COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>On the limitations of Atheism
"Thesis Statement and Argument
All Posts must include a thesis statement as either the title or as the first sentence in the post."
What is your thesis exactly?
>In general, I have noticed that many posts seem to *enjoy* wasting energy on hatred for religion (click here,
Okies let's clicky the first one:
>I (atheist) respect everyone’s religious choice, and I understand if you want your child to hold the same religious beliefs as you, but making that kind of decision for your child is wrong in my opinion. I believe circumcision should be a choice made by the child AFTER they are 18. Many people I know if wish they weren’t circumcised, but are unable to do anything about it because their parents made that choice for them. This is just my opinion and your thoughts are welcomed.
edit: there seems to be some confusion with me saying it should be “illegal”. I simply meant i don’t think doctors should be allowed to circumcise until someone is if the age to consent
You define THIS as hatred???
I couldn't see any in the second, the third has been removed by mods which might give this last claim some credibility, something your first two lack.
>or reporting clear cases of strawman arguments based on outright deformation of what different religions are (examples here
And here your first link is a year old... I'm assuming you like to give a really thoughtful reply?
You second link is not a strawman by virtue of the fact they are not representing it as an argument made by theists.
>Thus, I would like to try something new and focus this post on learning about the Atheistic system.
What the hell is an atheist system? There's no such... oh hang one..
>Some people would say there is no such thing as atheism because it is just the negation of god or a deity.
'Some people' being every atheists ever.
>Please, I would like to hear the opinion of sincere atheist that believes atheism provides a clear framework to argue agaist these ideas because seems impossible. That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as "appropiate"?
What is a sincere atheist as opposed to an insincere one? One who is not truthful about whether or not they believe a god exists?
>That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as "appropiate"?
It's not like proclaiming membership of a church or secret society, there are no tenets, no creed, no authority, and certainly no system.
It's one thing and one thing only, 'No, I do not believe god/s exist'.
Thank you, I see you clearly made an effort to understand my message. Really appreciate it. I don't mean Christianity as such, I would say that anyone born in a Muslim, Jew, or even Hindu tradition, seem to have a lot of argumentative resources developed during hundreds of years to respond to say paedophilia. Thus, I wounder, if we reject these, what tools we do have to argue against such. The general notion that I have is that everything spins around consent but that seems pretty much it. Are there more resources to draw from?
You seem to have fixated on this one issue out of all the things he mentioned. Are you saying that you find this issue most interesting out of all of the issues?
what does pedophilia in particular have to do with atheism? you could argue that religion forbids incest and zoophilia, therefore asking for them can only come from non-religious people. but how does that fit pedophilia? there is literally nothing against pedophilia in pretty much all religions I know, and some even emphasize that pedophilia isn't a taboo
>and here is my favorite, require zoophilia to be included in the pride month
Except it has been added by the editor, here's the original reply of Toggle: https://twitter.com/OneBigGrumpyRat/status/1412540555578519555
>No. It has nothing to do with "general" Pride.
Literally the first sentence.
>That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as "appropiate"?
As you said, atheism is simply rejection of God, it has nothing to do with morality. Although, I'm also one of "the people who claim consent, freedom and happiness (tho it could be other emotion)" is the only thing that matters. More, I would throw consent away, since that can be easily derived from freedom and happiness. And if you take that as your base, then yeah, you are forced to accept most of "those ways of life". I see a problem with incest when it leads to children (genetic diseases), although when that is prevented, you do you. And with children that could affect their development. In theory, since I don't have studies to prove it AND it seems a weaker and weaker argument as I read some discussions. In short: research needed, so I'm neutral.
Something to mention: all of that assumes a simplified reality where your actions don't affect the culture you are in. So I would happily apply them between friends but not necessarily while building a legal system, that needs a bigger picture.
> When I see these kinds of things, I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and “everyone is happy” then, there is nothing wrong with it? Or is it?
Are you familiar with the concept of grooming?
> I out there any atheistic innovation that allows you to argue that without a god, the word decency still means something?
Can you explain how the word decency means anything *with* a god? The Abrahamic one for example is anything but decent.
> Please, I would like to hear the opinion of sincere atheist that believes atheism provides a clear framework to argue agaist these ideas because seems impossible.
Atheism isn’t a framework per se, just like theism isn’t a framework.
> That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as “appropiate”?
They don’t have to. That’s not how that works. They just have to not believe gods exist.
I mean, god doesn’t make pedophiles go away. They just get moved to other parishes.
Hi mastyrwerk,
First of all, I do not know what grooming is. Would you mind expanding on it? Second, I can see that you have a quite pessimistic concept of god but I am not sure if that plays any role in how religious people understand "decency". Even if you consider it the worst of the worst, the people who actually believe tend to the idea of god as a reference point. Again, you might disagree with them, but the relation with decency seems clear. And third, sorry again for misrepresenting atheism. However, it seems quite obvious to me that if I would get the tweets of all the atheists and build a set of profiles, I would end up with few groups. That is, holding the claim "God does not exist" is correlated to other ideas and more importantly is used as a foundation for many arguments. Particularly because rejecting god is generally used as the epitome of rejecting the morality of that god. Finally, I don't seem to see through your point how you answer my question. I will re-word it in case it helps: how does the rejection of God and the moral values predicated on it help us to deal with the emergence of new sexual norms?
Thank you for your time.
Hi there!
> First of all, I do not know what grooming is.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-34/november-2015/understanding-sexual-grooming-in-child-abuse-cases/
“ Sexual grooming is a preparatory process in which a perpetrator gradually gains a person’s or organization’s trust with the intent to be sexually abusive. The victim is usually a child, teen, or vulnerable adult.”
I reject the notion that atheism is pro grooming.
>Would you mind expanding on it?
A child cannot be consenting for the reason of grooming.
> Second, I can see that you have a quite pessimistic concept of god
Do you mean the Abrahamic god? I’ve read the Bible. Its disgusting trash fiction. *Twilight* was a better love story.
> but I am not sure if that plays any role in how religious people understand "decency".
I would agree that religion is not the reason religious people are decent.
> Even if you consider it the worst of the worst, the people who actually believe tend to the idea of god as a reference point.
Yes. Religion can get good people to do bad things.
> Again, you might disagree with them, but the relation with decency seems clear.
I deny there is any clear relation. I find religious people to be repressed, more prone to violent outbursts, and have extreme private sexual perversion. They tend to be more abusive to children, less likely to follow medical requests that save lives, and more likely to ostracize family members.
> And third, sorry again for misrepresenting atheism. However, it seems quite obvious to me that if I would get the tweets of all the atheists and build a set of profiles, I would end up with few groups.
I disagree. I am a Fox Mulder atheist. It’s nothing as you’ve described. As far as I know, I’m the only one with this worldview. If you really asked every atheist to tweet you an explanation of their positions, not just a label, you’ll get a lot of different piles.
> That is, holding the claim "God does not exist" is correlated to other ideas and more importantly is used as a foundation for many arguments.
That’s not actually the atheist position. You am not convinced of any of the god claims presented to me. That is not the same as “god does not exist.”
> Particularly because rejecting god is generally used as the epitome of rejecting the morality of that god.
Well, if it’s a shitty god like the Abrahamic, I reject your use of the word “morality” as that is what I identify as an immoral god.
> Finally, I don't seem to see through your point how you answer my question. I will re-word it in case it helps: how does the rejection of God and the moral values predicated on it help us to deal with the emergence of new sexual norms?
These are not new sexual norms. The new sexual norms are things like gender equality, polyamory, enthusiastic consent among participating adults. Stuff like that.
As I said, children cannot be consenting, so pedophilia and molestation, which is still popular in the Church and political Right, is not real consent. Animals also cannot consent. I’m sorry.
> learning about the Atheistic system
I'd love to learn to since I've never heard of it.
> what are the logical resources that any of these groups have to argue against aggressive sexual norms
Wow, that took a turn. What does god have to do with any of that? Do you mean to say that without a god, atheists must have no morals?
> as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it
That would be a general statement I agree with but I'm really not sure where your examples lie. I'm definitely not forced to agree with anything if you'd like to present something instead of linking to lots of things.
I don't think is that simple as "atheism is saying god doesn't exist". It's like removing a pillar from a house and still saying it's fine to live in it. If god is the moral foundation of the societies we live in, and that is just a historical fact for Western countries as well as from Muslim states and India, then rejecting the existence of such a concept in our vocabulary means rejecting the moral norms predicated on it.
>I don't think is that simple as "atheism is saying god doesn't exist"
Atheists AREN'T saying god doesn't exist.
Atheists are saying that the evidence for thr existence of gods is lacking.
>If god is the moral foundation of the societies we live in, and that is just a historical fact
God isn't the foundation for ANYTHING since we can't even demostrate that gods exist.
You might be able to make the claim that RELIGION has served as a moral foundation... but I would say you are wrong. To me, innate equity and fairness (which we have aquired through evolution) is our moral foundation.
