Why do Christians push the view that Atheists are Amoral?

[Avgvsto]

Arcoon Effox

Russell's Teapot.

Empiricism starts the controversy in the notion that there is predictability in the universe and consistency enough to have faith in it. The denial of this notion pretty generally makes me the skeptic.

Arcoon Effox

Attacking a source's validity based on the person is a logical fallacy (like if Chesterfield used Blatchford's stance as a Socialist against him), and would have nothing to do with the argument.

Quote:

Eh I probably shouldn't accuse you of fallacy before you actually attempt it but its just a risk I don't feel like taking. I'm not arguing that my source is smart or anything, just that I believe this quote stands to reason unless you can prove otherwise.

Also, Chesterton*

Arcoon Effox

Science's view changes and expand as knowledge becomes available. By contrast, religion clings to stories that are blatantly untrue in spite of science disproving things (like King David, Noah, etc). Its followers make ridiculous claims like "the Bible is just as valid in modern times as it was in the Bronze Age" (except for those parts about slavery, treating women as property, genocide, etc), and use that flawed view to defend its validity.

You seem a little off topic at the moment.

Quote:

2a) It must be rough believing in something and denouncing it at the same time...

2b) When did I say anything about "denouncing pseudo-sciences"?

My claim here was that it is possible through my religious beliefs to deny certain beliefs just as science can. You firstly agreed that you also deny previously held beliefs in science, then secondly told me that I can't do what you've previously claimed was an odd aspect of religion-namely, the denial of certain aspects/perspectives of divination. Through the fact that there is more than one religion alone you should be able to see that certain old beliefs or just competing beliefs can deny each other just as competing theories of science can. Some of these other pretty strong accusations seem better suited for a different conversation.

[Arcoon Effox]

Avgvsto

Arcoon Effox

Attacking a source's validity based on the person is a logical fallacy (like if Chesterfield used Blatchford's stance as a Socialist against him), and would have nothing to do with the argument.

Quote:

Eh I probably shouldn't accuse you of fallacy before you actually attempt it but its just a risk I don't feel like taking. I'm not arguing that my source is smart or anything, just that I believe this quote stands to reason unless you can prove otherwise.

Also, Chesterton*

So, you shouldn't give credit to the person you're quoting because of personal misgivings. Got it.

Avgvsto

Arcoon Effox

Science's view changes and expand as knowledge becomes available. By contrast, religion clings to stories that are blatantly untrue in spite of science disproving things (like King David, Noah, etc). Its followers make ridiculous claims like "the Bible is just as valid in modern times as it was in the Bronze Age" (except for those parts about slavery, treating women as property, genocide, etc), and use that flawed view to defend its validity.

You seem a little off topic at the moment.

That's because you disconnected the last paragraph with the one that came before it.

Avgvsto

My claim here was that it is possible through my religious beliefs to deny certain beliefs just as science can. You firstly agreed that you also deny previously held beliefs in science, then secondly told me that I can't do what you've previously claimed was an odd aspect of religion-namely, the denial of certain aspects/perspectives of divination. Through the fact that there is more than one religion alone you should be able to see that certain old beliefs or just competing beliefs can deny each other just as competing theories of science can. Some of these other pretty strong accusations seem better suited for a different conversation.

...right.

[Avgvsto]

Arcoon Effox

So, you shouldn't give credit to the person you're quoting because of personal misgivings. Got it.

Been on ED too long. You're definitely not the first person to be like "this person committed a fallacy somewhere by calling someone a socialist when it wasn't relevant to the topic", again not trying to accuse you of that fallacy, I'm just less interested in your opinion of my sources than your opinion of the particular thing my sources said.

Arcoon Effox

Avgvsto

Arcoon Effox

Science's view changes and expand as knowledge becomes available. By contrast, religion clings to stories that are blatantly untrue in spite of science disproving things (like King David, Noah, etc). Its followers make ridiculous claims like "the Bible is just as valid in modern times as it was in the Bronze Age" (except for those parts about slavery, treating women as property, genocide, etc), and use that flawed view to defend its validity.

