove conclusively god exists? After all, apart from the fairy story book (the bible) no one has ever seen this being who, allegedly encompasses all.

Yes......where are you god...show me yourself.   Oops he decided not to turn up

old_rain wrote: Yes......where are you god...show me yourself.   Oops he decided not to turn up

Beliefs are dangerous.

Harkmark wrote: Ok. As long as religion is kept (as much) out of the public sphere (as possible). Honestly I believe Religion is an issue of the person and their congregation, but any public act, religious or not religious must be allowed because of freedom of Speech. But some things the bible says you must accept blindly? Obviously, there are things one must accept blindly (the moon evolves around the earth etc), but religious faith is not one of them. That's why the Pope has said The Bible must not be undserstood literally, but analyze it and try to find the symbolism hidden.  Which makes religion a means, not an end. If some people need religion to stop killing, raping and/or robbing, then I am fine with that. But I don't think religion can stop many people from killing, raping and/or robbing. But I do agree that christianity has played a role in increasing the moral imagination, historically speaking, as a contemporary philosopher said. I'm only taking the position of the Government and the human law, if a Judge discovers something that makes people respect laws more, then why go against it. I respect law because I been taught to do that and I feel comfortable doing it, but if I see a guy that respects law because his religion says so..welcome. Now, as a Catholic (Not a fanatic, extremist or even too devout), Religion means more. God is an invention by man/woman. Some religions just don't accept other persons rights, that's the problem. I respect your right to believe soI I believe you respect my right to disagree (for your arguments I believe you do respect our right), as long we can coexist with tolerance, I have no problem. Of course. I am a humanist. One thing is not against the other. Prog fanatics unite!!! The only fabnatism I accept Then he/she should also accept and endorse people holding it for common sense that this god does not exist.   I believe he does (He being a generuic term bevcause I doubt God has sex). Complex, but interesting..   Don't make me remember, I did my thesis about the reasons why a President could be removed from his office (Really was more complex included requisites to assume the ofice and reasons why he/she may be removed or suspended) and in our Constitution one of the reasons for impesachment is MORAL INCAPACITY.   What the hell is MORAL INCAPACITY?????   I spent at least 50 pages writting about moral, from Aristoteles to Descartes, but had to delete most because it was a thesis for a law not a philosophy and ethics degree.   The interesting thing is that most of the questions of the jury were about this issue because Moral Incapacity may mean almost anything and at the same time almost nothing being so ambiguous (In USA they are more specific using the term "High Crimes and Misdemenors" and still is too ambiguous).   In our case if a President has a mistress is it moral incapacity? I don't know, but I guess it could be, even if I would not agree with an impeachment based in this cause exclusively.   Thanks for a civil reply and yes, morals are fascinating.  Iván

So are Pretzels, just ask George W. Bush.

Arrrghus wrote: Geck0 wrote: So are Pretzels, just ask George W. Bush.

sometimes religions and sciences just can't get along with each other

Well, the Bible never mention about dinosaurs, but then, there were fossils to prove that dinosaurs were exists (i never see any fossils though). So, how do those dinosaurs were created in the first place ? If we following the Big Bang theory, how all those creatures (animals and humans) were created then ?