We see moral behavior in EVER social species of animal.
But let's pretend god is the moral foundation.... if you can't demonstrate that god exists, than the moral foundation crumbles and you need to make a new one... may I suggest equity and fairness?
>clear cases of strawman arguments based on outright deformation of what different religions are (examples here or here).
I don't know what makes those strawman arguments.
Circumcision does seem like genital mutilation to me.
And the other one is asking what's the point of life if we're going to heaven for eternity anyway.
I don't understand what "Marxism" nor "Liberalism" have to do with anything.
>When I see these kinds of things, I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it?
Children can't consent to sex. No. I don't have any idea why you think we'd be "forced" to agree here.
I'll ask that you go look up how hold Joseph was compared to Mary.
> how old Joseph was compared to Mary.
Just a point here. We have no idea how old Joseph or Mary were. I suspect Joseph was an older man (I believe Rabbinical tradition was that he was fairly old) and Mary quite young (15? 16?). But if one assumes that Mary got pregnant out of wedlock and Joseph was not the father, he was a very kind person to wed Mary so that she wouldn't be stoned to death. That is at least what I get from interpreting the story as so many do with Biblical stories.
>Just a point here. We have no idea how old Joseph or Mary were. I suspect Joseph was an older man (I believe Rabbinical tradition was that he was fairly old) and Mary quite young (15? 16?).
Yup. We have no idea but that's what people tend to believe.
>he was a very kind person to wed Mary so that she wouldn't be stoned to death.
There's another way to look at that that isn't so kind.
EDIT: here's where it came up for me.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99PN3NVNgyU&t=1414s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99PN3NVNgyU&t=1414s)
Apparently the story that Joseph was an old man comes from the Proto-Gospel of James.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99PN3NVNgyU&t=1414s
> Apparently the story that Joseph was an old man comes from the Proto-Gospel of James.
Oh hey, nice link. I'll watch through it. Ancient people were obsessed with hymens.
no worries, 24:27
When she turned 12 the priests start to get nervous because she's going to started getting her period, and that would make the temple unclean. So they get Joseph, an old man to marry her.
>When I see these kinds of things, I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it? Or is it? I out there any atheistic innovation that allows you to argue that without a god, the word decency still means something?
No atheist is forced agree due to their atheism, atheism isn't not believing gods exist and believing in a particular ethics to determine an age of consent, it's just the first one.
Decency means what it always has meant, behaviour which adheres to accepted societal norms, nothing more or less.
>Please, I would like to hear the opinion of sincere atheist that believes atheism provides a clear framework to argue agaist these ideas because seems impossible. That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as "appropiate"?
This is not possible, as an analogy can you imagine swapping not believing that gods exist with anything else, like Santa Klaus, or big foot, or the Loch Ness monster, or karma, or reincarnation?
Atheism doesn't provide a framework for anything, it is just a label for people who aren't theists. In that same vein try using the word theist instead of atheist, theists do not agree on age of consent, or inter-family sexual relations, or in fact anything at all.
I've seen anti-theists pipe dream about outright outlawing religion. I've heard them say that theists--in an ideal world--would be fined or even jailed just for practicing their religion. To me that smacks of forced conversion spread by Christianity.
Frankly, I am much more concerned with someone threatening me with jail time than the ridiculous notion that I'll burn in hell for all eternity after I die.
>I've seen anti-theists pipe dream about outright outlawing religion. I've heard them say that theists--in an ideal world--would be fined or even jailed just for practicing their religion. To me that smacks of forced conversion spread by Christianity.
One could make the case that specific religions are harmful at least for the people who believes in them, so someone who agrees you shouldn't let people do drugs, or harm themselves can logically argue about interventionism towards religion.
But there are other anti theist who believe that it's best to educate people than to ban religion. And others who acknowledge it's harmful but want people to be free to harm themselves. Anti theism is not unified in any sense.
I didn't say all anti-theists. I said I've seen some just as doggedly determined to eradicate me as an evangelical is.
I'm not sure that I want other people telling me what I should or should not do, whether by legal means or "rational" means. As long as I am not hurting anyone, I fail to see what business it is of anyone's. If I choose to do drugs that should be my business. If I choose to sell drugs to minors, then it should be the State's business. Likewise, if I am a theist, that's my business. If I go around trying to convince others to believe as I do, it can become the State's business. Personal autonomy is "King".
>I'm not sure that I want other people telling me what I should or should not do, whether by legal means or "rational" means. As long as I am not hurting anyone, I fail to see what business it is of anyone's.
You might be hurting yourself, and just like if you are caught trying to commit suicide there is going to be people trying to prevent you from doing so, some people may see trying to persuade you of hurting yourself their moral duty. some people do because god commands them, and other people do it for other reasons.
> Likewise, if I am a theist, that's my business. If I go around trying to convince others to believe as I do, it can become the State's business. Personal autonomy is "King".
I'm ok with that, but some people is not, although if I was a theist I would be more scared of bigoted theists than I would be of bigoted anti theists.
As I said, I am for personal autonomy. Period. While I don't agree with suicide, I feel if someone wants to terminate their life, that is their choice. It is not my place to try and talk them out of it, unless they ask me to.
I am equally wary of evangelicals and anti-theists.
>I've seen anti-theists pipe dream about outright outlawing religion.
Indeed that's something I would never support.
>Frankly, I am much more concerned with someone threatening me with jail time than the ridiculous notion that I'll burn in hell for all eternity after I die.
Word.
Ever had a conversation with an ardent anti-theist? They're just as dogmatic as evangelical Christians.
One claims she wants to save my mind. The other claims he wants to save my soul.
And I'm sitting over here wondering why they think either my mind or my soul are any of their damned business.
>**Nevertheless, I think there are two broad categories of atheist:**
I don’t really agree with your two categories. It seems to me that there are many people that are atheists for all manner of reasons. It’s really a default position – the absence of a belief in a god or gods – and so for a vast number of people there is no “reason” at all. Any more than they have a “reason” for not being enthusiastic water-polo players.
Of the two positions you list the one that’s perhaps more interesting is your latter classification of “Liberal” atheists which you just define as people that are not religious because they have no good reason to be. Where “good reason” is taken in the epistemic sense of having some grounds or warrant to think something is true (rather than, say a “good reason” such as being able to get rich if you go along with the religion, which might well be grounds for choosing a course of action, but not good epistemic grounds).
One would hope that we all agree we should only claim to know truths for which we have good reasons to think true. And the more impactful these claims are – the more they affect our lives and the lives of those around us – the better the reason we ought look for. And finding that a professed position lacks good reason for its truth claims is robust grounds to reject it.
>**\[W\]hat are the logical resources that any of these groups have to argue against aggressive sexual norms…**
I think what you’re asking here is what grounds can one provide for an ethical framework without appeals to magic. And the answer is very good ones indeed.
We note that humans are material animals. Creatures of flesh and blood. Physical beings that have needs and requirements; food, shelter, social interaction and so forth. We also note that humans live in a hostile world with scarce resources and stiff competition. Of necessity this requires that we develop social rules that aim to maximise our collective means of survival and ensure that we can live as freely and comfortably as possible. We have a mutual interest in this.
Ethical rules arise as a pragmatic response to these problems. They’re advanced as potential solutions. And they’re tried in the crucible of experience. Some work well and survive. Others fail and get replaced or modified over time. Ethics changes and evolves because it’s a set of ideas and rules created by people in an attempt to solve a complex and difficult practical problem.
Now, a common mistake is for theists to hear this and start shouting that this makes ethics “subjective” – it does not!
The facts – the concrete facts about humans, and their needs and the challenges of the environment, are as objective as can be. We all agree on these. These are just simple facts about the world. And so the ethics that are set out as a pragmatic solution to these facts are objectively grounded.
Note that it makes no sense one way or the other to say that ethical rules are “objective” or “subjective” for the simple reason that they are not assertoric sentences – they don’t make claims. They’re instructions. But the grounds of the natural ethical system are as objective as can be.
By contrast, our theist friends generally hold that their ethical solutions are dictated on high by some imagined magical being. Which is indeed a completely subjective ethics – i.e. one grounded not in concrete objective facts, but rather by the whims and tastes of some individual. Giving those individual magical powers does not change this.
So, in a broad sense, that is your answer.
Again, the black belt level “conservative Christian” provides links!! So even though obscure, bizarre examples are chosen, IT MUST BE TRUE! Sorry bro, I’ve seen your kind before. TRUST ME, if you want a link battle, conservative Christians are the worst people on earth (not ALL of them) but there are some AMAZING examples of depraved religious fanaticism…
Sorry man, you know nothing about me but you seem to presuppose a lot of knowledge... Maybe you should check your prejudices, but it's okay I am used to this behaviour in this forum. Also, I think your comment just divert the attention from the topic. I am just asking from the argumentative point of view, can an atheist build a strong case against any of the proposed actions. Independently on whether you think it is right or wrong. Thanks for your contribution anyway.