You seem a little off topic at the moment.

That's because you disconnected the last paragraph with the one that came before it.

My statements were still attempting to be relevant to your originally inquiry. I believe religion is just as adaptable to modern knowledge as science and just as failed as science at times as well. And so, back to your original question, I feel I can deny faulty religions (including the precursors/influence of my own) just as well as I can denounce pseudo science. (including the precursors/influence of our modern schools)

[N3bu]

Aporeia

When the chips are down, if you believe the only one who can hold you accountable for your actions is yourself, people will do some pretty immoral things.

As opposed to all the moral things religious people do when they feel their held accountable to power greater than human law?

God has been used to justify some damn distasteful things, to the point that I no long feel the idea of god holds religious people to any sort of accountability that matters.

[Aporeia]

N3bu

Aporeia

When the chips are down, if you believe the only one who can hold you accountable for your actions is yourself, people will do some pretty immoral things.

As opposed to all the moral things religious people do when they feel their held accountable to power greater than human law?

God has been used to justify some damn distasteful things, to the point that I no long feel the idea of god holds religious people to any sort of accountability that matters.

There is a reverse effect, yes. Oddly, though, these sorts of actions come about from hypocrisy. They disobey fundamental rules and orders to achieve their own goals that they claim is not only their will, but God's. Consequently, that's blasphemy.

Ergo, it's an excuse, not a reason.

[Arcoon Effox]

Avgvsto

Arcoon Effox

Avgvsto

Arcoon Effox

Science's view changes and expand as knowledge becomes available. By contrast, religion clings to stories that are blatantly untrue in spite of science disproving things (like King David, Noah, etc). Its followers make ridiculous claims like "the Bible is just as valid in modern times as it was in the Bronze Age" (except for those parts about slavery, treating women as property, genocide, etc), and use that flawed view to defend its validity.

You seem a little off topic at the moment.

That's because you disconnected the last paragraph with the one that came before it.

My statements were still attempting to be relevant to your originally inquiry. I believe religion is just as adaptable to modern knowledge as science and just as failed as science at times as well. And so, back to your original question, I feel I can deny faulty religions (including the precursors/influence of my own) just as well as I can denounce pseudo science. (including the precursors/influence of our modern schools)

My 'original inquiry' was about why Christians say that atheists have no morals, values, etc. You're not even on the same page as the topic, since that bit about your personal POV CC was just a tangent you went off on, which has nothing to do with it, and that I shouldn't have followed.

That said: Religion is not adaptable to 'modern knowledge' and science, because they choose accept the words of some Bronze-Age civilization that give credit to the supernatural for things they don't understand, rather than the words of people who have actually studied and understand the way things work.

[Avgvsto]

Arcoon Effox

My 'original inquiry' was about why Christians say that atheists have no morals, values, etc. You're not even on the same page as the topic, since that bit about your personal POV CC was just a tangent you went off on, which has nothing to do with it, and that I shouldn't have followed.

Quote:

2a) It must be rough believing in something and denouncing it at the same time...

2b) When did I say anything about "denouncing pseudo-sciences"?

Not my fault that you decided to bring this conversation in an area that you now deem as irrelevant.

Arcoon Effox

That said: Religion is not adaptable to 'modern knowledge' and science, because they choose accept the words of some Bronze-Age civilization that give credit to the supernatural for things they don't understand, rather than the words of people who have actually studied and understand the way things work.

I don't believe you are looking at science the right way if you believe it is only relevant cause of it being more recent. Many fundamental aspects of the sciences such as the scientific method or numbers were developed around the bronze age and I hold them no more true then as I do now. The fact that we have come further was not by destroying the past but by building on it. Perhaps religion is outdated, as I believe much of paganism is (which you've called a root of christianity) and probably a lot of science is out dated such as astrology (which I claim is a root of astronomy). Either way, I don't believe something being old makes it more or less true, but even if it were I don't see why any metaphysical stance in philosophy wouldn't be considered a religion and appropriately named a religion that doesn't have to take it's stance off of some books made in the bronze age.

