Atheist Views.

[leroy]

Misleading and inaccurate question. You can look up Roe v Wade to see what the Supreme Court said about this issue.


What does, being deliberately misleading and distorting the facts?


Actually the SC says it does. Your religious view has no authority over the ruling. The law stands, but you are free to not have an abortion.


It is right wing extremists making it a controversy. Oddly it's really controversial when they kill abortion doctors.

What does, being deliberately misleading and distorting the facts?

Please tell me exactly which facts did I distorted....

Your religious view has no authority over the ruling. The law stands, but you are free to not have an abortion.

My religious view is irrelevant.

I simply disagree with pro abortion laws.

but you are free to not have an abortion

If abortion is morally wrong, then nobody should be free to abort.

Your burden is to show that abortion is not morally wrong.......please provide your argument, your premises, your assumptions, etc.


Pro life people would say something like this

P1 it's wrong to kill an innocent human.

P2 abortion implies killing an innocent human.

Therefore abortion is wrong.


So why don't you formulate an analogous argument where you conclude "therefore abortion is not wrong"

 

[Heyo]

Misleading and inaccurate question. You can look up Roe v Wade to see what the Supreme Court said about this issue.


What does, being deliberately misleading and distorting the facts?


Actually the SC says it does. Your religious view has no authority over the ruling. The law stands, but you are free to not have an abortion.


It is right wing extremists making it a controversy. Oddly it's really controversial when they kill abortion doctors.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[F1fan]

Please tell me exactly which facts did I distorted....

You wrote "Freedom to kill innocent humans"
Abortion isn't killing according to law, so your comment distorts the law.
Fetuses are not humans with rights, so your comment referring to 'innocent humans' is misleading and distorted from the law.

I understand you don't like it. Using misleading and inaccurate language is an emotional ploy and has no impact on the issue or legal aspects of the right. To the law a person isn't a legal citizen until born, with a birth certificate. That is a legal document where law begins to apply with certain rights. The Roe v Wade decision actually made reference to the third trimester as being a phase of development where a fetus can be viable with medical care, so there is some degree of personhood that can apply.

My religious view is irrelevant.

I simply disagree with pro abortion laws.

Freedom is often ugly to others.

If abortion is morally wrong, then nobody should be free to abort.

Many legal acts are morally wrong, like polluting air, land, and water, but are allowed because society as a whole compromises moral ambiguities for the sake of the whole, and for individuals. We end up managing these issues with "grey area" compromises. Someone will always be upset.

Your burden is to show that abortion is not morally wrong.......please provide your argument, your premises, your assumptions, etc.

I agree that it is morally problematic. But it is just one of many things we humans do that are morally problematic. We can't function well in a society with rigid black/white morals. We all have to compromise to various degrees.

What I find morally troubling is that anti-abortion people have no interest in promoting sex ed, or distributing contraception, or advocate for universal healthcare, or higher wages for people with families, etc. They tend to have a single moral view while many other related moral issues are opposed. Until anti-abortion people will fight as hard for healthcare and contraception then they are just full of ****, and can't shut the hell up.

Pro life people would say something like this

P1 it's wrong to kill an innocent human.

P2 abortion implies killing an innocent human.

Therefore abortion is wrong.


So why don't you formulate an analogous argument where you conclude "therefore abortion is not wrong"

You can make the same argument about it being immoral to kill cows, pigs, and chickens.

But P1 is not true, and deliberately misleading. That means these folks know they can't make a factual and credible argument so need to resort to emotional wording to exploit feelings. That crap doesn't work with thinkers who are too well educated to fall for these cheap tricks. We know what you are trying to do.

 

[F1fan]

Don't feed the trolls.

But he's a "Well-Known Member".

 

[Heyo]

But he's a "Well-Known Member".

You can be "well known" and famous or you can be "well known" and notorious.

 

[Yazata]

Lets remind people atheists only have one view to impose, they lack belief in or positively state there are no gods.

I lack belief in gods, but I'm most emphatically not an atheist.

It seems to me that there are all kinds of additional beliefs percolating right under the surface with atheists. These beliefs might not all be universal with every atheist, but they are exceedingly common. Meaning that when those of us who aren't atheists encounter an atheist, it's often these other atheist beliefs that get shoved in our faces.

The belief that gods simply don't exist.

The belief that there is no good evidence for the existence of gods.

The belief that the scope of reality and the scope of science are identical.

The belief that science has already or will in the future answer all of the fundamental metaphysical questions.

The belief that religion is bad in some way. There's almost always a negative value judgment and that may well be atheism's most distinctive characteristic.

The belief that opposing religion is good and that the decline or even the elimination of religion would be good for humanity,

The belief that atheists are smarter than others, more sophisticated thinkers and better at logic and "critical thinking".

 

[Justanatheist]

These beliefs might not all be universal with every atheist, but they are exceedingly common. Meaning that when those of us who aren't atheists encounter an atheist, it's often these other atheist beliefs that get shoved in our faces.

So you acknowledge that there is only one universal belief with every atheist but then go on with a diatribe against "other" atheist beliefs. How do "atheists" shove their beliefs in your face?

 

[74x12]

This comes from another thread where a theist talked about imposing atheist views on others.

Lets remind people atheists only have one view to impose, they lack belief in or positively state there are no gods.

That is it, full stop, the end, the parrot has gone to meet its maker!

Pro Evolution.
Pro Science.
Pro Abortion.
Pro LGBT.
Pro Birth Control.
Pro Vaccinations.
Pro Climate Change.
Wales being the best rugby team in the world.(fact)

Not one of the above is an atheist view, there are probably more theists who hold the above views than there are atheists and it is very possible for an atheist to not support any of them.

Yes but you're an atheist so please tell us how many of those you agree with.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Neither atheism or theism imposes world views. A person can be theist without having a religion. Once ritual, dogma or laws get attached to either atheism or theism then people might force their views on others.

 

[Justanatheist]

Yes but you're an atheist so please tell us how many of those you agree with.

I think evolution is currently the best explanation of the diversity of life on the planet, science keeps me alive and able to communicate with you, I have seen how forcing a rape victim to have a child wrecked her life and the child's first hand, I do not care who loves who, it is non of my business, I have used birth control all my life, vaccinations have protected me since I was a child, climate change is a fact and it is probably man affected and I have faith that Wales will win the next world cup.

So the fact I lack belief in gods has nothing to do with any of it, nor should it, these are real world issues in the 21st centaury. And the best thing is I am completely free to change my mind on any or all of the above opinions based on my experiences and the best evidence available.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I lack belief in gods, but I'm most emphatically not an atheist.

It seems to me that there are all kinds of additional beliefs percolating right under the surface with atheists. These beliefs might not all be universal with every atheist, but they are exceedingly common. Meaning that when those of us who aren't atheists encounter an atheist, it's often these other atheist beliefs that get shoved in our faces.

As much as any religious beliefs?

The belief that gods simply don't exist.

I can understand this, given the lack of obvious evidence, even if so many are satisfied with 'the obvious', but where I tend to agree, and hence why I am more agnostic towards such.

The belief that there is no good evidence for the existence of gods.

Rather tricky really - given the lack of physical evidence (apart from textual material from the past, and which just is suspicious) or any personal experiences, which too cannot really be verified, or any logical proposals, which might lead to some other explanations. Such that I can sympathise with such even if I withhold my vote.

The belief that the scope of reality and the scope of science are identical.

Not sure this is truly believed, at the moment, but it is possible that science should and would encompass reality eventually.

The belief that science has already or will in the future answer all of the fundamental metaphysical questions.

Not sure this is true either, but it surely is an aim of science. Unlike many religions, which are mostly all seeded in the past, and often stifling progress as to any future understanding.

The belief that religion is bad in some way. There's almost always a negative value judgment and that may well be atheism's most distinctive characteristic.

Bad as in, we might have been better off without them? Especially if they brought as much bad as good? That is my impression of religions - that they might have been well-intentioned but just didn't anticipate the future, regardless of whatever they contained, and hence caused as much conflict and strife as they apparently aided our development.

The belief that opposing religion is good and that the decline or even the elimination of religion would be good for humanity,

Tolerating might be more universal, if some of the religions had such an attitude themselves, but which they seemingly don't. Hence why so many are actively against such religious beliefs.

The belief that atheists are smarter than others, more sophisticated thinkers and better at logic and "critical thinking".

Look at those lined up on one's own side and opposing. I know which side I'd prefer - and do.

 

[leroy]

You wrote "Freedom to kill innocent humans"
Abortion isn't killing according to law, so your comment distorts the law.

Then I would argue that this particular law is wrong.....................(and should be changed)

Fetuses are not humans with rights, so your comment referring to 'innocent humans' is misleading and distorted from the law.

The main reason I would claim that fetuses are humans is because I don’t see any relevant difference between a fetus and a new born.

If a new born that was born premature at 25 weeks is a human with rights and it would be morally wrong to kill him………………why wouldn’t it be wrong to kill a 25 weeks old fetus?

I understand you don't like it. Using misleading and inaccurate language is an emotional ploy and has no impact on the issue or legal aspects of the right. To the law a person isn't a legal citizen until born, with a birth certificate.

Again then I woudl argue that the law is wrong…………………so if a baby doesn’t have a birth certificate yet because of some “paper mistake” ……… would you conclude that he is not a human? woudl it be ok to kill him just because he doesnt have a bith certificate?

Many legal acts are morally wrong, like polluting air, land, and water, but are allowed because society as a whole compromises moral ambiguities for the sake of the whole, and for individuals. We end up managing these issues with "grey area" compromises. Someone will always be upset.

I woudl say thatabortionis not in that “gray área”…………..for the same reason killing a new born would be wrong illegal and outside the gray area.

You can make the same argument about it being immoral to kill cows, pigs, and chickens.

I dont see the relationshhip, but yes I woudl argue that it is wrong to kill pigs.

What I find morally troubling is that anti-abortion people have no interest in promoting sex ed, or distributing contraception, or advocate for universal healthcare, or higher wages for people with families, etc. They tend to have a single moral view while many other related moral issues are opposed. Until anti-abortion people will fight as hard for healthcare and contraception then they are just full of ****, and can't shut the hell up.

Maybe but that is not an argument, please provide an argument that concludes that abortion is morally ok.

I your only argument is “because some law, from a particular country, at this particular time says so” then I am not going to be convinced by your argument. ………do you have any other argument.?

But P1 is not true, and deliberately misleading.

Wow, that is scary, so you don’t think is morally wrong to kill an innocent human. ?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't begrudge atheists their stance and view. That they base such a view - at least in the beginning - on a requirement of Theistic evidence is laudable and praiseworthy, I think. It also certainly can't be ignored that we live in a very Christian dominated society here in the Western World. That said, as interaction continues I think there is a large portion of Western Atheists who are atheistic purely in reaction to Abrahamism (Judaism/Christainity/Islam/Baha'i). This has become evident in that words like "religion", "theism", "faith", etc are used synonymous with the particular way in which Abrahamic faiths (particularly Christianity and Islam) do things. Sure, you'll get Atheists like Richard Dawkins or Ricky Gervais who claim to include all other gods in their disbelief, but upon further digging their view of these other gods is almost always that from a Christian lens. When that point is dug at and the notion of a "Man in the Clouds" throwing lightning bolts about is dismissed, the response is almost always "Well, that's not really what I'm talking about."

I really wonder what atheism would look like if Christianity was not the predominant religion.

 

[ChristineM]

But he's a "Well-Known Member".

And a troll by reputation

 

[Justanatheist]

I don't begrudge atheists their stance and view. That they base such a view - at least in the beginning - on a requirement of Theistic evidence is laudable and praiseworthy, I think. It also certainly can't be ignored that we live in a very Christian dominated society here in the Western World. That said, as interaction continues I think there is a large portion of Western Atheists who are atheistic purely in reaction to Abrahamism (Judaism/Christainity/Islam/Baha'i). This has become evident in that words like "religion", "theism", "faith", etc are used synonymous with the particular way in which Abrahamic faiths (particularly Christianity and Islam) do things. Sure, you'll get Atheists like Richard Dawkins or Ricky Gervais who claim to include all other gods in their disbelief, but upon further digging their view of these other gods is almost always that from a Christian lens. When that point is dug at and the notion of a "Man in the Clouds" throwing lightning bolts about is dismissed, the response is almost always "Well, that's not really what I'm talking about."

I really wonder what atheism would look like if Christianity was not the predominant religion.

Maybe Atheists would just be people who did not believe in the gods.

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe Atheists would just be people who did not believe in the gods.

Voila, now all you have to do is convince the none atheist who insists on making up as much **** as suites his ego

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Maybe Atheists would just be people who did not believe in the gods.

Don't believe in them, or just don't regard them? It's a difficult thing to conceptualize, as Christian views are so pervasive in our world view these days. A thought experiment which is compounded in that Abrahamism goes about things as though it's a contest, which invokes fervent pushback. The rejection of their claim - and by extension theism as a whole - becomes less a lack of belief and more an ideological statement snowballing into a Hill To Die On.

 

[Justanatheist]

Don't believe in them, or just don't regard them? It's a difficult thing to conceptualize, as Christian views are so pervasive in our world view these days. A thought experiment which is compounded in that Abrahamism goes about things as though it's a contest, which invokes fervent pushback. The rejection of their claim - and by extension theism as a whole - becomes less a lack of belief and more an ideological statement snowballing into a Hill To Die On.

I am completely apathetic towards the existence of gods in my normal life. It is a non issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither atheism or theism imposes world views. A person can be theist without having a religion. Once ritual, dogma or laws get attached to either atheism or theism then people might force their views on others.

What do you think atheism is, that things can be "attached to" it?

To me, the idea is as incoherent as saying that western monotheism and secular humanism are both branches of "adharmacism."

I think it works much better to simply consider what a person's worldview actually includes instead of trying to define it in terms of someone else's beliefs.

The label "atheist" is an invention of theists; it's a case of someone saying "that person doesn't agree with me on a point *I* consider important, so that's the defining feature of their belief system." There's quite a bit of theistic chauvinism baked into treating the theistic/atheistic dichotomy as the first thing used to categorize people.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What do you think atheism is, that things can be "attached to" it?

To me, the idea is as incoherent as saying that western monotheism and secular humanism are both branches of "adharmacism."

I think it works much better to simply consider what a person's worldview actually includes instead of trying to define it in terms of someone else's beliefs.

The label "atheist" is an invention of theists; it's a case of someone saying "that person doesn't agree with me on a point *I* consider important, so that's the defining feature of their belief system." There's quite a bit of theistic chauvinism baked into treating the theistic/atheistic dichotomy as the first thing used to categorize people.

Atheism is a world view. Any world view can be the basis of a belief system which other beliefs get attached to which begins to form a cohesive ideology.

Atheism itself though, lacking a belief in a god/s, doesn't inform anybody to do anything.