The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Gerinski wrote:   Q1: Even if you are a Christian and me an Atheist, I guess that our moral codes are pretty similar. If I will die after having lived my atheist life as a 'good person', never killed, never stole, tried to not causing harm to others, helped others when I could etc, but I never believed, what will be the difference for you and me in your supposed afterlife? will your god punish me for not having believed? Q2: What does a Christian think about all the millions of humans who lived before Jesus and beyond the reach of judaism, plus all the millions who have lived after Jesus but beyond the reach of christianity? isn't a bit unfair from your god to have left them unattended? why are you (and me, even if I don't believe) one of the few privileged to have been exposed to his 'revelation'?

ExittheLemming wrote: ^Will an 'atheist ignoring he is an atheist' be picked up on God's omnipotent radar and outed as a hypocritical, condescending, self-righteous scallywag? BTW: Christianity still posits that despite An Earth full of well behaved people, we are forever tainted with original sin (in our defence, this must  represent the worst example of a 'bought jury' I've ever heard)

Edited by jayem - June 21 2013 at 08:11

^ I could not help but notice that you do not have anything to say about progressive rock. It seems this thread has provided you with a place to put your videos. In my opinion, the site would be better off without you and your message. I predict once the novelty of you wears off, nobody will care what your opinions are.

thellama73 wrote: Tapfret wrote: I'm sure somewhere in 166 pages someone has protested Agnosticism being lumped with Atheism. Shortsighted at best. Being preached at by an Atheist is easily as annoying as any door knocking bible thump. At least they have the grace to say "have a nice day" where preachy Atheists find disdain at being open to the idea that there is no conclusive evidence of the existence or non-existence of a creator. Humanity in general has this screwed up idea that spirituality, fellowship and religion are the same thing.    As an agnostic, this annoys me as well. I realize there are different definitions of atheism, and many atheists (including Penn Gillette. I love the guy, but this is annoying) insist that agnostics ARE atheists because they lack a positive belief in a god. To me, what is formally called "positive atheism" makes more sense as a definition, the assertion "I believe there is no god." Otherwise, it is hard to draw a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, which are certainly different ideas. I wish we could just agree to this system definitions so we could stop having this stupid argument.

Thank you for using the word "believe".  I think my summary would have been better if I had used the word "faith" in place of "religion", as the basic theme behind most religion is rooted in the idea that spirituality, fellowship and faith are inextricably intertwined.

What do you guys think of this one:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2013/06/still-alive-between-theism-and-atheism/

What is moral progress?

[that's not a philosophical question btw - "moral progress" is an ambiguous phrase, (like "no news is good news" is an ambiguous phrase), so I really want to know whether "moral progress" is progress that is moral, or the progression of morality]

Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: I believe in Jesus Christ because I am convinced that historical evidence supports the historicity of his resurrection, because I believe that the Christian story best explains the reality of the world and the human experience, and because Christ has proved himself faithful in my own life.  I don't want to start a debate about it (I will have very limited Internet access over the next couple days and my views are well-documented elsewhere on this site); merely to help you understand why I believe. Q1: Even if you are a Christian and me an Atheist, I guess that our moral codes are pretty similar. If I will die after having lived my atheist life as a 'good person', never killed, never stole, tried to not causing harm to others, helped others when I could etc, but I never believed, what will be the difference for you and me in your supposed afterlife? will your god punish me for not having believed? Q2: What does a Christian think about all the millions of humans who lived before Jesus and beyond the reach of judaism, plus all the millions who have lived after Jesus but beyond the reach of christianity? isn't a bit unfair from your god to have left them unattended? why are you (and me, even if I don't believe) one of the few privileged to have been exposed to his 'revelation'?

Christians do not believe that humans are saved by their deeds.  We believe that all humans are sinful, and that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).  Salvation is dependent upon God's grace, which we receive through faith, and not upon works.  A person can lead an outwardly good life but if he does not have faith in Christ then he will not be saved.  This is the main difference between Christianity and all other religions: you cannot do anything to be saved.  No one deserves to be saved.  Salvation is a gift of God.

