*** Official Atheist Thread ***

[pikeamus]

First off the natural world has no morality. Earthquakes indiscriminately kill 10,000 people a year. Animals kill, torture, devour other animals every single day. To me, this suggests that morality, similar to religion, is just another human creation (unjustified by science). Am I right?

Second, for morality to be a valid system doesn't it require the ability for humans to make a choice when it comes to their actions? Since science shows we do not have free will then a system of influencing our choices is pretty useless. Am I right?

snip

No you are not right. For a start animals exhibit behavioral standards within the social groups they form which are essentially identical to morality that humans stand by. Secondly a moral system does not need to be justified by science because science is a process used to determine the truth value of propositions. If there was an objective moral code that was embedded in some way in reality then science would no doubt be the best way to investigate what it was but since this appears not to be the case all science can do is investigate what morals people have and why they hold them.

Holding a moral system does not require free will at all. I can't even follow your thinking on this one. I do think science demonstrates free will but that goes deeper than you are thinking and is essentially irrelevant as we experience what seems like free will and organize our societies accordingly.

[Blindead]

My friend became a fan of arrest the pope on ******** and like 5 people unfriended them.

[Large_Emu]

AHHHHH!!!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...close-7am.html

The end of the world is near! repent your sins!!

[mug]

My friend became a fan of arrest the pope on ******** and like 5 people unfriended them.

That's sad.

AHHHHH!!!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...close-7am.html

The end of the world is near! repent your sins!!

Dat dere locust cloud is closing in on us. I dunno about you but I'm running to the nearest church to repent to the neighborhood ****.

The end is nigh

[Prn]

looks like that LOSER akr was banned again for being an internet tough guy

[IceDragon]

looks like that LOSER akr was banned again for being an internet tough guy

[IceDragon]

Guys, could I please have some of you take a look at this?

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=123823091

I'm only just beginning to grasp the concept of quantum physics so if I'm wrong, I wouldn't mind being corrected. Cheers!

[mug]

Some lulz from my favorite comedian/entertainer.

[AbuMaryam]

funny atheist picture off 4 chan http://images.4 ch a n. org/new/src/1271378797432.jpg

[neonhypoxia]

funny atheist picture off 4 chan http://images.4 ch a n. org/new/src/1271378797432.jpg

Does not compute.

Oh wait, 4chan. Nevermind.

[Blindead]

i like my women how i like my god - dead and nailed to a piece of wood.

man i think of weird **** when i'm tired.

[pikeamus]

[DangerDan]

wat

[mug]

I never noticed it at first when I saw this pic a few hours ago but now I am aware lol

[TKDM]

So since morality is an opinion or idea which are both subjective and atheists don't hold beliefs that aren't validated by science then it will never be appropriate for an atheist to abide by a moral code, correct?

Moral science (or natural morality) is about:
(1) observing the human condition, and
(2) observing the consequences of our actions and ideas.

From this we can arrive at clear conclusions about whether certain behaviours or ideas are right or wrong, based on the impact they will have and whether that impact will conflict with human/animal wellbeing.

Science can tell us what we actually DO desire, and it seems very likely that happiness is the fundamental universal desire. Everyone behaves the way they do because they believe it will increase their happiness and minimise their suffering.

If happiness is a universal desire, and it most likely is, then we can scientifically build a moral system designed to fulfil that fact, which would allow us to arrive at assured conclusions about whether an action would be for the best.

To use one example: would it be moral or immoral to add cholera to the water supply? We can answer this: If it is a fact that humans want to avoid suffering, and if it is a fact that adding cholera to the water supply would increase suffering, then it would be a fact to say that adding cholera to the water supply would be ethically wrong.

I would recommend this talk by Richard Carrier on why morality ought to be scientific: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dce8mE0q4zA

As Carrier explains, moral behaviour would, by definition, be the behaviour which achieves what we want more than anything else. There is necessarily something that we want more than anything else and we can empirically find out, via biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc what this is. Many, including me, would say that it is to achieve happiness and avoid suffering (and much of the evidence already points to this). Once we empirically figure out what it is we want more than anything else we can then empirically determine which behaviours and lifestyles best approach that goal.

[GeorgeCarlinJr]

This quote brings the lulz x10

Because a lot of Christians genuinely care about their fellow man and want to help them. Remember when Hurricane Katrina hit? Who was the largest percentage of non-governmental groups to offer help? Christians. Not a whole lot of atheists give a crap about their fellow man, and why should they? There's no reward, and since we're just animals, what moral obligation is there to care? -hawkrock60

Christians do good because they will be rewarded hahaha they sound like GREAT PEOPLE

[neonhypoxia]

Jesus is really hung on that cross...

[_TG_]

repping everyone out on this page...













(sshhhhh)

[Irezumi]

looks like that LOSER akr was banned again for being an internet tough guy

Isn't there any cyanide around you can drink?

[Large_Emu]

I'm thinking about putting a face pic of me as my avatar just because i really don't care about what people think of me and it could be lulz worthy

good move?

[pikeamus]

I'm thinking about putting a face pic of me as my avatar just because i really don't care about what people think of me and it could be lulz worthy

good move?

Didn't you have a face pic when you first joined?

[Large_Emu]

Didn't you have a face pic when you first joined?

Nope, i'm gonna do it.

edit - ok done, i chose this one because

1) It's kinda a "u mad" expression
2) the black and white will annoy the misc
3) the black and white makes me look better looking than i actually am.

[Infusco]

Nope, i'm gonna do it.

edit - ok done, i chose this one because

1) It's kinda a "u mad" expression
2) the black and white will annoy the misc
3) the black and white makes me look better looking than i actually am.

furyofathousandgods/10. You should make a note of whether or not the level of ad hominem attacks increase.

Last night (a Friday night) I was walking through a train station on my way home after a BJJ class, and there were some Christian guys (early 20s probably) handing out stuff about the Gospels. I didn't stop to actually read what they'd given me because I hadn't eaten in 3 hours and had spent the last hour having the oxygen to my brain cut off in various different ways, but when I actually did read it when I was home it was some of the most awful crap I've seen. It was a fairly generic 'So you think you're a good person? Well, you're not' type thing, but I found this one particularly abhorrent. I might type it up in here later, or make a thread about it to make a point about why atheists might not want to live and let believe.

I think what I find so offensive about it telling people they're worthless and deserve the wrath of God, is that the message might actually get through to some people. Obviously, I've thought about religion a lot and won't have my opinion changed by a piece of paper, but people who haven't considered their position on religion, and who may be several notches below the average IQ, could reasonably be swayed through fear of eternal suffering.

[DangerDan]

Large_Emu looks like the stereotypical atheist.

[Blindead]

you can be 280lbs and lean with brad pitt's face and people will still randomly insult you on here. it's a given.

[ONtop888]

Large_Emu looks like the stereotypical atheist.

lol, atheists are emo?

[JDkeystone]

Man, AKR's banned again? What was the offending post this time?

[LunicaAshes]

Man, AKR's banned again? What was the offending post this time?

He posted about negging Strength777 and got banned for 10 days... was seen as a neg train + infraction points.

[Large_Emu]

Large_Emu looks like the stereotypical atheist.

You can put your erection away now.

lol, atheists are emo?

I'm not an emo i'm an Emu.

[Weightaholic]

If I trolled the Christian thread the way Christians troll this one, I'd be banned....

Just saying.