Samples of Dcoumented Atheist and Agnostic Morality

[superlucky20]

basahin mo tong pdf book...a good read about the delusional god -> http://www.freedrive.com/file/251407

Salamat pre pero meron na ako nyan.

[pinoybettylafea]

Salamat pre pero meron na ako nyan.

meron ka ibang pdf dyan na magaganda regarding aethism, theism, or anything basta related sa moralities and deities?...pakishare naman po!

[superlucky20]

meron ka ibang pdf dyan na magaganda regarding aethism, theism, or anything basta related sa moralities and deities?...pakishare naman po!

Hanap ka na lang ng torrent kay Sam Harris at Daniel Dennett, ok yun. Kung hilig mo naman ay tungkol sa historical Jesus hanapin mo si Bart Ehrman.

[pinoybettylafea]

thank you so much bro...God Bless you LOL!

[stifbend]

Donatien Alphonse-Francois De Sade (1740-1814)

De Sade was a French aristocrat and philosopher, as well as a writer of extreme pornography (the term 'sadism' derives from his name). In De Sade's view, atheism legitimised sexual experimentation, since without a God there was no justification for setting any limits on human action. De Sade was in this sense an example of Enlightenment philosophy taken to its extreme, advocating total freedom and recognising pleasure alone as the goal of life.

http://www.investigatingatheism.info...ighteenth.html

The pleasure bit sounds reasonable. But it's another question as whether the ends justify the means, as the excerpt seems to imply.

I find it odd that the reader is eased into the author's claim of impartiality when the article is rife with flags of bias. The same paragraph which makes the claim gives away the author's position:

Do damnable, evil ideas have damnable and evil consequences? If so, then a unbiased view of 20th century history would have to link Nietzsche’s “Will to Power” directly to World War I, but more directly to Hitler’s Third Reich, World War II and the Holocaust.

Look no further than the last paragraph to see why the author thinks his ideas are "evil":

...but because his ideas are rooted in atheism, humanism, Social Darwinism, eugenics and nihilism, the latter of which is an extreme view that there is no need for values and no justification for good, evil or morality, in the end he can only offer society perpetual war, genocide, utter despair and no future hope of eternal life with God, because Nietzsche declared, “God is dead.”

I am no expert on Nietzsche or whatever ideology he espouses, so I cannot have a strong opinion on his writings (I haven't even read on the guy, But he rocks an awesome 'stache). But, I hardly consider that a thought movement rooted in humanism (really? humanism?), nihilism and all the other isms mentioned can be considered evil (unless you are a cognitivist, then I'm not going to bother). If they inspired malice, then they inspired malice. That does not make them evil. Just as people who claim to do things under a god's name can do evil, but the god is spared from this judgment.

And about the video. Err no clue. So no comment.

As to the other posts, ElCid is right to say that atheism does not give you a warrant on moral claims. Nothing about "there is no god" can give you that. Any person who does make the claim must prove it, and if proven wrong must be adopting a view that atheism cannot give. The question now is, why is ElCid not attacking these views that allows a person to make moral claims? I think the answer lies on the articles he has provided: his central thesis is that of the author on Nietzsche who claims that "if there is no god, there can be no morality".

So it seems now that ElCid is conflating two important but not entirely exclusive views: a) a lack of belief in a god and b) without a god, there is no standard for morality, from which follows c) that w/o a belief in a god there is no moral code and to which he adds, d) that because atheism cannot give you morals then it has no use. C of course, is false; you can still have morality, but never drawn from atheism. And since d is a conclusion drawn upon equivocation, it is false as well.

But something is very curious though. ElCid admits that no morality can be drawn upon atheism but puts forward, I suspect, the idea of "atheistic morality":

...At huag kang b0b0. Atheistic ang pilosopiya ng ateo na si Nietszche na ginamit ng mga Nazi that is undeniable - hindi ko sinasabi na ang mga Nazi eh Atheist din tulad ni Nietszche. Partido ang Nazism at hindi relihiyon at ang pinag-uusipan dito MORALIDAD hindi ang paniniwala sa DIOS kaya huag kang b0b0.

Tignan mo nga naman. May naisingit pang pabobo-bobo. Eh, bahala siya, ahaha. Anyway, if he admits that no moral claims can be drawn from atheism (or philosophy in which case, mutatis mutandis), then what allows him to make claims that there is morality embodied by atheism? If he accepts that only "there is no god" is atheism's message, then what is the force of his charge against it?

