• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Philosophy of Atheism (1 Viewer)

What “historical facts” are you speaking of?
Any objective fact must be amenable to scientific analysis. He is try to rewrite the bible claims and call them scientific facts because he believes them to be true. Its not unusual for religious believers to try to redefine words to make beliefs facts.

He is doing his best, and still failing badly, to redefine constitutional law and US history in my discussions with him. Using David Barton and PragerU as sources isn't helping him.
 
The fact is that moral compasses and laws predate religion. If you need a God to tell you not to steal or kill you are a very weak person.
Way to completely miss the point, and then to double down with a moronic comment
 
And it was understood of all human invented gods that they were most powerful. So what? None of the gods ever did anything with their supposed powers to control the actions of human beings.
For an act to be moral or immoral, it has to be voluntary
So none of these gods are the source of morality, but human beings are, since they invented the gods. It always comes back to human beings and the majority as to what morality is.
What the majority thought on any particular issue was irrelevant throughout most of human history. Might made right
 
Except that majority =/= morality and your desire to live and keep what is yours did not protect you from those who were willing to kill others and take what they had. Might made right. Thats how things worked. Introducing God into the mix didnt change that, it was just understood that God was mightier than the sword.

That's how it works now. People don't refrain from murdering and stealing from one another because of their religion, obviously. They refrain from it because there are consequences, which will be imposed upon them by those with "might" (i.e., those who represent the majority).
 
The fact is that moral compasses and laws predate religion. If you need a God to tell you not to steal or kill you are a very weak person.
The Bible acknowledges that fact because we were created that way...conscience is inherent in man, having been made part of him by God, whether they believe in God or not...

For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.” Romans 2:14,15
 
The Bible acknowledges that fact because we were created that way...conscience is inherent in man, having been made part of him by God, whether they believe in God or not...

For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.” Romans 2:14,15
Are you trying to claim that other animals don't have a conscience and a sense of self?
 
Animals act on instinct, not conscience...
Very very wrong.

However, Darwin did believe that animals had some sense of self, and also championed the notion of evolutionary continuity, leading him to also write, "Nevertheless, the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." Thus, there are shades of gray and not black-and-white differences between humans and other animals in cognitive abilities. So, while animals might not ponder life and death the way humans do, they still may have some sense of self.

After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes and gray wolves to domestic dogs and Adelie penguins and other birds, I've come to the conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness." So, for example, when an experimental treatment, an object, or another animal affects an individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this body."

Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't someone else's body.
 
Very very wrong.


Instinct has nothing to with conscience...a conscience can be trained/enlightened, a conscience can be seared/calloused...

Conscience is an inward realization or sense of right and wrong that excuses or accuses one. Hence, conscience judges. It also can be trained by the thoughts and acts, convictions and rules that are implanted in a person’s mind by study and experience. Based on these things, it makes a comparison with the course of action being taken or contemplated. Then it sounds a warning when the rules and the course conflict, unless the conscience is “seared,” made unfeeling by continued violations of its warnings. Conscience can be a moral safety device, in that it imparts pleasure and inflicts pain for one’s own good and bad conduct.

Conscience must be enlightened; if not, it can mislead. It is an unsafe guide if it has not been trained in right standards, according to the truth. Its development can be wrongly influenced by local environment, customs, worship, and habits. It might judge matters as being right or wrong by these incorrect standards or values. An example of this is shown in John 16:2, where Jesus foretold that men would even kill God’s servants, thinking that they were doing Him a service. Saul (later Paul the apostle) actually went out with murderous intent against Christ’s disciples, believing he was zealously serving God. (Ac 9:1; Ga 1:13-16) The Jews were seriously misled into fighting against God because of lack of appreciation of God’s Word. (Ro 10:2, 3; Ho 4:1-3; Ac 5:39, 40) Only a conscience properly trained by God’s Word can correctly assess and set matters of life thoroughly straight. (2Ti 3:16; Heb 4:12) A Christian must have a stable, right standard—God’s standard.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001024
 
That's how it works now. People don't refrain from murdering and stealing from one another because of their religion, obviously. They refrain from it because there are consequences, which will be imposed upon them by those with "might" (i.e., those who represent the majority).
No, I refrain from it because it is wrong, not because there are consequences. People who kill and steal now do so because they arent afraid of the consequences.
 
For an act to be moral or immoral, it has to be voluntary

What the majority thought on any particular issue was irrelevant throughout most of human history. Might made right

No, that is not the measure of morality. A killing of someone by those who have been recruited to kill can still be immoral. Wars can be immoral. It is a human based judgement call on what is immoral or not, regardless if the act is voluntary or not. A soldier who volunteers to kill does not become immoral because they volunteered.