[Limonchiki]

I don't know where these Xians are who think you can't be a good person w/o being a Xian. Like, I'm not disputing the claim that they exist, I'm just wondering why I've never found them. Now, I've known some who think you're "lost" and even a few who throw eternal damnation around, but I've never heard a Xian claim a monopoly on moral behavior.

Seriously, who are these people?

[Arcoon Effox]

Avgvsto

Arcoon Effox

Religion is not adaptable to 'modern knowledge' and science, because they choose accept the words of some Bronze-Age civilization that give credit to the supernatural for things they don't understand, rather than the words of people who have actually studied and understand the way things work.

I don't believe you are looking at science the right way if you believe it is only relevant cause of it being more recent. Many fundamental aspects of the sciences such as the scientific method or numbers were developed around the bronze age and I hold them no more true then as I do now. The fact that we have come further was not by destroying the past but by building on it. Perhaps religion is outdated, as I believe much of paganism is (which you've called a root of christianity) and probably a lot of science is out dated such as astrology (which I claim is a root of astronomy). Either way, I don't believe something being old makes it more or less true, but even if it were I don't see why any metaphysical stance in philosophy wouldn't be considered a religion and appropriately named a religion that doesn't have to take it's stance off of some books made in the bronze age.

You've got a bad habit of putting words in peoples' mouths. I never stated that 'science is more relevant because it's more recent' or anything even similar to that, because that isn't the issue, here. You're either being obtuse or are simply missing the point, but, either way, it is aprapos that you used an example about the scientific method evolving into what it is today from what it used to be, which (again) brings me to my point: Science evolves, and Christianity rejects the idea of evolution (in all applications).

Science is the quest to satisfy human curiosity through rational methods of gathering information. Religion demands total faith without any evidence to back its claims. Science renews and corrects itself with newer, more sophisticated findings, because it demands that all claims be backed by evidence. The Bible isn't updated with new findings, and doesn't change. Science uses the scientific method to evaluate ideas based on observable evidence and logical deduction. Religion is based on circular logic, and requires belief in supernatural phenomena. Within the field of science, everything is open to criticism, and requires continual verification of hypotheses based on evidence. Within religion, nothing is open to criticism, and requires permanent acceptance of beliefs based on faith without evidence, and calls this self-ordained ignorance 'a virtue'. At worst, scientific claims are extremely probable regular repeatable testable ones. At best, miracle claims are extremely improbable rare non-repeatable non-testable ones. Science is a tool to look for the correct answer. Religion is a tool to tell you that it is the only answer you need. The dichotomy between science and religion is blatantly obvious, and I don't know why you're insisting on blurring the line.

Astrology gave rise to astronomy, which is historically accurate (and was never contested by me), but that doesn't mean it was ever a science. If it was considered one, it doesn't conform to the scientific method, because there is no evidence that it worked. It may seem like a science, but it's not, and it never was anything more than a superstitious belief - meaning that, by its criteria, astrology would be considered a religion and not a science.

Avgvsto

Not my fault that you decided to bring this conversation in an area that you now deem as irrelevant.

For the record, I don't think this is irrelevant (there you go putting words in my mouth again...), but it is off-topic. If you want to discuss this subject further, we can start a new thread or whatever, but I'm done with this conversation as far as this one is concerned.

[Arcoon Effox]

Limonchiki

I don't know where these Xians are who think you can't be a good person w/o being a Xian. Like, I'm not disputing the claim that they exist, I'm just wondering why I've never found them. Now, I've known some who think you're "lost" and even a few who throw eternal damnation around, but I've never heard a Xian claim a monopoly on moral behavior.