[kuroihikari]

So it seems now that ElCid is conflating two important but not entirely exclusive views: a) a lack of belief in a god and b) without a god, there is no standard for morality, from which follows c) that w/o a belief in a god there is no moral code and to which he adds, d) that because atheism cannot give you morals then it has no use. C of course, is false; you can still have morality, but never drawn from atheism. And since d is a conclusion drawn upon equivocation, it is false as well.

I have to emphasize this awesome paragraph, especially the bolded part. The bone of contention here is whether it is possible to have morality that is not based on the belief of a God. Atheists claim yes, it is possible. Theists claim the contrary.

For me, the facts speak for themselves, quite a few civilizations have formed philosophies with moral codes largely irrelevant of belief in the supernatural or a creator. And since one example suffices to prove existence, then yes, I also agree that it's possible.

So, onto the topic of the thread. Yes, atheists can contrive moral codes that defy human principles of compassion and justice, but since being atheist is exclusive of what moral code one believes in, then thrusting Nietzsche's and De Sade's philosophies onto the average atheist is quite erroneous.

[ElCid]

As to the other posts, ElCid is right to say that atheism does not give you a warrant on moral claims. Nothing about "there is no god" can give you that. Any person who does make the claim must prove it, and if proven wrong must be adopting a view that atheism cannot give.

Thank you.

The question now is, why is ElCid not attacking these views that allows a person to make moral claims? I think the answer lies on the articles he has provided: his central thesis is that of the author on Nietzsche who claims that "if there is no god, there can be no morality".

Not really. If you want my position then allow me to qualify: "if there is no god, there can be no ABSOLUTE morality". It's obvious that anyone can make his own morality even the ungodly. But do you see the KIND of morality they have contrived sans the Christian faith in particular? Revolting di ba? Even atheists themselves refuse to associate with such kinds of morality but there was a time that there were tens of millions who did subscribe to such.

So it seems now that ElCid is conflating two important but not entirely exclusive views: a) a lack of belief in a god and b) without a god, there is no standard for morality, from which follows c) that w/o a belief in a god there is no moral code and to which he adds, d) that because atheism cannot give you morals then it has no use. C of course, is false; you can still have morality, but never drawn from atheism. And since d is a conclusion drawn upon equivocation, it is false as well.

Actually you are making the wrong conclusion on what has been provided so far. It is obvious that one can have one's own morality sans religion and even without belief in God. Since atheism is BANKRUPT on moral teachings - the atheist therefore is constrained to invent his own however without relying on theistic sources which makes the morality derived as 'atheistic' morality. Prime examples are De Sade and Nietzsche who invented their own depraved form of morality independent of theistic morality to the detriment of the entire world.

But something is very curious though. ElCid admits that no morality can be drawn upon atheism but puts forward, I suspect, the idea of "atheistic morality":

Tignan mo nga naman. May naisingit pang pabobo-bobo. Eh, bahala siya, ahaha. Anyway, if he admits that no moral claims can be drawn from atheism (or philosophy in which case, mutatis mutandis), then what allows him to make claims that there is morality embodied by atheism? If he accepts that only "there is no god" is atheism's message, then what is the force of his charge against it?

Having made the qualification, I don't think that I have to refute these statements.

[stifbend]

Not really. If you want my position then allow me to qualify: "if there is no god, there can be no ABSOLUTE morality". It's obvious that anyone can make his own morality even the ungodly. But do you see the KIND of morality they have contrived sans the Christian faith in particular? Revolting di ba? Even atheists themselves refuse to associate with such kinds of morality but there was a time that there were tens of millions who did subscribe to such.

Thanks for the clarification. And anyway, don't know dont' care. Not an expert on De Sade or Nick. I'm calling him Nick because I can't remember if the 'z' comes before the 's' or the 'c' comes before the 'z' or the 'h' comes before the uh, anyway you get the point. Freakin' Nick. Had to be born with consonants that don't roll of the tongue. How can you possibly penetrate all those consonants without suffering a stroke?! Getting back to your statements now. As for your claim on morality, I'm not really inclined to argue that here. Or now. Or, well maybe in the future. I guess. But as for this post, I'll deal with the meat:

Actually you are making the wrong conclusion on what has been provided so far. It is obvious that one can have one's own morality sans religion and even without belief in God. Since atheism is BANKRUPT on moral teachings - the atheist therefore is constrained to invent his own however without relying on theistic sources which makes the morality derived as 'atheistic' morality. Prime examples are De Sade and Nietzsche who invented their own depraved form of morality independent of theistic morality to the detriment of the entire world.

