Atheism: Do Atheists actually disagree about anything? (ritual, moral, Abiogenesis)

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Tawn

Are we superior to animals? I mean in a fundamental way, similar to spiritualism but not of course based on being divinely chosen beings. Do we have the right to exploit other life forms?

Good question. There are no objective criterion for asserting that we are superior to other animals. Whether we have a right to exploit other life forms rests on the concept of rights, which is a human invention. Other animals and plants exploit each other. Whether they have a right to do so is an empty question.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Tawn

There is no doctrine to follow.. as with a bible.. yet it seems to me that we must have differences of opinion.

We certainly do.

a) Do we in fact have free will?

Depends on your definition of free will.

b) Are we superior to animals? Do we have the right to exploit other life forms?

Yes, in this environment we are superior to most other animals.
Right and wrong are mioral questions that many atheists will differ on.

c) How should we approach religion? Is it evil? Should it be discouraged or should we just leave them to it? Are some religions more acceptable than others?

I believe it should be discouraged.

d) Do all Atheists accept abiogenesis and evolution - are there valid alternatives? I know an alternative to abiogenesis is the idea that life arrived here on a meterorite or was planted by aliens.. but that still doesnt answer where the original life or aliens came from.

To accept abiogenesis wouldn`t be very "atheist-like".
There is very little evidence in support.
I acceopt the probability of abiogenesis but even if science were to create life through abiogenesis we still wouldn`t know "for sure".

e) Is morality a universal absolute or is it relative? Should we follow a particular religions moral point of view - if not the beliefs and teachings?

Definately relative, just look at the way different cultures interact.
It`s when morality is treated as if it were objective that people start to get their rights trampled on and what I would call immorality occurs.

[Tawn]

Originally Posted by linwood

To accept abiogenesis wouldn`t be very "atheist-like".
There is very little evidence in support.
I acceopt the probability of abiogenesis but even if science were to create life through abiogenesis we still wouldn`t know "for sure".

Very good answer. Thank you for reminding me of the skepticism I should be holding onto. I just tend to find myself being pushed towards abiogenesis as creationists spread their meaningless ID..
However, it should be noted that abiogenesis is really a must for strong Atheists. Do we have any strong Atheists on the boards?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Tawn

Do we have any strong Atheists on the boards?

That depends on which god we are talking about. To me, it is logically impossible for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity to exist if there is suffering in the world. If deities exist, they must be either unable or unwilling (or both, at least to some degree) to prevent suffering.

[Idontknow]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

If deities exist, they must be either unable or unwilling (or both, at least to some degree) to prevent suffering.

But suffering is caused by humans most of the time, and it can be prevented or healed by humans, ALL the time. And as you say if deities exist they are unable or not focused on us or in anything, or just not interested in our reality.

Originally Posted by Twan

e) Is morality a universal absolute or is it relative? Should we follow a particular religions moral point of view - if not the beliefs and teachings?

i would say it is universal IN HUMANS, since morality and other many good "feelings" have been whit us since we can recall (speaking of the first time we as sociaty-kind felt atached to them) But as we have liberty to act whatever we like some human invidviduals will skip "morality"

We are a sociaty and at the same time individuals, i would say everyone should fallow their own way, ONE THEY CHOOSED by themselves and not by others

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by linwood

To accept abiogenesis wouldn`t be very "atheist-like".
There is very little evidence in support. I acceopt the probability of abiogenesis but even if science were to create life through abiogenesis we still wouldn`t know "for sure".

What does "atheist-like" have to do with knowing something "for sure"? For that matter, what does scientific or naturalism have to do with knowing something "for sure"? How is abiogenesis any less "atheist-like" than any other case of inference to the best explanation (IBE), e.g., evolution?

[Tawn]

Originally Posted by Idontknow

can be prevented or healed by humans, ALL the time.

err.. I disagree there..

And as you say if deities exist they are unable or not focused on us or in anything, or just not interested in our reality.

Ok we have three possiblities.
A God would be a) Unwilling, b) Unable, c) Simply unaware.

i would say it is universal IN HUMANS, since morality and other many good "feelings" have been whit us since we can recall (speaking of the first time we as sociaty-kind felt atached to them) But as we have liberty to act whatever we like some human invidviduals will skip "morality"

Interesting.. how do you explain the vast differences in morality across distance cultures. For example, in Japanese culture the Samurai were considered a higher echelon of society and had every right to kill any peasant man, woman or child, on no stronger basis than whimsy. Peasants werent even allowed proper names.
These things would go against what we consider to be the basic human rights of mankind.. yet we have a culture.. far older than our own.. embracing such ideas.
Many of the things we think to be normal would likewise be considered ethically wrong by their standards. What makes your view of morality the universally correct one?
[/quote]

[Tawn]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

What does "atheist-like" have to do with knowing something "for sure"? For that matter, what does scientific or naturalism have to do with knowing something "for sure"? How is abiogenesis any less "atheist-like" than any other case of inference to the best explanation (IBE), e.g., evolution?

She means Weak Atheism.. not Atheism in general.. though perhaps she should be saying 'agnostic-like'..

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Tawn

She means Weak Atheism.. not Atheism in general.. though perhaps she should be saying 'agnostic-like'.

So abiogenesis is not very "some-atheist-like"? That seems less than clarifying.

[Idontknow]

Originally Posted by Tawn

These things would go against what we consider to be the basic human rights of mankind.. yet we have a culture.. far older than our own.. embracing such ideas.
Many of the things we think to be normal would likewise be considered ethically wrong by their standards.

Yes, your right, meaby in the past time we had non sense of morality, still not generalized because still not all samurai's would kill a peasant just because they can, and some other will because they can, i guess they were as moraly as they could be, but since then our morality has taking another curse, which its to adore life and preservate it. human rights.

Originally Posted by Tawn

What makes your view of morality the universally correct one?

Im not saying my view of morality is the correct one i dont even attempt to do so, still for me morality its not to do the humanly correct as well as i can, but this morality, my view of morality its affected by many things, the culture, the things i live everyday, etc. there lies the diversity of morality in men, since all live different things and have different cultures but still its somehow generalized, many people see morality the same way even when they have different culture, i think theres a root feeling, meaby compasion which gives rise to morality, There will never be a Perfect Moral, as there will never be a perfect human, but even doh it will always be whit us