Your other question is a difficult one to answer because many Christians have different beliefs on the issue.  The answer from my perspective is: "I don't know."  Seriously.   I can summarize several positions that other Christians hold on the issue, though.  Some believe that those people were condemned to Hell for eternity and that, because they were sinners, God was just in condemning them (it is necessary here to understand the Christian view of sin.  Scripture teaches that God created the world perfectly.  It's easy to think that we are good people if we judge ourselves by our own standards, but once we judge ourselves by God's standard the tables are turned completely).  Others believe that they won't be condemned to hell but will merely, well, die, not receiving eternal life but not being tormented eternally either.  Still others believe in what is called "universal reconciliation," which means that God will eventually save all of humanity.  Finally, others have postulated the existence of a sort of "limbo" where God might send people who never had a chance to hear the gospel (the best example of this idea is in Dante's Inferno).

The fact that morality is relative is self-evident. The moral code of barbarians, vikings, jews, ancient asians, mayas, amazonian jungle natives, black african small tribes, muslims... they are all different.

stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: So, to my next question, it seems to me that you are advocating progress as desirable because it is for the betterment of the human species.  So again, I would ask you - what about the human race makes it worthy of betterment, or of any importance at all?  If you are going to die, why should you care about the people who will come after you? It is desirable because it will better us as a species, not maybe minute by minute (no one would say Hiroshima was our shining moment) but across the centuries and millenia. But also, it is desirable because it is what we do. More than anything, we discover and explore. We didn't cower in caves after discovering fire. We took that fire outside and lit the way into the frontier. I find your question about worthiness a bit nonsensical. Humanity is not important at all, in the cosmic scheme. We ourselves are alone to decide our worthiness I guess, and if we excel we're worthy and if we crawl back into the cave then we deserve our fate. Oh and also, I believe we are not entirely far away from overcoming death, so I actually take issue with that. Not that I don't want to die. I think digital immortality would get old. But I would get biotics and upgrades if it was practical. Ambient Hurricanes wrote:  Secondly, how do you know that the morality we are progressing towards is better than the morality that preceded it?  by what standard do you judge whether the changes in the accepted morality of our species constitute progress or regress? Morality is relative to the zeitgeist. There is no other realistic way of looking at it in my opinion. Once God is thrown out we just have to deal with what we have left. But you haven't thrown out God, so the answer is easier for you, even if it is no closer to being a real reflection of the state of things. I suppose I have no moral standard to judge anything objectively against. I only have my own feelings and the thoughts of others compared to the prevailing norms. Of course I find slavery horrible and rape is disgusting, but it would be illusory to say that there is some objective, universal truth of no rape and no slavery. It just doesn't exist. I only trust we'll find our way as we progress. Because really, we must progress as humanity. As I keep saying, to deny our nature and draw limits on what we should discover and where we should go in both inner and outer space is dooming us to a far worse death as a species. So if morality is completely relative and left up to the individual, how is moral progress possible? And if morality is relative, how can we say that bold discovery and knowledge is better than cowardice and ignorance? Also, from what do derive your idea of the nature of humanity? I can affirm all these things for myself and appeal to others by argument to convince them that and action is good or not good, or that an area of discovery is good or not good. The answer is not right or wrong, but if 3 billion people agree, we have a pretty good consensus for doing one thing over another. But that doesn't mean it's the perfect decision for all times and all peoples. I assert that morality can only ever be truly relative. There is no "if" for me. All religions and peoples that purport to say God gives them a stone-bound set of rules are avoiding the nature of our godless universe in which we emerged out of chaos and blackness, crawled through the generations and emerged as we are, naturally selected and utterly alone as a conscious species in the cosmos. God is a cop-out. We have to accept this fact and realize that we can only ever do what we think is right and just. We generally think slavery is wrong and unjust now. It is an inescapable norm in our Western 21st century culture. So it is wrong for us. Was it wrong in 2000 BC? We would think so, of course, but there is no absolute law that says it is. Classically, there can be no true moral progress in moral relativism, but we intuitively think there can be moral progress. We need there to be moral progress. But, there can only be moral relativism. It's weird how the human brain works. We need to see in black and white in some cases, when in reality there is only a void and we're trying to give it attributes. In the universe, there is only a void, and we're trying to say it's a good void or a bad void. It's neither. It is what we make of it, so we can exist in it. I derive my opinion of the nature of humanity from observation, reading, and reflection. I never intend it to be serious or academic. I would love for somebody to convince me that morality truly is not relative, in a way that doesn't cop-out to God or intuition, but I don't think it is possible. This is the result, IMO, of a wholly naturalistic and atheistic view of the universe. It's no wonder that the Greeks and other ancients chose gods over atheism. It's easier and clearer. But no more realistic.