Err no, I think you are. Atheism is a conclusion from the ontological question "Does god exist?" You can't derive any meaningful meta-ethical statement from "god does not exist" i.e. it doesn't tell you whether X is good or bad. These two are independent of each other, but not necessarily exclusive. But in this case, it applies: "What exactly about a nontheistic-centered morality makes it bad (substituting for your word, depraved)?" doesn't produce any meaningful statement about the atheist's ethics, which is what we are looking for. What you have simply done is to describe the morality atheists' subscribe to as nontheistic, but also contend that it was derived from atheism in which your error lies.

[stifbend]

I have to emphasize this awesome paragraph, especially the bolded part. The bone of contention here is whether it is possible to have morality that is not based on the belief of a God. Atheists claim yes, it is possible. Theists claim the contrary.

For me, the facts speak for themselves, quite a few civilizations have formed philosophies with moral codes largely irrelevant of belief in the supernatural or a creator. And since one example suffices to prove existence, then yes, I also agree that it's possible.

So, onto the topic of the thread. Yes, atheists can contrive moral codes that defy human principles of compassion and justice, but since being atheist is exclusive of what moral code one believes in, then thrusting Nietzsche's and De Sade's philosophies onto the average atheist is quite erroneous.

Yeah, and as Ateo, I assume, was getting at: there is decentralization of moral
values and duties in atheists, which stands in contrast to theism. You can't really pin them down by pointing out a tautology.

[ElCid]

Thanks for the clarification. And anyway, don't know dont' care. Not an expert on De Sade or Nick. I'm calling him Nick because I can't remember if the 'z' comes before the 's' or the 'c' comes before the 'z' or the 'h' comes before the uh, anyway you get the point. Freakin' Nick. Had to be born with consonants that don't roll of the tongue. How can you possibly penetrate all those consonants without suffering a stroke?! Getting back to your statements now. As for your claim on morality, I'm not really inclined to argue that here. Or now. Or, well maybe in the future. I guess. But as for this post, I'll deal with the meat:

Yeah I understand your revulsion to both de Sade and Nietzsche although they are atheists like yourself.

Err no, I think you are. Atheism is a conclusion from the ontological question "Does god exist?" You can't derive any meaningful meta-ethical statement from "god does not exist" i.e. it doesn't tell you whether X is good or bad. These two are independent of each other, but not necessarily exclusive. But in this case, it applies: "What exactly about a nontheistic-centered morality makes it bad (substituting for your word, depraved)?" doesn't produce any meaningful statement about the atheist's ethics, which is what we are looking for. What you have simply done is to describe the morality atheists' subscribe to as nontheistic, but also contend that it was derived from atheism in which your error lies.

Again you are not getting it so let me qualify. On the first part you are correct and I have almost said exactly the same thing that: you can't derive any meaningful morality from the statement "God does not exist". So like what I have said - atheism is BANKRUPT OF MORAL TEACHINGS - there is nothing in atheism that can classify an action as good and evil. What atheistic morality therefore am I talking about? Like what I have already pointed out - these are moralities contrived by atheists which is 'atheistic' in nature since they don't posit any belief in any deity as the source of this morality as theistic morality does.

What makes these 'atheistic' morality evil? Again you as an atheist cannot make those distinctions since those concepts are alien to atheism - since atheism doesn't have any distinction between good and evil. It is the atheist who make these arbitrary value judgements that is why you may or may not agree with the morality of de Sade and Nietzsche. So what's so bad about atheists inventing their own morality and making their own arbitrary value judgments? Well haven't you seen the effect of these atheistic morality during the 20th century? The possibility of 'inventing' a morality which is depraved like those already mentioned is a possibility and a reality. And it has caused the death and slaughter of hundreds of millions of people since many tyrants from Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol pot etc. have adopted such 'atheistic' morality. SUCH CANNOT BE JUST CONVENIENTLY SWEPT UNDER THE RUG. A case of blind men leading the blind.

However, an atheist may adopt the same theistic morality sans the belief in the concept of any deity as can be seen in the hypocrites here in PEX lols. As if the same concepts can been derived from their atheism. I will of course introduce more concepts as soon as you reply. This is already lengthy enough of an answer.

