Contradiction in Atheism?

I think some of the posters here take that atheism has a set of morals or ideas , it doesn't , we are not a pack / a flock , we don't share an identity , there is no book of atheism , there is no indoctrination, there is no atheist church , there are no priests or organisation . Most atheist websites and groups are made from people in countries where atheists are a controversy , for the rest of the civilised world it means nothing at all .

 

you aint good enough to quote me

i didnt give an excuse. i point blank have said, th religious wingnuts are the nasty sob's of the earth.


The incorporeal beliefs are the rube to mankind.

When i make fun of the idiots, it is because i want the children to know how to step on the lies and liars, just as simply.

Your post has evidenced the lack of character to any debate with an incorporeal adherant.

'i am making' a fool of any that wish to lie to another.

That concept of 'i am making' is what each posting can realize at each post. Each are capable and to disconnect from the religious garbage of incorporeal beliefs, can awaken the mind to being actually capable and know it.

'i am making' should be the bumper sticker for the next generations representing their evolving perspective.


'we' are capable

Enabling lives to understanding, dont fit with the morons that follow the incorporeal beliefs. The religious adherants of incorporeal garbage (lies), are not allowed to think for themselves as they are subdued by the liars that continue to profess, incorporeal garbage.


Where do you fit in?

Are you up for enabling people to drop the incorporeal crap of religious liars, for truth or do you like the incorporeal bull of lying sob's that try to oppress each from realizing for themselves?




...

 

Like I said. Nothing you write can be taken seriously, because of your previoous admission and declaration. You have made the fool of yourself by making such an admission in a public declaration.

 

I just love it when TRUTH prevails:

"immoral [ɪˈmɒrəl]
adj
1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt
2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous
3. unscrupulous or unethical immoral trading
4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption an immoral film immoral earnings
immorally adv

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003"

 

Wow, what a piece of bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Atheism doesn't have a set of morals or ideas because it isn't a set of moral ethics, it is a description about someone's lack of belief in God. Theism doesn't have a set of morals or ideas either, that's where religion comes into play. You are trying to suggest that because a philosophy doesn't outline a moral guideline, it is immoral, which means it goes against common moral practices.... that's just foolish.

 

If God does exist, anything is possible. To deny a possibility when evidence is lacking is to deny logic. It is entirely possible that God could contact or prove his existence. Of course, that experience would be meaningful only to those who experience it, and would be indiscernible from lies/mis-perception, as the human mind is unreliable. It also wouldn't make much sense for God to value one person over another by giving them something so powerful as evidence of his existence while denying that to others.

If God were ever to prove his existence to anyone he should prove it to everyone, but since we're not immortal, and some people have died prior to having that opportunity, I'd say God has missed his chance to do that. Which in turn, would lead to the conclusion that even though determining whether God has or has not proven his own existence is impossible, that God would not do so. You'd think if God did something, he'd make sure it wasn't a waste of time, and considering the vast amount of answers and different versions of God being presented, any one of those being the answer would be wasted time on God's part.

If God had actually wanted to show himself, the answer would be obvious. God, if he exists, doesn't beat around the bush, or well, I should say, wouldn't beat around the bush, because he shouldn't.

 

Amoral is probably what you really meant to post. As in, "without." There's a pretty big difference between the two.

 

Yep, in this breathm, but in the next breath you will tell us that atheism is under represented in prisons because its a superior moral reality. In short, your atheism is simply a emotional rejection of subjective and ever changing standards.

The goal? Apparently for atheists to be ablt to hold others accountable, but never themselves. The interesting part is that you guys think you are fooling others with the antics.

 

No pun intended, but a lack of morals leads pretty definitively to immorality

 

Yes, Neutral, I know you think that us atheists on this subforum are all a collective Borg hivemind, but try to differentiate between us.

 

And who is saying that atheists have a lack of morals? Does anybody that doesn't belong to your religion lack moral standards?

 

You do. You have no doctrine and no moral code. Guess what that means?

Whatever you think of is moral.

When criticizing atheism and its lack of morality, we all enjoy the dishonesty of claiming that anyone of a different faith, but a spelled out moral code, must also not have a faith?

You see, a person with morals would not mae such a basely dishonest arguement, but you did ... so what does that mean? Hmmm ... I wonder.

 

Yeah, actually I do. I think thevast majority of atheists make exactly the same illogical and nonsensical arguements based in propoganda. There are of course exceptions ... but by in large most atheists seem interested in only one thing, as an atheist - being better than anyone.

Other than vaccuously claiming you ar ethe victim of prejudice rather than own illogic, I don't see much of a rebuttal.

 

Atheists can hold the same moral standards as anybody else, they just don't believe they derive from a God or can be pulled out of an ancient book.

 

Fine, then why shouldn't we treat you the exact same way you treat us?

 

I would apprecate beinhg terated the way I treat you instead of constantluy being called a liar and troll, called too stupid to understand science, and actually saw the occassional logical arguement.

Ergo, if Jesus is a Myth, (which is isn't), atheism is dishonest for fousting such claims.

CLaim you are victim because someone criticizes atheism, while bad mouthing and dlandering other faiths with deliberate smears, make atheism hypocritical.

The difference is, when Christians behave like that, we generally acknowledge it. Atheists, having no moral standard, excuse it.

You have no logical arguement do you? Just the opposite of whatever a Christian says. Your life is nothing but a shallow contentious rebuttal? Well, you life to live brother.

 

Then stop treating us that way and we won't treat you the way we have treated you. You can't complain about us doing it and then come out and do the exact same thing.

 

Right. So if I stop criticizing (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) bags calling us slavers, you guys will stop calling us slavers?

In short, "I need an excuse to stop the accurate critcisms of my actions!!!"

New flash, it is YOU complaining about being treated as you treat others. Unlike you, I am not running around calling people slavers based on muy prejudice of your faith. I am saying that a lack of standards which facillitates and encoursages such actions is wrong. I am also not calling you a troll, I am not organziing Christians to harass you. I am not prtending I am flent in Greek to speciously disagree with a point.

I could go on, but I doubt even a page worth of evidence would say your sudden victimization.

 

How is the bolded any better? Not only is it not better, it is worse than calling me a slaver. I know that everybody has the ability to condemn slavery morally, at least I can acknowledge that. And nobody has ever called you a slaver, I have essentially called you morally repugnant because you have in the past justified slavery as necessary, especially when you clearly created contexts that didn't exist in your Old Testament to justify the practice ("OH WHAT, IF SLAVERY DIDN'T EXIST EVERYBODY WOULD DIE IN SOME WAR RARARAR!" which afterwards you began calling me all sorts of names because I didn't agree with you that it was justifiable) If you don't want to be associated with defending slavery, then CONDEMN it.

 

It is even more foolish for you to attack me for the things that were first stated by another atheist/agnostic/non-theist. I only emphasized and brought into focus the dilemma that other poster created. So if you have a problem with what has been truthfully stated by one of the fellow non-theists... then take it up with him/her.

 

No! I said what I meant to say. But thank you for the concern.

 

Quite remarkable ... you said exactly what needed to be said toward his comment. TY.

 

mutmekep stated that. It stands to reason. By admission of mutmekep, atheism has no moral standards, therefore, there can be no atheist moral code, subsequently a lack of morals.

 

I have a problem with you calling us immoral because of the suggestion that atheism is amoral.