So are you saying that there is no right and wrong in scientific or moral progress, that what is "good" is relative and dependent on the individual, and that you can try to convince people of your standards but have no objective basis to say what they should do?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: So, to my next question, it seems to me that you are advocating progress as desirable because it is for the betterment of the human species.  So again, I would ask you - what about the human race makes it worthy of betterment, or of any importance at all?  If you are going to die, why should you care about the people who will come after you? It is desirable because it will better us as a species, not maybe minute by minute (no one would say Hiroshima was our shining moment) but across the centuries and millenia. But also, it is desirable because it is what we do. More than anything, we discover and explore. We didn't cower in caves after discovering fire. We took that fire outside and lit the way into the frontier. I find your question about worthiness a bit nonsensical. Humanity is not important at all, in the cosmic scheme. We ourselves are alone to decide our worthiness I guess, and if we excel we're worthy and if we crawl back into the cave then we deserve our fate. Oh and also, I believe we are not entirely far away from overcoming death, so I actually take issue with that. Not that I don't want to die. I think digital immortality would get old. But I would get biotics and upgrades if it was practical. Ambient Hurricanes wrote:  Secondly, how do you know that the morality we are progressing towards is better than the morality that preceded it?  by what standard do you judge whether the changes in the accepted morality of our species constitute progress or regress? Morality is relative to the zeitgeist. There is no other realistic way of looking at it in my opinion. Once God is thrown out we just have to deal with what we have left. But you haven't thrown out God, so the answer is easier for you, even if it is no closer to being a real reflection of the state of things. I suppose I have no moral standard to judge anything objectively against. I only have my own feelings and the thoughts of others compared to the prevailing norms. Of course I find slavery horrible and rape is disgusting, but it would be illusory to say that there is some objective, universal truth of no rape and no slavery. It just doesn't exist. I only trust we'll find our way as we progress. Because really, we must progress as humanity. As I keep saying, to deny our nature and draw limits on what we should discover and where we should go in both inner and outer space is dooming us to a far worse death as a species. So if morality is completely relative and left up to the individual, how is moral progress possible? And if morality is relative, how can we say that bold discovery and knowledge is better than cowardice and ignorance? Also, from what do derive your idea of the nature of humanity? I can affirm all these things for myself and appeal to others by argument to convince them that and action is good or not good, or that an area of discovery is good or not good. The answer is not right or wrong, but if 3 billion people agree, we have a pretty good consensus for doing one thing over another. But that doesn't mean it's the perfect decision for all times and all peoples. I assert that morality can only ever be truly relative. There is no "if" for me. All religions and peoples that purport to say God gives them a stone-bound set of rules are avoiding the nature of our godless universe in which we emerged out of chaos and blackness, crawled through the generations and emerged as we are, naturally selected and utterly alone as a conscious species in the cosmos. God is a cop-out. We have to accept this fact and realize that we can only ever do what we think is right and just. We generally think slavery is wrong and unjust now. It is an inescapable norm in our Western 21st century culture. So it is wrong for us. Was it wrong in 2000 BC? We would think so, of course, but there is no absolute law that says it is. Classically, there can be no true moral progress in moral relativism, but we intuitively think there can be moral progress. We need there to be moral progress. But, there can only be moral relativism. It's weird how the human brain works. We need to see in black and white in some cases, when in reality there is only a void and we're trying to give it attributes. In the universe, there is only a void, and we're trying to say it's a good void or a bad void. It's neither. It is what we make of it, so we can exist in it. I derive my opinion of the nature of humanity from observation, reading, and reflection. I never intend it to be serious or academic. I would love for somebody to convince me that morality truly is not relative, in a way that doesn't cop-out to God or intuition, but I don't think it is possible. This is the result, IMO, of a wholly naturalistic and atheistic view of the universe. It's no wonder that the Greeks and other ancients chose gods over atheism. It's easier and clearer. But no more realistic. So are you saying that there is no right and wrong in scientific or moral progress, that what is "good" is relative and dependent on the individual, and that you can try to convince people of your standards but have no objective basis to say what they should do?