[ElCid]

Yey nandito ka na! Kanina pa kita hinihintay.

Para kang si sniper - he got addicted in getting his butt kicked in pexlols.

Typo yan, pero ayoko na palitan.

Eh ganyan ka lang naman talaga kababaw dahil yan lang kaya ng isip mo eh even in that you fail - loser lols.

Ah but we are talking about religion or lack of it.

B0b0 - asan sa topic na we are talking about religion?

Because you correlated atheism with morality or lack of it.

Mas kabob0han. We are talking about religion since I correlated atheism with morality?

That's the title, remember? Samples of Dcoumented [sic] Atheist and Agnostic Morality.

B0b0 talaga - asan naman ang religion sa topic? Ipinaskil pa? lols.

Now you cry foul that I tagged your belief in God with morality or lack of it?

Atheism ang topic and agnosticism tapos you are 'tagging' my belief in God?

You stick like glue to the topic when it suits your bigotry. Hay naku, gasgas na yan.

Ngayon aminado ka wala ka sa paksa at ako yung nasa paksa? B0b0 talaga lols.

And why should I relate with the morality of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao? We're atheists, sure. But I'm not a communist socialist whatever.

They aren't less atheist because they are socialist or communist b0b0.

I don't believe in starving millions for land, going back to year one or smelting steel in my backyard to profit the revolution. The reasons for these warped ideas are rooted in their quest for power.

It was made possible kase sila Atheist - walang bawal sa atheism maski pumatay ka o magpakamatay ka di bawal. At walang prinsipyo sa ateismo na babawal sa isang tao na pumatay ng milyon milyon kaya yang mga ganyang uri ng mass murder nangyayari sa mga bayan ng mga walang dios na tulad mo.

Like the warped idea of the Catholic Church in keeping their faith pure: the Inquisition. It's not rooted in belief in gods or lack of it. Warped morality can come from ANYWHERE.

Wala ka ng ibang alam kungdi inquisition? Pagsamasamahin man ang mga pinatay ng mga catolico - isama mo na pinatay ng muslim - di pa din aabot sa pinatay ng mga walang Dios na tulad mo umaabot sa daang milyon.

You can't beat me. You thought you finally had it made with this topic. But this topic is actually weaker than our last battleground topic: atheism and mass murder. This is much easier to deconstruct. We're not talking about numbers anymore so stick to the topic. Back atcha ElDick.

Deconstruct pa sinasabi? Eh supalpal ka na nga? lols. Tapos pag napikon maghahamon na naman ng suntukan? hahahaha.

[Ateo]

ElCid, just because atheist dropped Judeao-Christian-Pauline morality does not mean that we don't hold moral principles to live by. We do. But because atheism is not homogeneous and is not a religion, the principles of Stalin, of Dawkins, of Superlucky and mine are not necessarily the same. Having said that, most atheists now hold secular morality, which has a complete set of moral principles, which are even the basis of the laws of our country. As such, our national principles like freedom of speech, diversity, religious tolerance are something we take for granted. We are respectful and comfortable of current morality. What I am curious about is how you Christians can simply tolerate our country's law like free speech that allows blasphemy and like diversity that allows Islam and gays to live unmolested. Clearly, our current national morality is best suited for us atheists.

We don't kill, it is not moral under secular morality. Some atheists fornicate as fornication is not a crime nor prohibited by secular morality. As you have claimed that Christian morality is also based on human rights, then, that's good as we therefore have practically the same morality. We only have differences in the areas of RH, blasphemy, respect of diversity, curtailment of the dominance of religion in national life, etc.

[Ferdinand]

ElCid, just because atheist dropped Judeao-Christian-Pauline morality does not mean that we don't hold moral principles to live by. We do. But because atheism is not homogeneous and is not a religion, the principles of Stalin, of Dawkins, of Superlucky and mine are not necessarily the same. Having said that, most atheists now hold secular morality, which has a complete set of moral principles, which are even the basis of the laws of our country. As such, our national principles like freedom of speech, diversity, religious tolerance are something we take for granted. We are respectful and comfortable of current morality. What I am curious about is how you Christians can simply tolerate our country's law like free speech that allows blasphemy and like diversity that allows Islam and gays to live unmolested. Clearly, our current national morality is best suited for us atheists.

