What are atheist values?

[Peter King]

And an innate desire to serve our Creator...animals don't have that...

that is because animals are not indoctrinated from birth to feel like they have an innate desire to serve what you call the creator (aka the fantasy figure called god). If children were not indoctrinated from birth by parents, family, school, church, clergy, media, social media, etc. etc. to believe and serve god, children would have no desire to serve that fantasy figure at all.

 

[Dragonfly]

an innate desire to serve our Creator

There's no such thing.
This is pure speculation from the viewpoint of religious indoctrination, without any evidence of fact whatsoever.

 

[Valery]

There's no such thing.
This is pure speculation from the viewpoint of religious indoctrination, without any evidence of fact whatsoever.

This is pure speculation from the viewpoint of irreligious indoctrination, without any evidence of fact whatsoever.

 

[Dragonfly]

This is pure speculation from the viewpoint of irreligious indoctrination, without any evidence of fact whatsoever.

The simple fact that there's somewhere between 500 million and a billion Atheists on the Earth proves quite nicely that there's no such thing as an "innate desire to serve a creator".

 

[Valery]

The simple fact that there's somewhere between 500 million and a billion Atheists on the Earth proves quite nicely that there's no such thing as an "innate desire to serve a creator".

There are more believers than that.

 

[Dragonfly]

There are more believers than that.

So what?

There are more christians than muslims, does that mean muslims are wrong?

 

[bluesmoke]

In another thread, Valery referred to “atheist values”, no doubt in a derogatory manner.
So let’s make it a thread to do a deeper dive.

I’ll start. My concept of the reality of the physical universe is gained through science.
My ethical concepts are gained through Humanism, which is the understanding that we humans need to develop the values which will allow us to live in a harmonious society. No murder, no stealing, and an absolute minimum of lying are the foundation. Respect for one another and for life, per se, are also necessary.
There. That’s a start.

Atheist values are no diff than a religious person's values except they are not religious based, even if the same value that is supported by a religion. Why can they not be the same as explained?

 

[Valery]

So what?

There are more christians than muslims, does that mean muslims are wrong?

You argued with that logic. You tell me.

 

[Dragonfly]

You argued with that logic. You tell me.

I accept your defeat.

 

[Jetboogieman]

But it wouldn't be surprising to see some atheists having similar values with religious people (Abrahamic God), after all mankind is made in the image of God.

Just a small point of contention.

God was made in mans image, not the other way around.

 

[Dragonfly]

Just a small point of contention.

God was made in mans image, not the other way around.

Yeah, I tried that here: https://debatepolitics.com/threads/man-made-god-vs-god-made-man.415607/

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You claim the existence of physical things can't be explained physically. So the same should be true for non physical things, like god.

But again why must you ask me to defend something as part of your own proof of your own claim? only a weak argument could explain why you're doing this.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nothing absurd except for your claim that the existence of the physical can't be explained by physical causes. Yet you thing that non physical things are exempt from your absurd, made up rule.

David it is absurd because it leads to a contradiction, that's pretty much all there is to this, you're defending a proposition that leads to a contradiction - that's a warning to most people but oddly it is acceptable in your world.

Once you're prepared to accept arguments that lead to contradictions then in effect every proposition becomes true and that's what I call absurd David.

 

[Daisy]

that is because animals are not indoctrinated from birth to feel like they have an innate desire to serve what you call the creator (aka the fantasy figure called god). If children were not indoctrinated from birth by parents, family, school, church, clergy, media, social media, etc. etc. to believe and serve god, children would have no desire to serve that fantasy figure at all.

That desire had to start somewhere...animals have no such desire...

 

[Daisy]

Atheist values are no diff than a religious person's values except they are not religious based, even if the same value that is supported by a religion. Why can they not be the same as explained?

So, you're saying values are innate...

 

[Daisy]

www.livescience.com/amp/14504-superstitions-evolutionary-basis-lucky-charms.html

One example.

BS...animals act on the instinct of survival...

 

[watsup]

David it is absurd because it leads to a contradiction, that's pretty much all there is to this, you're defending a proposition that leads to a contradiction - that's a warning to most people but oddly it is acceptable in your world.

Once you're prepared to accept arguments that lead to contradictions then in effect every proposition becomes true and that's what I call absurd David.

The universe is only evidence of the universe. It is not evidence of God.

 

[Peter King]

That desire had to start somewhere...animals have no such desire...

except humans did not have the desire until it was killed/tortured/blackmailed/indoctrinated into them.

 

[Daisy]

except humans did not have the desire until it was killed/tortured/blackmailed/indoctrinated into them.

If one believes the events in the Bible are true, which I do, that is not true...

 

[Peter King]

If one believes the events in the Bible are true, which I do, that is not true...

So you think we all come from Adam and Eve? And know that there were societies which were older than the old testament for example? Even societies that did not know any gods at all?

Sorry, but the creation story in the bible is totally unbelievable.

 

[devildavid]

David it is absurd because it leads to a contradiction, that's pretty much all there is to this, you're defending a proposition that leads to a contradiction - that's a warning to most people but oddly it is acceptable in your world.

Once you're prepared to accept arguments that lead to contradictions then in effect every proposition becomes true and that's what I call absurd David.

The so-called contradiction holds true for the made up non physical as well. The non physical can't be explained by the non physical.

 

[devildavid]

But again why must you ask me to defend something as part of your own proof of your own claim? only a weak argument could explain why you're doing this.

Explain how your rule does not seem to apply to the non physical. Remember, this is your made up rule, not mine. No such rule is factually true, it is just part of your made up beliefs

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The so-called contradiction holds true for the made up non physical as well. The non physical can't be explained by the non physical.

David appealing to the existence of what may be other failed arguments is not a way to defend your own failed arguments.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Explain how your rule does not seem to apply to the non physical. Remember, this is your made up rule, not mine. No such rule is factually true, it is just part of your made up beliefs

No, you explain what you imply can be explained, namely how a material process can be used to "explain" the very existence of said material process, without encountering a contradiction? This is all you have to do, I'm not going to help you with this ridiculously humiliating situation you've gotten yourself into.

In case you haven't ever noticed David science never claims that an effect is the cause of itself, so you'd better get a grip on the foundations of science and epistemology if you want to avoid making a fool of yourself like this, as I've said before atheists are rarely up to the task of defending their position.

 

[LadyMoonlight]

Quite the opposite. People learned that there needed to be rules, either formal or informal, for them to somewhat peacefully live together in close proximity in what might be called a “society”. And these rules were developed well before the “Abrahamic God” made an appearance in people’s minds. And so it is religion that builds on the foundations of Humanism, not the other way around.

And religion in it's various forms, with a need for morality and laws, was around long before the "Abrahmic God", in every society. I disagree that the religion builds on the foundations of Humanism, tis the opposite.