What the majority thought has always been relevant in the organization of societies. It isn’t the simple might makes right that you claim. People come together and agree to organize societies in certain ways without there being constant force used against them. There are actual shared beliefs and values agreed upon.
 
No, I refrain from it because it is wrong, not because there are consequences. People who kill and steal now do so because they arent afraid of the consequences.

What makes it wrong, other than human created moral code? People who kill and steal may or may not be afraid of the consequences and may do it in spite of that fear. They may do it to make a living or because they enjoy it. They might think they will never face any consequences, but that is different from not being afraid of the consequences. All crime is not committed solely by those not afraid of the consequences. That is an inaccurate generalization.
 
This is nonsense. Jefferson and Madison wrote the first amendment.. It was initially titled the

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

No, the 1st Amendment isn't the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. If you want to argue that Madison was influenced by it when he wrote the 1st Amendment that's fine, so long as you can justify it, and the fact that it was Madison that shepherded it through the Virginia legislature almost a decade after Jefferson wrote it is a point in your favor. That still doesn't change the fact that it is Madison's views you need to look at when determining the meaning of the 1st Amendment, not Jefferson's. There is another problem as well, if you actually read the text of the VSfRF, it's all about keeping the government from interfering with churches. Again, not a word about preventing churches from interfering with government--that "wall separating Church and State" only operates from one direction.

The churches are forced to obey secular law. They are not independent from the law.
So long as those laws don't violate the 1st Amendment, that is correct. I never claimed otherwise.
 
Kind of undermining your own point there. Pretty much no adult has a mild neutral 'lack of belief' in Santa Claus: If you're comparing atheism to a-santaism, you're essentially saying that atheism is a positive belief that god/s definitely do not exist.
You're missing the point. Atheism is the lack of belief. It's what the a- prefix means. Claiming the a- prefix denotes a positive belief is nonsensical. Anything that flows from such a misunderstanding/misapplication will necessarily be nonsensical.



No, it's really not. At least, not if you're thinking of 'evidence' in terms of widely-verifiable empirical data and/or to the exclusion of hearsay testimony and personal experience, as invariably turns out to be the case in these discussions. If the latter constitute evidence, then of course there is a substantial body of evidence for a theistic worldview. But if they are excluded from the category of 'evidence,' then it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the beliefs most important to our individual lives - our personal memories, our recognition of parents, friends and family, our very identities and (depending on the criteria for widely-verifiable) a great deal of our knowledge about society and current events - are beliefs held without 'evidence.' If it comes to it, for almost all people the overwhelming majority of their scientific understanding is based on what amounts to testimonial reports from documentary- and textbook-makers too.

The approach of withholding belief pending some (often vague or inconsistently-applied) standard of 'sufficient evidence' is an extremely arbitrary and quite novel epistemic standard which really doesn't reflect how humans (including atheists) naturally build their knowledge in pretty much all other cases: We take the knowledge passed on to us and modify it if and when necessary. Literally no-one starts from scratch trying to invent the wheel or discover fire, we accept that these are excellent ways of doing things because that's what we've learned from those around us. To paraphrase Isaac Newton, we see by standing on the shoulders of giants... not by dismissing prior generations' efforts and trying to learn it all again for ourselves.

Not really aiming this at you since it's based on years of online debating, but the 'lacking beliefs/absence of evidence' stuff is not some self-evident axiom of rationalism; ultimately it's rather flawed epistemology supporting a lazy approach to 'debate' which simply attempts to put the entire burden of proof onto the other folk. It's trying to turn a sometimes-useful tool of our thinking into the entire workshop; turning Descartes' first meditations into a bible, or Russell's Teapot into a golden calf, so to speak. If there's something wrong or problematic or inadequate about theistic views, in highly theistic societies the burden of proof was very much on atheists to show why those views needed to be discarded or modified (a weight which I think comes through from Emma Goldman's rhetoric in the OP); nowadays one could say it's more 50/50 or more case-by-case what views someone inherited from their parents. For someone whose beloved parents and trusted teachers affirm theistic or religious views, it's entirely rational to uphold them unless and until they find something to challenge them. (Something similar applies in the case of political views, sadly.)
 
Again, not a word about preventing churches from interfering with government--that "wall separating Church and State" only operates from one direction.

The initial phrase of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....”.
What that phrase says is that the state cannot bring religion into government, that religion must stay out of government, must not interfere in it on a OFFICIAL basis. The state is thus, by the Constitution, protected from a particular religion or religions from having an official say in the manner in which the government proceeds in its laws and policies. In other words, the First Amendment DOES work both ways. For instance, while students may organize themselves to have prayer events in schools, the government-run entity, the school, cannot introduce students to religIon in an attempt to bring it directly into their lives. The wall of separation keeps BOTH the state and religion on their designated opposite sides of the wall. The result is that a multitude of Christian religions thrived in the new nation rather than having the state favor just one and thus giving that religion undue influence in the processes of the nation. In other words, they didn’t want their new nation to be like the Old World in that regard.
 