Seriously, who are these people?

Just hang around this section in ED, maybe drop into any discussion with the word 'atheism' is the title, and you'll find some pretty quick.

[Inscriven]

Limonchiki

I don't know where these Xians are who think you can't be a good person w/o being a Xian. Like, I'm not disputing the claim that they exist, I'm just wondering why I've never found them. Now, I've known some who think you're "lost" and even a few who throw eternal damnation around, but I've never heard a Xian claim a monopoly on moral behavior.

Seriously, who are these people?

Most christian conservatives, really.

Christianity is a faith that dominates and controls it's followers by fear Fear of god's omniscence, his power, his status, and more specifically his punishment. The fear of knowing and fearing God is one of the gifts of the holy spirit. They behave because they fear God's punishment.

So when they hear about someone whose moral code is not motivated by fear, such as humanism, or systems that emphasize empathy and compassion; they can't process this with their own view of humanity being completely broken. They see this as futile, or arrogant; and anything people are unable to understand, they hate.

[Mik Laid]

Avgvsto

Mik Laid

Lol. Because they truly believe that without Jesus ******** Christ, we're all doomed. In their mind (Christians who say this, mind you), atheists would be running around raping, murdering and stealing because God isn't threatening their eternal souls. THEY need God to improve their behavior, so EVERYONE must need it. It's ridiculous.

Yes just as we needed God for all of our laws, for gratification of our lifestyle, satisfaction of our morality, and existence itself. If someone created a machine, the machine would need to understand the creators intention in order to operate properly. If a car attempted to fly, and built it's entire philosophy around attempting to fly- it judged it's worth on its ability to fly, it would be mostly useless. Christians believe sin is directly contradictory to the make of humanity, and diagnose goodness just as a therapist diagnoses drugs. (I am not particularly well versed in the field of psychology but I believe my parallel was pretty near sufficient.) Further, you do not need to believe in gravity to stick to the ground, just as you do not believe in what I believe is the lord for you to not only follow but desire to follow his commands. You still desire sex, sustenance, comfort, happiness, and I believe these things to be the hand made of the lord.

"After belabouring a great many people for a great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby."

Except gravity is proven. Your god is not.

[Avgvsto]

Mik Laid

Avgvsto

Mik Laid

Lol. Because they truly believe that without Jesus ******** Christ, we're all doomed. In their mind (Christians who say this, mind you), atheists would be running around raping, murdering and stealing because God isn't threatening their eternal souls. THEY need God to improve their behavior, so EVERYONE must need it. It's ridiculous.

Yes just as we needed God for all of our laws, for gratification of our lifestyle, satisfaction of our morality, and existence itself. If someone created a machine, the machine would need to understand the creators intention in order to operate properly. If a car attempted to fly, and built it's entire philosophy around attempting to fly- it judged it's worth on its ability to fly, it would be mostly useless. Christians believe sin is directly contradictory to the make of humanity, and diagnose goodness just as a therapist diagnoses drugs. (I am not particularly well versed in the field of psychology but I believe my parallel was pretty near sufficient.) Further, you do not need to believe in gravity to stick to the ground, just as you do not believe in what I believe is the lord for you to not only follow but desire to follow his commands. You still desire sex, sustenance, comfort, happiness, and I believe these things to be the hand made of the lord.

"After belabouring a great many people for a great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby."

Except gravity is proven. Your god is not.

My god is gravity, that's one of his more major commandments.

[JM-Big]

Not at all. Beliefs is something that is "assumed to be true" as for is your atheism beliefs. "it is ASSUMED" to be true.

So therefore, their is no significant truth, not even in science itself. Sure its gathered more fans like the early church did in its time, but its still not truth, truth.

But answering your question, no y'all are not any of those stereotypes. Your human, just as any religious nut is human. With different theistic beliefs, and different convictions. Is it wrong? Well why don't you ask me that question?