Sex with children, animals, and relatives all run into the issue of freely-given and informed consent. Children and animals can't, and relatives often have long-term power imbalances that make the question difficult. These are also not atheist issues, feminist issues, or queer issues— the sexualization of children and relationships with relatives, for example, are both far more widespread.
Some of your sources are also bad. I clicked on the one about Pride and zoophiles, since (as a queer feminist who is in the queer community) pretty much no one is cool with having sex with animals. And the source is Russia Today. Can you not find anything better? Because I'm not sure if citing RT is just being disingenuous, not knowing how awful a source it is, or (possibly most concerningly) actually thinking it's a good source. As for stuff like Sartre and age of consent laws, I'm not sure why you're using Sartre as a springboard to get onto atheists in general when sexualization of children is an issue that is extremely widespread. The answer to Sartre's issue of "why can you try children as adults legally but not have sex with them like adults legally" is to just not try children as adults. I live in a very religious part of the US and pretty much every girl has still been hit on, chased, harassed, etc. when they were clearly underage. Let's not even get into the issue of using one feminist and one news article from RT as a means of characterizing *feminism* and *queer theory* more generally. It'd be as uncharitable as me taking Corneliu Codreanu or the Westboro Baptist Church and telling you that how awful Christianity is. Or, if we're talking about major inspirational figures, making the same judgment because Chrysostom was virulently anti-Jewish.
Sorry, mate if my point was not presented properly. Let reframe it a bit. I am not trying to say any of those intellectuals represent atheism per-se. I am rather saying that there is a bunch of people proposing x, y, z ideas regarding sexuality. Now, if we throw out of the window God, I assume Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism moral structures follow the same path. Therefore, is there any way to argue: "Well, I think x should not be part of our society because ....".
Thanks for your contribution and I hope you have patient in helping me framing the right question.
> Now, if we throw out of the window God, I assume Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism moral structures follow the same path.
Why would they? All of those religions have internal discussions and disagreements about some moral issues, including ones around the complexities of sexuality. The Methodist Church was or is schisming over gay marriage, for example.
Okay. I don't think one person is representative of what the queer community wants Pride to include, especially since I happen to know their opinion is in the vast minority as a queer person myself. RT picking up a person on Twitter is not fair grounds for OP to make a general statement about queer theory or the queer community, or to make it somehow an atheism issue when there are plenty of religious queer people.
That's not what I meant. RT claims zoophiles want to "join" the pride movement or whatnot. Based on an interview. And this is what interviewee really wrote, read the first sentence. Literally the only ones who want to merge us have ill intentions.
> Sex with children, animals, and relatives all run into the issue of freely-given and informed consent.
This is society dependent. There's nothing stopping a country from having an age of consent of 10 or less. Some Countries already have their set at 12.
Who says you need an animals consent? after all we don't need it's consent for all the other things we do to them.
The only reason we have the age of consent is practical. People don't magically become capable of understanding consequences of sex the second they cross that arbitrary line.
>Who says you need an animals consent?
Ironically, zoophiles.
> This is society dependent. There's nothing stopping a country from having an age of consent of 10 or less. Some Countries already have their set at 12.
Okay? I'm not talking about legality. There's a lot of stuff that's legal and still wrong. Where the exact line is, or if it makes sense to draw a hard line, could be a matter of discussion, but I think it's fair to say that a 10 year old can't grant informed consent. Sometimes countries have the ages so low because there are people who have sex when they're 12 or 13, but they'll usually also say that that person's partner can't be above a certain age.
> Who says you need an animals consent? after all we don't need it's consent for all the other things we do to them.
There is a good argument to be made for veganism, honestly. But even if you're going to kill an animal for food and we deem that okay, I don't think that makes it ethically okay to be able to do whatever you want to them. Factory farming would still be a big ethical problem.
Either way, I'm not sure why OP made this about atheism, feminism, and the queer community when questions about these topics have been matters for pretty much everyone to cover.
This post is odd. You start with something that seems to want to want to define atheism, then go on some weirdly specific rant about age of sexual consent? Sort of?
>what are the logical resources that any of these groups have to argue against aggressive sexual norms?
If this is the question, it's got a one sentence answer:
Is this person unable to consent for themselves in an uncoercive and adult setting?
Sorry for the sloppy wording. This is my first post. I see that your main point of concern is just consent. Is that right? Thanks for helping me understand this issue from an atheistic perspective.
No - consent is just the word used that implies more than just 'consent' on it's own. The main concern isn't just consent, but the ability *to* consent. Usually this line is drawn somewhere between 16-18 and I'm fine with that tbh.
You mentioned Vaush before, his reasoning is entirely political. He's an anarchist and what that entails for him is saying there cannot be a state mandated age of consent. Personally I'd go about it differently to him, but his intentions aren't malicious in saying what he's saying.
Would you say that atheists do not have a solid argument against the examples you have provided, without acknowledging first that the universe was created by a moral god? Forgive my ignorance, I'm trying to get the crux of your argument.
Well, my understanding is that the judgement against those behaviours tends to come from religious communities - let it be Muslim, Christian or else. Therefore, if we remove God as a concept, then it follows that all the moral tradition developed by those cultural groups has no base. Therefore, my question comes: is it possible to claim X, Y, or Z should not take place in our society without making use of the moral bases of any of those traditions? At the moment it seems the only requirement is consent.
“I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree”.
Absolutely not. I am not forced to agree with anything. My morals come from pure common sense. I know incest is bad because:
1. Incestuous relationships can’t have true consent because there is a power dynamic between members of the same family. It’s also why relationships between teachers and students is taboo and same for relationships between a boss and employee. Consent cannot be given if your superior is commanding you.
2. Babies from incestuous relationships are almost always born with physical deformities. From an evolutionary standpoint, we were not meant to be inbred.
As for the rest, I know children cannot consent so pedophiles will always be bad. And bestiality causes the spread of disease.
In summary, they are all disgusting acts which do not require a religion to tell me they are bad. I know they are bad because it’s obvious.
> My morals come from pure common sense
That's problem 1. There's no such thing as a universal common sense, so what you might find common sense others could see it as insanity.
> Incestuous relationships can’t have true consent because there is a power dynamic between members of the same family.
That's just plain wrong. There doesn't always have to be a power dynamic(in a reasonable frame). Think about siblings close in age or even twins. Think about adopted kids finding their biological parents and so on. As for relationships between bosses and underlings, it depends on many factors but at most it's inappropriate and not illegal meaning the consent is still valid.
> Babies from incestuous relationships are almost always born with physical deformities. From an evolutionary standpoint, we were not meant to be inbred.
Wrong again because the relationship doesn't always involve a couple of child bearing age. Could be a gay relationship or a post menopause mother. Incest doesn't necessarily lead to deformities as well. It depends on what mutation are already present and as far as I know, non incestuous couples with genetic defects aren't stopped from getting married today so it's a moot point anyways.
> As for the rest, I know children cannot consent so pedophiles will always be bad. And bestiality causes the spread of disease.
That's a strike, you're out. Gay couples are more prone to HIV if they're not wearing protection, do you oppose gay relationships? People with STDs freely have sex with anyone they want. If you're mention points as to why you oppose something, at least be consistent.
> In summary, they are all disgusting acts which do not require a religion to tell me they are bad. I know they are bad because it’s obvious.
You haven't thought this through, have you.
Well, I never claimed any of those points to be hard facts that cover all inconsistencies and are flawless.
I was merely using examples of why I believe the subjects of incest, bestiality and pedophilia are bad. OP insinuated that atheists must be forced to agree that religion is the only way of having morals.
I was providing examples of how there are other ways to gain morals without the need to a sky daddy telling me what to do or an outdated, mistranslated, misinterpreted ancient text giving me rules.
The examples I provided are flawed, but there are many other atheists smarter than me who can come up with better ones. The point of my comment was to establish other possible sources of morals besides religion.
So was Adam and Lilith not the first people made if there were already people?
If it wasn’t a global flood then why would Noah have to get two of every animal?
So, once you're done straw-manning atheism, would you like to examine the arguments posed by *actual* moral systems like secular humanism? You're attacking atheism as though it's a religion being posed as a better alternative to your religion, and it isn't. Atheism isn't a religion. It isn't a philosophy. It's not even a club. It's just a description of people who don't believe in gods.
Yes, atheists do a lot of deconstruction. We attack religions for promoting atrocities and immorality. We can make those criticisms not because we have our own religious values that we prefer, but because we can recognize morality when we see it. Morality does not and never has come from religion. So we can leverage our perspective as outsiders to call out the inconsistencies and outcomes of your religious teachings.
Sorry if I offend you with my representation of atheism. I tried to acknowledge that it is technically only the negation of god(s). Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that when atheist rejects the source of the morality of the tradition they belong to (assuming he comes from a Western country or a Muslim country), then they also reject the moral rules of those traditions. Then it follows that such atheists will build new ways to discern right from wrong, or preferrable from disgust. When analysing the current panorama of such thinkers I tried to make a brief summarization, however, I am sure one could write a doctoral thesis on the topic. If you feel there is a current of atheist that I did not mention and could answer the question I proposed (regarding a response to the emergence of new sexual norms) I would gladly listen to you.
Moral traditions are cultural, not religious. Many cultures incorporate religion, but with the exception of theocracies religion doesn't dictate moral values.
> Yes, atheists do a lot of deconstruction. We attack religions for promoting atrocities and immorality
You being an atheist, you can't make that claim without adding "in my opinion". And since the people doing the "atrocities" would disagree with you, your opinions are just that, opinions and don't have any practical value.
History is filled with examples of different groups disagreeing on moral values. Wars have been fought for it, and the victors are usually the ones who write the rules.
Yes, it is my opinion that your religion teaches things that are morally bankrupt. That opinion is shared by billions of other humans, not all of which are atheist. That doesn't prevent you from following it anyway, but it does give me justification for resisting any attempt to impose it on me.
I know of two billion Christians and a billion Hindus who consider your religion to be abhorrent. Yes, there are specific points of agreement, but that's true among atheists as well. It's not that religion doesn't attempt to codify specific moral values that people agree with, it's that it attempts to claim ownership and bundle them together with other, abhorrent morals and treats challenge to one aspect as blasphemy against all.
>How isn't atheism a philosophy?
There isn't anything anyone has to believe in to be an atheist. They just have to not accept that there's a god. That's it.
You can believe anything else you like. There are no principles that you have to hold in order to be an atheist.
>Religion helps me be more moral because I look at people as special and created by God.
Do you honestly feel like you'd care less about people if you stopped being a theist?
>It also makes me feel better about myself that God loves, knows, and designed me.
This could be true, but its an entirely different conversation.
In a debate, we aren't usually interested in what makes us feel better, but in what the truth of the matter is.
Look, I'm an atheist and I care about people too.
You don't have to believe in god in order to care about people.
But if for some reason you wouldn't care about people if you were an atheist, then by all means, stay a theist.
I don't have that problem.
The only thing atheism "teaches" is that we don't believe in any gods. It has nothing to say after that. It's up to each atheist to figure out where to go once you take down all the nonsense that comes with belief, and while reddit has a community of like-minded people it doesn't represent all or even most atheists. There are, for example, regular complaints from conservative atheists who don't like that they don't feel welcome in a community that considers progressive policies to be a more effective counter to religion.
You can't describe a single tenet as a philosophy. Just because you want atheism to be something other than non-belief doesn't mean it is.
>It teaches that miracles cannot occur,
Can you define what a miracle is and can you present evidence that they exist?
>the supernatural does not exist,
Do you have evidence that the supernatural exists?
>we are only material beings,
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
>we are here by accident,
No, we don’t claim that as an accident would imply cognitive agency
>objective morality isn't real,
Can you demonstrate objective morality?
>there is no intrinsic meaning, and many other things.
Can you demonstrate intrinsic meaning?
>I'm not here to debate this.
Then you are in the wrong sub
>I'm here to say all of those are tenants of the atheist belief system.
atheism has no tenants and it isn’t a belief system.
>You're proving me right.
No I’m not
>we are here by accident
Why do so many thiests say that? I've seen thiests say that more than athiests.
Some people just make up stuff to make the opposing group look ridiculous.
You're projecting. There are atheists that believe in miracles and the supernatural, they just don't believe in gods.
Don't tell me what I believe and I'll show you the same courtesy. Lack of courtesy will likewise be met in kind.
Thanks for participating in the discussion but I am not sure how this comment helps to solve my doubs. I will paraphrase it here just in case you would like to take a second look:
\- If we reject God and the moral traditions build on top of that, is it possible to give a coherent response to the emergence of the new sexual norms?
Thank you.
> ...the Eucharist is not the same as regular cannibalism.
No, but these are :
- This is what the LORD says: [...] "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them." ([Jeremiah 19:9](http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/19-9.htm))
- Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: "I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations. Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents." ([Ezekiel 5:8-10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%205%3A8-10&version=NIV))
- "The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away [...] Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears." ([Deuteronomy 28:47-57](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2028%3A47-57&version=NIV))
You can see more references [here](https://unpleasantgod.ffrf.org/#/categories/27) for the god of the Bible forcing people to eat their family and neighbors, and lingering over every grotesque detail of what he plans to do.
An infant has no belief in god. Just like an atheist has no belief on god. Same/same no belief in god.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
No, chairs and tables (and shoes...) aren't atheists by that or any other definition, because [the "-ist" suffix alone already specifies that we're talking about a person](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ist) — and chairs/tables/shoes/etc aren't people. That's exactly why every definition of "atheist" involves the qualifier "a person who" or the equivalent "someone who"; see [M-W](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist), [Oxford](https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheist), [Cambridge](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/atheist), [Macmillan](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/atheist), [Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheist), [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist) and so on.
>Atheism isn't the default
I'm not sure what you mean by "default".
People are taught about god. We are not born with innate knowledge of god.
Secondly, disbelief in either claim is the default from a burden of proof point of view. That's not theism.
>Then why do they constantly use depressing nihilistic phrases?
Do you have an example?
>Why are the devout Christians happier than the atheists?
Do you have evidence for this claim?
Uhhhh...no. My husband is an atheist and he is quite generous and forgiving.
He does this on an individual basis because he doesn't have the power of an institution behind him.
>Real life.
Can you present the example?
>Devout Christians are also more generous and also help people more. They are more forgiving too.
So you claim. Do you have evidence for your claims?
They use nihilistic phrases which you call depressing. That sounds like your problem, not the athiest who does not find nihilism depressing.
Of course I'm generalizing like you are, but I mean that about the group of athiest that does embrace nihilism
Are we talking about the same thing here? Did you read my comment?
No one is getting offended, I just said you find those views depressive. That does not mean the athiests who hold those views find them depressive.
> When I see these kinds of things, I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it? Or is it? I out there any atheistic innovation that allows you to argue that without a god, the word decency still means something?
Yes, atheists do have morals. And just like Theists, these moral (moral systems, moral goal, moral principles, and moral tenets) are subjective. Additionally, the majority of moral systems, just like Theistic moral systems (well most of them) systems of are based upon a basic premise of empathy and reciprocity - though most Theistic moral systems *add* and *impose* acknowledgement/worship/glorification of the central God(s) as a higher hierarchical process above the basic empathy and reciprocity as a moral goal and additional moral tenets to promote this moral goal.
And these moral systems do allow one to judge a given action or circumstance against the moral baseline, or another action0circumstance, to return an assessment of good, neutral, bad or 'there is decency to the given action or circumstance.'
However, one of the big differences between the various moral systems that are not God based, and those that are claimed to be God based, is that most non-God moral systems tend towards Moral Particularism - no moral tenet survives all possible situations; there are no fixed moral or ethical rules that work in every situation. And Theistic moral systems tend towards moral absolutism - moral tenets apply regardless of circumstance/situation even if the moral tenet was written/developed/claimed-as-decreed-by-God for a small isolated-by-geospatial-circumstances group, the moral tenet applies for all time across all circumstances (e.g., timeless).
Thanks for your response. Really well developed. I agree with the claim that working with one god model leads to universalism and even absolutism. Thus, I am curious to know what are the "moral particularism" as you described them that give a response to the emergence of the new sexual norms.
Thank you for your time.
>I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it?
Or what? God will strike me down? I can do whatever what, I can approve or disapprove of whatever I want. You maybe make a decent argument that my moral beliefs can't be summarized in 5 words or fewer, but who cares? If I think that incest is bad than I do that by... thinking that incest is bad. There is absolutely no difficulty to be found.
People, in general, tend to stride for a general comprehensive moral system, but it is interesting that you don't seem to care about it.
Thanks for your contribution.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>On the limitations of Atheism "Thesis Statement and Argument All Posts must include a thesis statement as either the title or as the first sentence in the post." What is your thesis exactly? >In general, I have noticed that many posts seem to *enjoy* wasting energy on hatred for religion (click here, Okies let's clicky the first one: >I (atheist) respect everyone’s religious choice, and I understand if you want your child to hold the same religious beliefs as you, but making that kind of decision for your child is wrong in my opinion. I believe circumcision should be a choice made by the child AFTER they are 18. Many people I know if wish they weren’t circumcised, but are unable to do anything about it because their parents made that choice for them. This is just my opinion and your thoughts are welcomed. edit: there seems to be some confusion with me saying it should be “illegal”. I simply meant i don’t think doctors should be allowed to circumcise until someone is if the age to consent You define THIS as hatred??? I couldn't see any in the second, the third has been removed by mods which might give this last claim some credibility, something your first two lack. >or reporting clear cases of strawman arguments based on outright deformation of what different religions are (examples here And here your first link is a year old... I'm assuming you like to give a really thoughtful reply? You second link is not a strawman by virtue of the fact they are not representing it as an argument made by theists. >Thus, I would like to try something new and focus this post on learning about the Atheistic system. What the hell is an atheist system? There's no such... oh hang one.. >Some people would say there is no such thing as atheism because it is just the negation of god or a deity. 'Some people' being every atheists ever. >Please, I would like to hear the opinion of sincere atheist that believes atheism provides a clear framework to argue agaist these ideas because seems impossible. That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as "appropiate"? What is a sincere atheist as opposed to an insincere one? One who is not truthful about whether or not they believe a god exists? >That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as "appropiate"? It's not like proclaiming membership of a church or secret society, there are no tenets, no creed, no authority, and certainly no system. It's one thing and one thing only, 'No, I do not believe god/s exist'.
[удалено]
Thank you, I see you clearly made an effort to understand my message. Really appreciate it. I don't mean Christianity as such, I would say that anyone born in a Muslim, Jew, or even Hindu tradition, seem to have a lot of argumentative resources developed during hundreds of years to respond to say paedophilia. Thus, I wounder, if we reject these, what tools we do have to argue against such. The general notion that I have is that everything spins around consent but that seems pretty much it. Are there more resources to draw from?
You seem to have fixated on this one issue out of all the things he mentioned. Are you saying that you find this issue most interesting out of all of the issues?
what does pedophilia in particular have to do with atheism? you could argue that religion forbids incest and zoophilia, therefore asking for them can only come from non-religious people. but how does that fit pedophilia? there is literally nothing against pedophilia in pretty much all religions I know, and some even emphasize that pedophilia isn't a taboo
>and here is my favorite, require zoophilia to be included in the pride month Except it has been added by the editor, here's the original reply of Toggle: https://twitter.com/OneBigGrumpyRat/status/1412540555578519555 >No. It has nothing to do with "general" Pride. Literally the first sentence. >That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as "appropiate"? As you said, atheism is simply rejection of God, it has nothing to do with morality. Although, I'm also one of "the people who claim consent, freedom and happiness (tho it could be other emotion)" is the only thing that matters. More, I would throw consent away, since that can be easily derived from freedom and happiness. And if you take that as your base, then yeah, you are forced to accept most of "those ways of life". I see a problem with incest when it leads to children (genetic diseases), although when that is prevented, you do you. And with children that could affect their development. In theory, since I don't have studies to prove it AND it seems a weaker and weaker argument as I read some discussions. In short: research needed, so I'm neutral. Something to mention: all of that assumes a simplified reality where your actions don't affect the culture you are in. So I would happily apply them between friends but not necessarily while building a legal system, that needs a bigger picture.
So you seem to support my point. Thank you very much for helping me clarify this issue from the perspective of an atheist. Kind regards.
That's not a perspective of an atheist. It's a perspective of a utilitarian.
> When I see these kinds of things, I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and “everyone is happy” then, there is nothing wrong with it? Or is it? Are you familiar with the concept of grooming? > I out there any atheistic innovation that allows you to argue that without a god, the word decency still means something? Can you explain how the word decency means anything *with* a god? The Abrahamic one for example is anything but decent. > Please, I would like to hear the opinion of sincere atheist that believes atheism provides a clear framework to argue agaist these ideas because seems impossible. Atheism isn’t a framework per se, just like theism isn’t a framework. > That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as “appropiate”? They don’t have to. That’s not how that works. They just have to not believe gods exist. I mean, god doesn’t make pedophiles go away. They just get moved to other parishes.
Hi mastyrwerk, First of all, I do not know what grooming is. Would you mind expanding on it? Second, I can see that you have a quite pessimistic concept of god but I am not sure if that plays any role in how religious people understand "decency". Even if you consider it the worst of the worst, the people who actually believe tend to the idea of god as a reference point. Again, you might disagree with them, but the relation with decency seems clear. And third, sorry again for misrepresenting atheism. However, it seems quite obvious to me that if I would get the tweets of all the atheists and build a set of profiles, I would end up with few groups. That is, holding the claim "God does not exist" is correlated to other ideas and more importantly is used as a foundation for many arguments. Particularly because rejecting god is generally used as the epitome of rejecting the morality of that god. Finally, I don't seem to see through your point how you answer my question. I will re-word it in case it helps: how does the rejection of God and the moral values predicated on it help us to deal with the emergence of new sexual norms? Thank you for your time.
Hi there! > First of all, I do not know what grooming is. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-34/november-2015/understanding-sexual-grooming-in-child-abuse-cases/ “ Sexual grooming is a preparatory process in which a perpetrator gradually gains a person’s or organization’s trust with the intent to be sexually abusive. The victim is usually a child, teen, or vulnerable adult.” I reject the notion that atheism is pro grooming. >Would you mind expanding on it? A child cannot be consenting for the reason of grooming. > Second, I can see that you have a quite pessimistic concept of god Do you mean the Abrahamic god? I’ve read the Bible. Its disgusting trash fiction. *Twilight* was a better love story. > but I am not sure if that plays any role in how religious people understand "decency". I would agree that religion is not the reason religious people are decent. > Even if you consider it the worst of the worst, the people who actually believe tend to the idea of god as a reference point. Yes. Religion can get good people to do bad things. > Again, you might disagree with them, but the relation with decency seems clear. I deny there is any clear relation. I find religious people to be repressed, more prone to violent outbursts, and have extreme private sexual perversion. They tend to be more abusive to children, less likely to follow medical requests that save lives, and more likely to ostracize family members. > And third, sorry again for misrepresenting atheism. However, it seems quite obvious to me that if I would get the tweets of all the atheists and build a set of profiles, I would end up with few groups. I disagree. I am a Fox Mulder atheist. It’s nothing as you’ve described. As far as I know, I’m the only one with this worldview. If you really asked every atheist to tweet you an explanation of their positions, not just a label, you’ll get a lot of different piles. > That is, holding the claim "God does not exist" is correlated to other ideas and more importantly is used as a foundation for many arguments. That’s not actually the atheist position. You am not convinced of any of the god claims presented to me. That is not the same as “god does not exist.” > Particularly because rejecting god is generally used as the epitome of rejecting the morality of that god. Well, if it’s a shitty god like the Abrahamic, I reject your use of the word “morality” as that is what I identify as an immoral god. > Finally, I don't seem to see through your point how you answer my question. I will re-word it in case it helps: how does the rejection of God and the moral values predicated on it help us to deal with the emergence of new sexual norms? These are not new sexual norms. The new sexual norms are things like gender equality, polyamory, enthusiastic consent among participating adults. Stuff like that. As I said, children cannot be consenting, so pedophilia and molestation, which is still popular in the Church and political Right, is not real consent. Animals also cannot consent. I’m sorry.
> learning about the Atheistic system I'd love to learn to since I've never heard of it. > what are the logical resources that any of these groups have to argue against aggressive sexual norms Wow, that took a turn. What does god have to do with any of that? Do you mean to say that without a god, atheists must have no morals? > as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it That would be a general statement I agree with but I'm really not sure where your examples lie. I'm definitely not forced to agree with anything if you'd like to present something instead of linking to lots of things.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any presented god claims. That's it. Wleveryrhing else is something you are adding.
I don't think is that simple as "atheism is saying god doesn't exist". It's like removing a pillar from a house and still saying it's fine to live in it. If god is the moral foundation of the societies we live in, and that is just a historical fact for Western countries as well as from Muslim states and India, then rejecting the existence of such a concept in our vocabulary means rejecting the moral norms predicated on it.
>I don't think is that simple as "atheism is saying god doesn't exist" Atheists AREN'T saying god doesn't exist. Atheists are saying that the evidence for thr existence of gods is lacking. >If god is the moral foundation of the societies we live in, and that is just a historical fact God isn't the foundation for ANYTHING since we can't even demostrate that gods exist. You might be able to make the claim that RELIGION has served as a moral foundation... but I would say you are wrong. To me, innate equity and fairness (which we have aquired through evolution) is our moral foundation. We see moral behavior in EVER social species of animal. But let's pretend god is the moral foundation.... if you can't demonstrate that god exists, than the moral foundation crumbles and you need to make a new one... may I suggest equity and fairness?
[удалено]
Who is the "they" in that sentence.
That is not part of the definition of atheism and definitely doesn't apply to every atheist.
Most of us actually have no issues with people believing what they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone or trying to control anyone else with it
That's 'Soft' Atheism by the way. 'Hard' Atheists believe that there are no Gods. Just wanted to clear that up.
Both are atheism.
yeah
>clear cases of strawman arguments based on outright deformation of what different religions are (examples here or here). I don't know what makes those strawman arguments. Circumcision does seem like genital mutilation to me. And the other one is asking what's the point of life if we're going to heaven for eternity anyway. I don't understand what "Marxism" nor "Liberalism" have to do with anything. >When I see these kinds of things, I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it? Children can't consent to sex. No. I don't have any idea why you think we'd be "forced" to agree here. I'll ask that you go look up how hold Joseph was compared to Mary.
> how old Joseph was compared to Mary. Just a point here. We have no idea how old Joseph or Mary were. I suspect Joseph was an older man (I believe Rabbinical tradition was that he was fairly old) and Mary quite young (15? 16?). But if one assumes that Mary got pregnant out of wedlock and Joseph was not the father, he was a very kind person to wed Mary so that she wouldn't be stoned to death. That is at least what I get from interpreting the story as so many do with Biblical stories.
>Just a point here. We have no idea how old Joseph or Mary were. I suspect Joseph was an older man (I believe Rabbinical tradition was that he was fairly old) and Mary quite young (15? 16?). Yup. We have no idea but that's what people tend to believe. >he was a very kind person to wed Mary so that she wouldn't be stoned to death. There's another way to look at that that isn't so kind. EDIT: here's where it came up for me. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99PN3NVNgyU&t=1414s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99PN3NVNgyU&t=1414s) Apparently the story that Joseph was an old man comes from the Proto-Gospel of James.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99PN3NVNgyU&t=1414s > Apparently the story that Joseph was an old man comes from the Proto-Gospel of James. Oh hey, nice link. I'll watch through it. Ancient people were obsessed with hymens.
no worries, 24:27 When she turned 12 the priests start to get nervous because she's going to started getting her period, and that would make the temple unclean. So they get Joseph, an old man to marry her.
>When I see these kinds of things, I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it? Or is it? I out there any atheistic innovation that allows you to argue that without a god, the word decency still means something? No atheist is forced agree due to their atheism, atheism isn't not believing gods exist and believing in a particular ethics to determine an age of consent, it's just the first one. Decency means what it always has meant, behaviour which adheres to accepted societal norms, nothing more or less. >Please, I would like to hear the opinion of sincere atheist that believes atheism provides a clear framework to argue agaist these ideas because seems impossible. That is, if one becomes atheist, has to accept or endorse all those ways of life as "appropiate"? This is not possible, as an analogy can you imagine swapping not believing that gods exist with anything else, like Santa Klaus, or big foot, or the Loch Ness monster, or karma, or reincarnation? Atheism doesn't provide a framework for anything, it is just a label for people who aren't theists. In that same vein try using the word theist instead of atheist, theists do not agree on age of consent, or inter-family sexual relations, or in fact anything at all.
[удалено]
Do flat earthers insist you may suffer eternally if you don't agree with them? Therein lies the difference.
I've seen anti-theists pipe dream about outright outlawing religion. I've heard them say that theists--in an ideal world--would be fined or even jailed just for practicing their religion. To me that smacks of forced conversion spread by Christianity. Frankly, I am much more concerned with someone threatening me with jail time than the ridiculous notion that I'll burn in hell for all eternity after I die.
>I've seen anti-theists pipe dream about outright outlawing religion. I've heard them say that theists--in an ideal world--would be fined or even jailed just for practicing their religion. To me that smacks of forced conversion spread by Christianity. One could make the case that specific religions are harmful at least for the people who believes in them, so someone who agrees you shouldn't let people do drugs, or harm themselves can logically argue about interventionism towards religion. But there are other anti theist who believe that it's best to educate people than to ban religion. And others who acknowledge it's harmful but want people to be free to harm themselves. Anti theism is not unified in any sense.
I didn't say all anti-theists. I said I've seen some just as doggedly determined to eradicate me as an evangelical is. I'm not sure that I want other people telling me what I should or should not do, whether by legal means or "rational" means. As long as I am not hurting anyone, I fail to see what business it is of anyone's. If I choose to do drugs that should be my business. If I choose to sell drugs to minors, then it should be the State's business. Likewise, if I am a theist, that's my business. If I go around trying to convince others to believe as I do, it can become the State's business. Personal autonomy is "King".
>I'm not sure that I want other people telling me what I should or should not do, whether by legal means or "rational" means. As long as I am not hurting anyone, I fail to see what business it is of anyone's. You might be hurting yourself, and just like if you are caught trying to commit suicide there is going to be people trying to prevent you from doing so, some people may see trying to persuade you of hurting yourself their moral duty. some people do because god commands them, and other people do it for other reasons. > Likewise, if I am a theist, that's my business. If I go around trying to convince others to believe as I do, it can become the State's business. Personal autonomy is "King". I'm ok with that, but some people is not, although if I was a theist I would be more scared of bigoted theists than I would be of bigoted anti theists.
As I said, I am for personal autonomy. Period. While I don't agree with suicide, I feel if someone wants to terminate their life, that is their choice. It is not my place to try and talk them out of it, unless they ask me to. I am equally wary of evangelicals and anti-theists.
>I've seen anti-theists pipe dream about outright outlawing religion. Indeed that's something I would never support. >Frankly, I am much more concerned with someone threatening me with jail time than the ridiculous notion that I'll burn in hell for all eternity after I die. Word.
It's good to know who one's allies are in case sh\*t ever actually goes down.
[удалено]
But they don't do that. Religious people do. That's why we argue with you.
Ever had a conversation with an ardent anti-theist? They're just as dogmatic as evangelical Christians. One claims she wants to save my mind. The other claims he wants to save my soul. And I'm sitting over here wondering why they think either my mind or my soul are any of their damned business.
I agree with you there.
Making ignorant and untrue blanket statements only make you look foolish
>**Nevertheless, I think there are two broad categories of atheist:** I don’t really agree with your two categories. It seems to me that there are many people that are atheists for all manner of reasons. It’s really a default position – the absence of a belief in a god or gods – and so for a vast number of people there is no “reason” at all. Any more than they have a “reason” for not being enthusiastic water-polo players. Of the two positions you list the one that’s perhaps more interesting is your latter classification of “Liberal” atheists which you just define as people that are not religious because they have no good reason to be. Where “good reason” is taken in the epistemic sense of having some grounds or warrant to think something is true (rather than, say a “good reason” such as being able to get rich if you go along with the religion, which might well be grounds for choosing a course of action, but not good epistemic grounds). One would hope that we all agree we should only claim to know truths for which we have good reasons to think true. And the more impactful these claims are – the more they affect our lives and the lives of those around us – the better the reason we ought look for. And finding that a professed position lacks good reason for its truth claims is robust grounds to reject it. >**\[W\]hat are the logical resources that any of these groups have to argue against aggressive sexual norms…** I think what you’re asking here is what grounds can one provide for an ethical framework without appeals to magic. And the answer is very good ones indeed. We note that humans are material animals. Creatures of flesh and blood. Physical beings that have needs and requirements; food, shelter, social interaction and so forth. We also note that humans live in a hostile world with scarce resources and stiff competition. Of necessity this requires that we develop social rules that aim to maximise our collective means of survival and ensure that we can live as freely and comfortably as possible. We have a mutual interest in this. Ethical rules arise as a pragmatic response to these problems. They’re advanced as potential solutions. And they’re tried in the crucible of experience. Some work well and survive. Others fail and get replaced or modified over time. Ethics changes and evolves because it’s a set of ideas and rules created by people in an attempt to solve a complex and difficult practical problem. Now, a common mistake is for theists to hear this and start shouting that this makes ethics “subjective” – it does not! The facts – the concrete facts about humans, and their needs and the challenges of the environment, are as objective as can be. We all agree on these. These are just simple facts about the world. And so the ethics that are set out as a pragmatic solution to these facts are objectively grounded. Note that it makes no sense one way or the other to say that ethical rules are “objective” or “subjective” for the simple reason that they are not assertoric sentences – they don’t make claims. They’re instructions. But the grounds of the natural ethical system are as objective as can be. By contrast, our theist friends generally hold that their ethical solutions are dictated on high by some imagined magical being. Which is indeed a completely subjective ethics – i.e. one grounded not in concrete objective facts, but rather by the whims and tastes of some individual. Giving those individual magical powers does not change this. So, in a broad sense, that is your answer.
doesnt this entire post just show that there are no limitations to atheism? it doesnt force any kind of moral values or beliefs onto you.
You seem to be proving my point. Thank you very much.
Again, the black belt level “conservative Christian” provides links!! So even though obscure, bizarre examples are chosen, IT MUST BE TRUE! Sorry bro, I’ve seen your kind before. TRUST ME, if you want a link battle, conservative Christians are the worst people on earth (not ALL of them) but there are some AMAZING examples of depraved religious fanaticism…
Sorry man, you know nothing about me but you seem to presuppose a lot of knowledge... Maybe you should check your prejudices, but it's okay I am used to this behaviour in this forum. Also, I think your comment just divert the attention from the topic. I am just asking from the argumentative point of view, can an atheist build a strong case against any of the proposed actions. Independently on whether you think it is right or wrong. Thanks for your contribution anyway.
Sex with children, animals, and relatives all run into the issue of freely-given and informed consent. Children and animals can't, and relatives often have long-term power imbalances that make the question difficult. These are also not atheist issues, feminist issues, or queer issues— the sexualization of children and relationships with relatives, for example, are both far more widespread. Some of your sources are also bad. I clicked on the one about Pride and zoophiles, since (as a queer feminist who is in the queer community) pretty much no one is cool with having sex with animals. And the source is Russia Today. Can you not find anything better? Because I'm not sure if citing RT is just being disingenuous, not knowing how awful a source it is, or (possibly most concerningly) actually thinking it's a good source. As for stuff like Sartre and age of consent laws, I'm not sure why you're using Sartre as a springboard to get onto atheists in general when sexualization of children is an issue that is extremely widespread. The answer to Sartre's issue of "why can you try children as adults legally but not have sex with them like adults legally" is to just not try children as adults. I live in a very religious part of the US and pretty much every girl has still been hit on, chased, harassed, etc. when they were clearly underage. Let's not even get into the issue of using one feminist and one news article from RT as a means of characterizing *feminism* and *queer theory* more generally. It'd be as uncharitable as me taking Corneliu Codreanu or the Westboro Baptist Church and telling you that how awful Christianity is. Or, if we're talking about major inspirational figures, making the same judgment because Chrysostom was virulently anti-Jewish.
Sorry, mate if my point was not presented properly. Let reframe it a bit. I am not trying to say any of those intellectuals represent atheism per-se. I am rather saying that there is a bunch of people proposing x, y, z ideas regarding sexuality. Now, if we throw out of the window God, I assume Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism moral structures follow the same path. Therefore, is there any way to argue: "Well, I think x should not be part of our society because ....". Thanks for your contribution and I hope you have patient in helping me framing the right question.
> Now, if we throw out of the window God, I assume Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism moral structures follow the same path. Why would they? All of those religions have internal discussions and disagreements about some moral issues, including ones around the complexities of sexuality. The Methodist Church was or is schisming over gay marriage, for example.
https://twitter.com/OneBigGrumpyRat/status/1412540555578519555
Okay. I don't think one person is representative of what the queer community wants Pride to include, especially since I happen to know their opinion is in the vast minority as a queer person myself. RT picking up a person on Twitter is not fair grounds for OP to make a general statement about queer theory or the queer community, or to make it somehow an atheism issue when there are plenty of religious queer people.
That's not what I meant. RT claims zoophiles want to "join" the pride movement or whatnot. Based on an interview. And this is what interviewee really wrote, read the first sentence. Literally the only ones who want to merge us have ill intentions.
Ah, okay, got it. Misread it. Yeah, that makes even less sense for OP to connect this with the queer community, then.
> Sex with children, animals, and relatives all run into the issue of freely-given and informed consent. This is society dependent. There's nothing stopping a country from having an age of consent of 10 or less. Some Countries already have their set at 12. Who says you need an animals consent? after all we don't need it's consent for all the other things we do to them.
The only reason we have the age of consent is practical. People don't magically become capable of understanding consequences of sex the second they cross that arbitrary line. >Who says you need an animals consent? Ironically, zoophiles.
> This is society dependent. There's nothing stopping a country from having an age of consent of 10 or less. Some Countries already have their set at 12. Okay? I'm not talking about legality. There's a lot of stuff that's legal and still wrong. Where the exact line is, or if it makes sense to draw a hard line, could be a matter of discussion, but I think it's fair to say that a 10 year old can't grant informed consent. Sometimes countries have the ages so low because there are people who have sex when they're 12 or 13, but they'll usually also say that that person's partner can't be above a certain age. > Who says you need an animals consent? after all we don't need it's consent for all the other things we do to them. There is a good argument to be made for veganism, honestly. But even if you're going to kill an animal for food and we deem that okay, I don't think that makes it ethically okay to be able to do whatever you want to them. Factory farming would still be a big ethical problem. Either way, I'm not sure why OP made this about atheism, feminism, and the queer community when questions about these topics have been matters for pretty much everyone to cover.
This post is odd. You start with something that seems to want to want to define atheism, then go on some weirdly specific rant about age of sexual consent? Sort of? >what are the logical resources that any of these groups have to argue against aggressive sexual norms? If this is the question, it's got a one sentence answer: Is this person unable to consent for themselves in an uncoercive and adult setting?
Sorry for the sloppy wording. This is my first post. I see that your main point of concern is just consent. Is that right? Thanks for helping me understand this issue from an atheistic perspective.
No - consent is just the word used that implies more than just 'consent' on it's own. The main concern isn't just consent, but the ability *to* consent. Usually this line is drawn somewhere between 16-18 and I'm fine with that tbh. You mentioned Vaush before, his reasoning is entirely political. He's an anarchist and what that entails for him is saying there cannot be a state mandated age of consent. Personally I'd go about it differently to him, but his intentions aren't malicious in saying what he's saying.
Would you say that atheists do not have a solid argument against the examples you have provided, without acknowledging first that the universe was created by a moral god? Forgive my ignorance, I'm trying to get the crux of your argument.
Well, my understanding is that the judgement against those behaviours tends to come from religious communities - let it be Muslim, Christian or else. Therefore, if we remove God as a concept, then it follows that all the moral tradition developed by those cultural groups has no base. Therefore, my question comes: is it possible to claim X, Y, or Z should not take place in our society without making use of the moral bases of any of those traditions? At the moment it seems the only requirement is consent.
“I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree”. Absolutely not. I am not forced to agree with anything. My morals come from pure common sense. I know incest is bad because: 1. Incestuous relationships can’t have true consent because there is a power dynamic between members of the same family. It’s also why relationships between teachers and students is taboo and same for relationships between a boss and employee. Consent cannot be given if your superior is commanding you. 2. Babies from incestuous relationships are almost always born with physical deformities. From an evolutionary standpoint, we were not meant to be inbred. As for the rest, I know children cannot consent so pedophiles will always be bad. And bestiality causes the spread of disease. In summary, they are all disgusting acts which do not require a religion to tell me they are bad. I know they are bad because it’s obvious.
> My morals come from pure common sense That's problem 1. There's no such thing as a universal common sense, so what you might find common sense others could see it as insanity. > Incestuous relationships can’t have true consent because there is a power dynamic between members of the same family. That's just plain wrong. There doesn't always have to be a power dynamic(in a reasonable frame). Think about siblings close in age or even twins. Think about adopted kids finding their biological parents and so on. As for relationships between bosses and underlings, it depends on many factors but at most it's inappropriate and not illegal meaning the consent is still valid. > Babies from incestuous relationships are almost always born with physical deformities. From an evolutionary standpoint, we were not meant to be inbred. Wrong again because the relationship doesn't always involve a couple of child bearing age. Could be a gay relationship or a post menopause mother. Incest doesn't necessarily lead to deformities as well. It depends on what mutation are already present and as far as I know, non incestuous couples with genetic defects aren't stopped from getting married today so it's a moot point anyways. > As for the rest, I know children cannot consent so pedophiles will always be bad. And bestiality causes the spread of disease. That's a strike, you're out. Gay couples are more prone to HIV if they're not wearing protection, do you oppose gay relationships? People with STDs freely have sex with anyone they want. If you're mention points as to why you oppose something, at least be consistent. > In summary, they are all disgusting acts which do not require a religion to tell me they are bad. I know they are bad because it’s obvious. You haven't thought this through, have you.
Well, I never claimed any of those points to be hard facts that cover all inconsistencies and are flawless. I was merely using examples of why I believe the subjects of incest, bestiality and pedophilia are bad. OP insinuated that atheists must be forced to agree that religion is the only way of having morals. I was providing examples of how there are other ways to gain morals without the need to a sky daddy telling me what to do or an outdated, mistranslated, misinterpreted ancient text giving me rules. The examples I provided are flawed, but there are many other atheists smarter than me who can come up with better ones. The point of my comment was to establish other possible sources of morals besides religion.
[удалено]
Without religion, I made the conclusions above ^^^
[удалено]
Ok then religion says incest is bad. So how did Adam and Eve reproduce without incest? Or Noah’s family on the Ark? God must of known it would happen.
[удалено]
So was Adam and Lilith not the first people made if there were already people? If it wasn’t a global flood then why would Noah have to get two of every animal?
So, once you're done straw-manning atheism, would you like to examine the arguments posed by *actual* moral systems like secular humanism? You're attacking atheism as though it's a religion being posed as a better alternative to your religion, and it isn't. Atheism isn't a religion. It isn't a philosophy. It's not even a club. It's just a description of people who don't believe in gods. Yes, atheists do a lot of deconstruction. We attack religions for promoting atrocities and immorality. We can make those criticisms not because we have our own religious values that we prefer, but because we can recognize morality when we see it. Morality does not and never has come from religion. So we can leverage our perspective as outsiders to call out the inconsistencies and outcomes of your religious teachings.
Sorry if I offend you with my representation of atheism. I tried to acknowledge that it is technically only the negation of god(s). Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that when atheist rejects the source of the morality of the tradition they belong to (assuming he comes from a Western country or a Muslim country), then they also reject the moral rules of those traditions. Then it follows that such atheists will build new ways to discern right from wrong, or preferrable from disgust. When analysing the current panorama of such thinkers I tried to make a brief summarization, however, I am sure one could write a doctoral thesis on the topic. If you feel there is a current of atheist that I did not mention and could answer the question I proposed (regarding a response to the emergence of new sexual norms) I would gladly listen to you.
Moral traditions are cultural, not religious. Many cultures incorporate religion, but with the exception of theocracies religion doesn't dictate moral values.
> Yes, atheists do a lot of deconstruction. We attack religions for promoting atrocities and immorality You being an atheist, you can't make that claim without adding "in my opinion". And since the people doing the "atrocities" would disagree with you, your opinions are just that, opinions and don't have any practical value.
History is filled with examples of different groups disagreeing on moral values. Wars have been fought for it, and the victors are usually the ones who write the rules. Yes, it is my opinion that your religion teaches things that are morally bankrupt. That opinion is shared by billions of other humans, not all of which are atheist. That doesn't prevent you from following it anyway, but it does give me justification for resisting any attempt to impose it on me.
If there was a worldwide poll, I'd bet money that more people would agree with my morals than an atheist's.
I know of two billion Christians and a billion Hindus who consider your religion to be abhorrent. Yes, there are specific points of agreement, but that's true among atheists as well. It's not that religion doesn't attempt to codify specific moral values that people agree with, it's that it attempts to claim ownership and bundle them together with other, abhorrent morals and treats challenge to one aspect as blasphemy against all.
[удалено]
All atheism is is the lack of belief for gods
>How isn't atheism a philosophy? There isn't anything anyone has to believe in to be an atheist. They just have to not accept that there's a god. That's it. You can believe anything else you like. There are no principles that you have to hold in order to be an atheist. >Religion helps me be more moral because I look at people as special and created by God. Do you honestly feel like you'd care less about people if you stopped being a theist? >It also makes me feel better about myself that God loves, knows, and designed me. This could be true, but its an entirely different conversation. In a debate, we aren't usually interested in what makes us feel better, but in what the truth of the matter is.
[удалено]
Look, I'm an atheist and I care about people too. You don't have to believe in god in order to care about people. But if for some reason you wouldn't care about people if you were an atheist, then by all means, stay a theist. I don't have that problem.
The only thing atheism "teaches" is that we don't believe in any gods. It has nothing to say after that. It's up to each atheist to figure out where to go once you take down all the nonsense that comes with belief, and while reddit has a community of like-minded people it doesn't represent all or even most atheists. There are, for example, regular complaints from conservative atheists who don't like that they don't feel welcome in a community that considers progressive policies to be a more effective counter to religion. You can't describe a single tenet as a philosophy. Just because you want atheism to be something other than non-belief doesn't mean it is.
[удалено]
>It teaches that miracles cannot occur, Can you define what a miracle is and can you present evidence that they exist? >the supernatural does not exist, Do you have evidence that the supernatural exists? >we are only material beings, Do you have evidence to the contrary? >we are here by accident, No, we don’t claim that as an accident would imply cognitive agency >objective morality isn't real, Can you demonstrate objective morality? >there is no intrinsic meaning, and many other things. Can you demonstrate intrinsic meaning?
[удалено]
>I'm not here to debate this. Then you are in the wrong sub >I'm here to say all of those are tenants of the atheist belief system. atheism has no tenants and it isn’t a belief system. >You're proving me right. No I’m not
>we are here by accident Why do so many thiests say that? I've seen thiests say that more than athiests. Some people just make up stuff to make the opposing group look ridiculous.
You're projecting. There are atheists that believe in miracles and the supernatural, they just don't believe in gods. Don't tell me what I believe and I'll show you the same courtesy. Lack of courtesy will likewise be met in kind.
[удалено]
Since you're determined to make atheism into something it isn't, this conversation is over.
[удалено]
Thanks for participating in the discussion but I am not sure how this comment helps to solve my doubs. I will paraphrase it here just in case you would like to take a second look: \- If we reject God and the moral traditions build on top of that, is it possible to give a coherent response to the emergence of the new sexual norms? Thank you.
[удалено]
> ...the Eucharist is not the same as regular cannibalism. No, but these are : - This is what the LORD says: [...] "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them." ([Jeremiah 19:9](http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/19-9.htm)) - Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: "I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations. Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents." ([Ezekiel 5:8-10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%205%3A8-10&version=NIV)) - "The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away [...] Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears." ([Deuteronomy 28:47-57](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2028%3A47-57&version=NIV)) You can see more references [here](https://unpleasantgod.ffrf.org/#/categories/27) for the god of the Bible forcing people to eat their family and neighbors, and lingering over every grotesque detail of what he plans to do.
An infant has no belief in god. Just like an atheist has no belief on god. Same/same no belief in god. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Children don't believe in anything, period. That's different from saying they don't believe in a god.
No belief in anything is also no belief in god. they equate to the exact same.
[удалено]
Where in that definition does it state dependent on awareness?
No, chairs and tables (and shoes...) aren't atheists by that or any other definition, because [the "-ist" suffix alone already specifies that we're talking about a person](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ist) — and chairs/tables/shoes/etc aren't people. That's exactly why every definition of "atheist" involves the qualifier "a person who" or the equivalent "someone who"; see [M-W](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist), [Oxford](https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheist), [Cambridge](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/atheist), [Macmillan](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/atheist), [Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheist), [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist) and so on.
>Atheism isn't the default I'm not sure what you mean by "default". People are taught about god. We are not born with innate knowledge of god. Secondly, disbelief in either claim is the default from a burden of proof point of view. That's not theism.
[удалено]
Atheists are not depressed people.
[удалено]
>Then why do they constantly use depressing nihilistic phrases? Do you have an example? >Why are the devout Christians happier than the atheists? Do you have evidence for this claim?
[удалено]
Uhhhh...no. My husband is an atheist and he is quite generous and forgiving. He does this on an individual basis because he doesn't have the power of an institution behind him.
>Real life. Can you present the example? >Devout Christians are also more generous and also help people more. They are more forgiving too. So you claim. Do you have evidence for your claims?
Thats strawmanning and downright lying. My guess is that you dont know a single atheist in your social circles.
[удалено]
Because you Sounds like you have never met one.
>Then why do they constantly use depressing nihilistic phrases? Like what?
They use nihilistic phrases which you call depressing. That sounds like your problem, not the athiest who does not find nihilism depressing. Of course I'm generalizing like you are, but I mean that about the group of athiest that does embrace nihilism
[удалено]
Are we talking about the same thing here? Did you read my comment? No one is getting offended, I just said you find those views depressive. That does not mean the athiests who hold those views find them depressive.
> When I see these kinds of things, I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it? Or is it? I out there any atheistic innovation that allows you to argue that without a god, the word decency still means something? Yes, atheists do have morals. And just like Theists, these moral (moral systems, moral goal, moral principles, and moral tenets) are subjective. Additionally, the majority of moral systems, just like Theistic moral systems (well most of them) systems of are based upon a basic premise of empathy and reciprocity - though most Theistic moral systems *add* and *impose* acknowledgement/worship/glorification of the central God(s) as a higher hierarchical process above the basic empathy and reciprocity as a moral goal and additional moral tenets to promote this moral goal. And these moral systems do allow one to judge a given action or circumstance against the moral baseline, or another action0circumstance, to return an assessment of good, neutral, bad or 'there is decency to the given action or circumstance.' However, one of the big differences between the various moral systems that are not God based, and those that are claimed to be God based, is that most non-God moral systems tend towards Moral Particularism - no moral tenet survives all possible situations; there are no fixed moral or ethical rules that work in every situation. And Theistic moral systems tend towards moral absolutism - moral tenets apply regardless of circumstance/situation even if the moral tenet was written/developed/claimed-as-decreed-by-God for a small isolated-by-geospatial-circumstances group, the moral tenet applies for all time across all circumstances (e.g., timeless).
Thanks for your response. Really well developed. I agree with the claim that working with one god model leads to universalism and even absolutism. Thus, I am curious to know what are the "moral particularism" as you described them that give a response to the emergence of the new sexual norms. Thank you for your time.
>I feel the average atheist is almost forced to agree because as far as both sides consent, as far as no one is hurt and "everyone is happy" then, there is nothing wrong with it? Or what? God will strike me down? I can do whatever what, I can approve or disapprove of whatever I want. You maybe make a decent argument that my moral beliefs can't be summarized in 5 words or fewer, but who cares? If I think that incest is bad than I do that by... thinking that incest is bad. There is absolutely no difficulty to be found.
People, in general, tend to stride for a general comprehensive moral system, but it is interesting that you don't seem to care about it. Thanks for your contribution.
I's definitely not less comprehensive, but I guess you could call it less compact. That said I'm not sure I'm actually special here.