You're missing the point. Atheism is the lack of belief. It's what the a- prefix means. Claiming the a- prefix denotes a positive belief is nonsensical. Anything that flows from such a misunderstanding/misapplication will necessarily be nonsensical.

They always try to pull that trick in order to try to throw the need for evidence onto the atheist rather than the “believer”. You are correct. It is simply wrong. It falls upon those who propose the imaginary entity to then provide evidence for its existence. It otherwise makes not a bit of sense. Anyone could make any outlandish claim and demand that others disprove it. That is simply not logical.
 
The initial phrase of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....”.
What that phrase says is that the state cannot bring religion into government, that religion must stay out of government, must not interfere in it on a OFFICIAL basis.
What that phrase did is forbid the federal government from providing special legal privileges and rights to a particular church that weren't available to other churches--that is, after all, what an "establishment of religion" was--the establishment of a state church. Of course, the way it was phrased was a little peculiar, likely so that it would also prohibit the federal government from interfering with the established churches that some states still had at the time. None of this prohibits churches from advocating for laws based on their moral code or activities that they considered important. Certainly, it doesn't prevent individuals from doing the same, even if their motivation is religious. So let me ask you the same thing I asked you earlier, that you apparently chose not to respond to:

The interference of the Church in government seeking to do what, exactly? William Wilberforce, the champion of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in Parliament, as well as the others that joined him and came to be known first as the Saints and then as the Clapham Sect, were inspired by their evangelical Christian faith. Were they out of line, seeking to "impose their religion" through legislation?
 
You're missing the point. Atheism is the lack of belief. It's what the a- prefix means.
Not only are you committing the etymological fallacy, you are even ignoring the way the word was used by the ancient Greeks that coined it. For them, "atheos" applied to those that didn't believe in and/or refused to worship the local gods, even if those individuals believed in other gods. When Socrates and later Christians were charged with being atheists, the charge was true. For our own modern usage, there's a reason that Huxley coined the word "agnostic," precisely to separate himself (as one of those that either profess not to know whether there is a God or to assert that the question cannot be answered) from those that flat-out state that they know there is no God ... the atheists.
 
What that phrase did is forbid the federal government from providing special legal privileges and rights to a particular church that weren't available to other churches--that is, after all, what an "establishment of religion" was--the establishment of a state church. Of course, the way it was phrased was a little peculiar, likely so that it would also prohibit the federal government from interfering with the established churches that some states still had at the time. None of this prohibits churches from advocating for laws based on their moral code or activities that they considered important. Certainly, it doesn't prevent individuals from doing the same, even if their motivation is religious.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but it does not in any way show that the First Amendment was not also meant to keep the OFFICIAL Church (of any sort) from DIRECT and official participation in the lawmaking and policies of the government. In other words, the “separation” does indeed work both ways.
 
William Wilberforce, the champion of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in Parliament, as well as the others that joined him and came to be known first as the Saints and then as the Clapham Sect, were inspired by their evangelical Christian faith. Were they out of line, seeking to "impose their religion" through legislation?

Again, he can do so from OUTSIDE the government, per se. What he could not do, at least in the United States, would be to demand that his religion become one and the same with the government in order to implement said policies. The FF had observed the corruption that occurred to both entities in the Old Country when government was officially intertwined with religion, and they were determined not to let that happen in their new United States.
 
Not only are you committing the etymological fallacy, you are even ignoring the way the word was used by the ancient Greeks that coined it. For them, "atheos" applied to those that didn't believe in and/or refused to worship the local gods, even if those individuals believed in other gods. When Socrates and later Christians were charged with being atheists, the charge was true. For our own modern usage, there's a reason that Huxley coined the word "agnostic," precisely to separate himself (as one of those that either profess not to know whether there is a God or to assert that the question cannot be answered) from those that flat-out state that they know there is no God ... the atheists.

While etymology is important to any word, it is the PRESENT usage in any society that can override that. As such. Cole is indeed using the correct definition of the word at this point.
 
The interference of the Church in government seeking to do what, exactly?

In the United States, for instance, it was very effective in scandalizing homosexuality such that laws were passed actually making it a crime, peeking into people’s bedrooms, so to speak, and to keep them from marrying based on Biblical injunctions. That is one example of overreach into government by religion and has thankfully been rescinded by the Supreme Court, at least for now. Sadly, there presently appears to be on the SC a number of religious extremists who want to on again insert such religious interference into our laws.
Same with abortion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom