• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Atheism - Discussion thread (2 Viewers)

ClockworkSoldier

Clockwork Army
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
1,899
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Name_Taken said:
Doesn't mean that non-religious people can't do good, but they don't do good for the right reasons. But as you say, these are my beliefs, and I am not trying to press them upon others.
This I don't get.

You should only do good to appease God? What about doing something truly good and selfless without even thinking about if God would like it. Is that still a 'wrong reason'?

Personally, I think it's better to do good selflessly, without looking to impress another person or being ie. God.

Is doing good for the sake of doing good... 'Wrong'?
 

jet

Banned
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
3,148
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Doesn't mean that non-religious people can't do good, but they don't do good for the right reasons. But as you say, these are my beliefs, and I am not trying to press them upon others.
The fallacy in your argument lies in the fact that you make EXTREMELY broad and far-reaching assumptions about the motivations of atheists.

Whilst not truly atheist myself, I feel I can use myself as an example. I don't do something good because I might make myself feel better. I do it because I hold a strong conviction that what I am doing is right.

For example, many of my friends have posted in this thread, who oppose your view. Whilst yes, they are my friends, if they were to explicitly conduct themselves inappropriately, that would not stop me as a moderator from doing the right thing and giving them an infraction.

Thus, my emotions and need to feel happiness and pleasure do not motivate my choices to do what I consider is right. Your assumption is far too broad to make yourself convincing.

And please define what the "right" reason is for doing good. Yet again you make an assumption, this time that there is only one reason for doing good. You talk on and on about how these are your beliefs, and that you will not impress them upon anybody, and yet you deny them the right to be human through this statement.

They have a choice. We all have a choice, and you deny them these choices. Even though you recognise that these choices exist, you do not give them the room to make them, rather you deny them any right to have morals of their own. That's quite a hypocritical thing to do.
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
The fallacy in your argument lies in the fact that you make EXTREMELY broad and far-reaching assumptions about the motivations of atheists.

Whilst not truly atheist myself, I feel I can use myself as an example. I don't do something good because I might make myself feel better. I do it because I hold a strong conviction that what I am doing is right.

For example, many of my friends have posted in this thread, who oppose your view. Whilst yes, they are my friends, if they were to explicitly conduct themselves inappropriately, that would not stop me as a moderator from doing the right thing and giving them an infraction.
You are motivated to do what you see as "right" by your own morals, your beliefs (which do not have to be religiously based and recognise a God).

At the end of the day, you are still doing what is right, but what is right in your mind, becase you have decided for yourself that it is right, and that is how you want to live your life.

You are still serving yourself (by following your own rules) becuase you have rejected Gods in favour of those decided upon by yourself. It doesn't mean that you're a bad person at all because of it, but unless your personal moral framework is alike to that set out in the scriptures, it is of your own design.

Other people reach different conclusions about right and wrong to you, based on what they feel. Thus morality, without God is totally subjective.

Who is to say that what you say is right isn't another persons worst "wrong", if you sorta see where I'm comming from. It is impossible to decide amongst yourselves whose personal morals are more "right". One person may feel that racism is totally ok, out of a void of no truth his personal moral framework is no less "incorrect" and has the same legitimacy as anyone elses.

Despite ones actions appearing on the surface to be selfless ultimately they are seving yourself. A Chirsitian believes that glorifying God should be the foremost goal in all their achievements and endeavours.

This doesn't mean they they can't do what they want, for example, if I really wanted to be an engineer and design/build a bridge, thats no different than if I wanted to be an author and write a book, but in both cases, they seek to glorify God through their efforts. It doesn't mean the book has to be about God or that the bridge has to have crosses stampted into it and Bible verses on plaques every 10m across, but they were both made as celebrations of Him, through us.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Without accpetance of God, the notion of morality becomes subjective and open to interpretation, it collapses upon itself.

Doesn't mean that non-religious people can't do good, but they don't do good for the right reasons. But as you say, these are my beliefs, and I am not trying to press them upon others.
Are the world's half-billion Buddhists equally incapable of morality?
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
This I don't get.

You should only do good to appease God? What about doing something truly good and selfless without even thinking about if God would like it. Is that still a 'wrong reason'?

Personally, I think it's better to do good selflessly, without looking to impress another person or being ie. God.

Is doing good for the sake of doing good... 'Wrong'?
Ah k...

Firstly its not done as a means of sucking up or w/e to God, look at me lol, I'm doing everything you said, now reward me! That is a wrong reason for doing good. Its done out of love and faith, that the rules He set out for us are ultimately for our own good and that of others.

Without faith, I can apprecite this reason would not hold much of a position with you, but like thats religion.

If a person is following their own moral agenda, they may be doing good when their morals correlate with those set out in the scriptures, for example charaity. Scripture teaches us to help each other, even for people we don't know. There is a parable about a rich man who donates a large sum of money, and a homeless women who gives only a single coin, but to the women that was a bigger sacrifice, and so she was more charitable. One doesn't have to believe in God to know that charity is a good thing.

One can still be charitable, and do good, without being religious. However, their reason for doing so may not be out of their love for God, and their willingness to obey His rules.

They may be doing it because they feel natural sympathy for others and want to reach out to them (sure, a great reason), but it takes credit away from God, and places it upon themselves. I am doing good because I think its right, and therfore I'm a good person (IDK you could also be doing it for a more incideous reason, like trying to get recognition). As opposed to I'm doing good because God established the rules one must follow (love thy neighbour and the like), and I am going to honour Him and glorify Him through my actions, even if it causes me inconvenience etc.

A seemingly selfless act is not so if it is done for a selfish reason or out of self interest.

Now for charity, as most reasonable people (I assume) recognise this as a moral "right" there is cause for little dispute. However for issues such as gay "rights" dispute occurs in society as the morals of society begin to conflict with those in the scripture.

Have I sort of clairifed it for you?
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Are the world's half-billion Buddhists equally incapable of morality?
All humans are primarily forces of evil, but even a satanist is capable of doing "right".

Its not just about doing right however (nor is it about not doing wrong), its about doing right, for the right reasons.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
All humans are primarily forces of evil, but even a satanist is capable of doing "right".

Its not just about doing right however (nor is it about not doing wrong), its about doing right, for the right reasons.
No I mean, they're religious. They have a religious moral framework to answer to; just no God.

Are they equally as incapable of morality as atheists?
 

boganxcore

Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
690
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Dawkins is a pre-eminent evolutionary biologist/ethologist. He is a fellow of the Royal Society.

And you're saying he doesn't understand the philosophy of science?
yes i am

because he is using science to disprove the metaphysical god

whereas science can only measure the physical, making his rejection and disproof of god redundant if you ask me
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
yes i am

because he is using science to disprove the metaphysical god

whereas science can only measure the physical, making his rejection and disproof of god redundant if you ask me
What? He doesn't use science to disprove God. He use philosophy to disprove God. You can't use science to disprove something that doesn't exist in the physical world.

Have you even read Dawkins' work?
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
No I mean, they're religious. They have a religious moral framework to answer to; just no God.

Are they equally as incapable of morality as atheists?
They're not incapable of doing right as are all people.

It doesn't mean that I don't sincerely value their commitment and sacrifice to make the world a better place, but the fact that they are doing it out of ultimately a selfish reason inevitably decreases the meaninfulness of their doing right.
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
What? He doesn't use science to disprove God. He use philosophy to disprove God. You can't use science to disprove something that doesn't exist in the physical world.

Have you even read Dawkins' work?
Nope, but I want to get around to, out of interest, like what are his main arguements against the notion God?

And rofl, theres not much objective fact that can be proven through philosophy.

Is it like an attack on the Christian God specifically? or simply the existence of any perfect "God-like" being.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
They're not incapable of doing right as are all people.

It doesn't mean that I don't sincerely value their commitment and sacrifice to make the world a better place, but the fact that they are doing it out of ultimately a selfish reason inevitably decreases the meaninfulness of their doing right.
Selfish?
 

lolokay

Active Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
1,015
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
+1 !

"It doesn't mean that I don't sincerely value their commitment and sacrifice to make the world a better place, but the fact that they are doing it out of ultimately a selfish reason inevitably decreases the meaninfulness of their doing right."

I thought motivations to better the whole was kind of the opposite of being selfish? :confused:
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Yeah. I've explained why in some degree of detail why this is the case as well...

Your actions should not be about you, nor should they be about others, but about God. Following God as a consequence encourages charity to others, but primarily your "drive" to do good is out of your faith in Him.

He will ensure that you are looked after, in this life and the next should you devote yourself to Him.
 
Last edited:

jet

Banned
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
3,148
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Yeah. I've explained why in some degree of detail why this is the case as well...

Your actions should not be about you, nor should they be about others, but about God. Following God as a consequence encourages charity to others, but primarily your "drive" to do good is out of your faith in Him.

He will ensure that you are looked after, in this life and the next should you devote yourself to Him.
Am I the first person to say this? Once again, your argument is fallacious because you assume one of either 2 things:
a) God is the ONLY religious/spiritual/omnipotent being in the Universe.
b) That God exists completely and utterly.

It seems like you cannot even try to believe, just for a second, that God might not exist. Yes, you believe that he does, but isn't there the slightest possibility that he did not fuel the beginnings of the Universe, and the consequent invention of life?

You may think that now, I am trying to impress my "atheist" beliefs upon you, but the fact is, I went to a Christian school, and I was born and raised a Christian. I have even received all the sacraments.

Except unlike you, I am able to realise that he might not be there in the end. We can argue and argue over this point, but it is not what I truly wanted to say.

As a Christian, we are taught to accept others for who they are, regardless of their beliefs yet you seem to ignore this every step of the way. Instead, if one does not hold the same beliefs as you, you immediately label them as selfish and suddenly dismiss them. You use God and His rules as a tool to enable your own condescension. Immediately, you feel you are better than us, because we seem to self-glorify, and participate in hedonistic activities.

This is what I don't understand. You seem so focussed on contending that "God is the ultimate goal" and that His morals are the only ones which we should be following. You cannot honestly sit there all day and feel that you are doing the "right" thing by judging us and our ways, because that would be contradictory to the entire foundations of "love thy neighbour".

But alas, we are bound forever to disagree, because you feel that upholding your faith every second is the "right" thing to do. And so I will no longer argue. This is the last post I will make in this thread.
 

annabackwards

<3 Prophet 9
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
4,670
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Methinks Name_Taken is a perfect example of the main problem of believers with their non believing counterparts.

Please reply to my posts, or do you choose not to because you simply cannot find a way to refute them?

Oh and Jetblack is presenting a clear argument that i couldn't have worded any better. Read it :)
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Am I the first person to say this? Once again, your argument is fallacious because you assume one of either 2 things:
a) God is the ONLY religious/spiritual/omnipotent being in the Universe.
b) That God exists completely and utterly.
Well, repsecting your position ofc, I can equally argue that your arguement is fallacious as you are assuming either:
a) God does not exist or behaves in the manner as described in the scriptures.
b) God may not or does not exist at all.

Both of which you have as little evidence to support as I do to prove my position.

It then comes down to a matter of faith, as we have already established, either you have faith in God as He is described in the Bible, you have faith in the notion of God but not in the way as described in the Bible or you have faith that God in fact does not exist at all.

It seems like you cannot even try to believe, just for a second, that God might not exist. Yes, you believe that he does, but isn't there the slightest possibility that he did not fuel the beginnings of the Universe, and the consequent invention of life?
Well obviously believing in Him, would lead you to conclude that creation is not possible without Him, as not believing in Him would lead you to conclude that creation is possible (and even likely) without Him.

You may think that now, I am trying to impress my "atheist" beliefs upon you, but the fact is, I went to a Christian school, and I was born and raised a Christian. I have even received all the sacraments.
Nonono I respect your position and appreciate you expending the effort to actually explain what it is you believe in. I was an athiest for most of my life, I can understand how unreasonable we (Christians) can seem at times.

Going to a Christian school and recieving the sacraments however does not make you a Christian, and I know you would understand that. I in contrast don't attended a Christian school and my family isn't religious.

Except unlike you, I am able to realise that he might not be there in the end. We can argue and argue over this point, but it is not what I truly wanted to say.
Do you have faith or not, of this I am still unsure. You sort of imply that you accept He may exist or that He may not, are you like somewhat undecided?

Its not faith, if you admit the possibility that He's not there.

As a Christian, we are taught to accept others for who they are, regardless of their beliefs yet you seem to ignore this every step of the way. Instead, if one does not hold the same beliefs as you, you immediately label them as selfish and suddenly dismiss them. You use God and His rules as a tool to enable your own condescension. Immediately, you feel you are better than us, because we seem to self-glorify, and participate in hedonistic activities.
I disagree. I havn't "not accepted" someone because they have different beliefs to me. Nor do I try and judge them.

I have already explained my position, however I don't see myself as
dissmissive of others beliefs, ambitions or goals in this life. I admitted that I can appreciate the sacrifices others make in order to make the world a better place, however I disagree with their motives.

And I certinly do not think I am better than you. I am hardly innocent of sin, I simply don't take pride in it or tolerate it as acceptable (in my life).

This is what I don't understand. You seem so focussed on contending that "God is the ultimate goal" and that His morals are the only ones which we should be following. You cannot honestly sit there all day and feel that you are doing the "right" thing by judging us and our ways, because that would be contradictory to the entire foundations of "love thy neighbour".
Ok, these are my beliefs, you probably understand them better than most, considering what you have described of your upbringing.

As I said I would disagree that I am passing judgement on you, and this is hardly my intention and so I'm sorry if you feel this.

I do not see how I have undermined the concept of loving ones neighbour, through the expression of my values. I am not causing you harm (as far as I am aware) and presenting the Truth to others is hardly doing them a disservice. Loving thy neighbour does not extend to abandoning your faith in God or compromising with the unbelievers position.

If anything love would entail having the courage to tell someone they are making a mistake and stand up to them, for them (if you get what I mean).

I am not focing anyone to adopt them as no-one is forcing me to adopt theirs. Our views can conflict and we can disagree, but this does not have to led to conflict. Peaceful co-existence and discussion is possible.

But alas, we are bound forever to disagree, because you feel that upholding your faith every second is the "right" thing to do. And so I will no longer argue. This is the last post I will make in this thread.
Oh well. Internet debates prove little and ones such as this tend to develop into very circular arguements, I can see why if you wanna stop now, cya :wave:
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Well, repsecting your position ofc, I can equally argue that your arguement is fallacious as you are assuming either:
a) God does not exist or behaves in the manner as described in the scriptures.
b) God may not or does not exist at all.

Both of which you have as little evidence to support as I do to prove my position.
You can easily apply that to a whole host of other things as well mate. I mean, the tooth fairy could actually exist, couldn't it? A god that I have made up myself could easily exist as well. And so could scientology.
 

jazzzod

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
135
Location
Perpetuity
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Eww agnostics.

Do you doubt that the sun will rise?

Agnosticism is ludicrous to an extent that they cast a shadow over their reasons to doubt theism in the first place.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top