We don't kill, it is not moral under secular morality. Some atheists fornicate as fornication is not a crime nor prohibited by secular morality. As you have claimed that Christian morality is also based on human rights, then, that's good as we therefore have practically the same morality. We only have differences in the areas of RH, blasphemy, respect of diversity, curtailment of the dominance of religion in national life, etc.

Ano na ba ang nagawa mo para sa mga bilanggo, homeless, ulila, matatangdang walang sumosuporta, mga taong walang kinakain. Huwag mong sabihin sa akin na nagbibigay ka ng personal time and money as your contribution! Puro laway lang ang kabutihan ninyo eh, hanggang salita lang kayo, walang gawa!

[pinoybettylafea]

Ano na ba ang nagawa mo para sa mga bilanggo, homeless, ulila, matatangdang walang sumosuporta, mga taong walang kinakain. Huwag mong sabihin sa akin na nagbibigay ka ng personal time and money as your contribution! Puro laway lang ang kabutihan ninyo eh, hanggang salita lang kayo, walang gawa!

kung may natulungan nga kaming bilanggo, homeless, ulila...kailangan bang ipagyabang namin dito...ganun pala kung christiano ka...ginagawa mo lang para ipagyabang? how pathetic!

[Ateo]

Ano na ba ang nagawa mo para sa mga bilanggo, homeless, ulila, matatangdang walang sumosuporta, mga taong walang kinakain. Huwag mong sabihin sa akin na nagbibigay ka ng personal time and money as your contribution! Puro laway lang ang kabutihan ninyo eh, hanggang salita lang kayo, walang gawa!

Atheists provide charity, not because it is commanded by a god but because it is part of our human nature as social animals. Even elephants help each other; how much more we humans.

The (second) richest persons in the planet - Bill and Melinda Gates - are atheists. They are also the world's biggest donor right now. They also pledged all their wealth to charity when they die.

As for me, I gave the bulk of my charity to UN causes here in NY. On my free time, I volunteer to teach English to undocumented Latino immigrants for free in Queens Library. Actually teachers at Queens Library are paid, but my job does not allow me to receive outside compensation, so I volunteered for free. This is how I now speak Spanish. I used to volunteer for counseling for troubled young people (17 yo or older, not kids )- and I told some people here about it. But it was too stressful for me because troubled kids grew up without love so they tend to cling emotionally to the first caring person they learn to trust - and that's me, the volunteer. I decided that I don't need the complication so I shifted to poor migrants.

For the Philippines, I have been running a high school scholarship with my own money. I have eight scholars now from poor families in mountainous villages of my hometown. And if a couple of them are good enough, I am prepared to send a few to our local college. The scholarship is expanding each year and I have a local coordinator. I have not visited my hometown since we left it for the big city when I was in college and the mayor there is insistent that I should visit them, hehehehe. So if you catch me prostituting myself in New York, Ferdie, it is all for my beloved scholars.

The scholarship contract states that the scholarship can be terminated if I lose or end my US job, so I am sure many families are praying for me, Ferdie.

I sent money to CDO flood, to Ang Ladlad, and to an NGO that distributes condom in Manila. A priest who is a family friend asked me to donate a statue, not knowing that I am already an atheist. My mom begged me for it, so I relented by giving P50,000 for a big statue of the Resurrection. I was told that they put my name on a marker on the statue as donor; what an irony for an atheist!

Now that you asked and I answered, let me also ask you about your charitable work.

[goat1230]

speaking of charities, kakatapos ko lang magparticipate sa isang outreach program for an ederly home in bataan, and we're planning another next year in Marinduque for the (child) divers - to provide education for the day (as they don't have time and the money to go to school) and of course, things that they may need. we may look for willing participants, most likely in PeX, just like we did the last time

and if we solicit money for this work, none of the contributions go to our pockets, in fact, madalas abonado pa kami. personally I'd rather see my money go to charitable works where I participate, than to just send it to a "charitable institution" and not know if the intended recipients did receive it

plus I get to meet people too!

all this work after I proclaimed myself an atheist

[marcus_hunt]

Atheism imo does not carry any obligation to any type of moral system. Not believing in a diety - atheism. Tungkol ba sa morality ang atheism? No. Can atheist subscribe to a system of morality? Yes.

Morality from god? Morality predates religion. Religion was derived from morality. Without religion, man was able to know what is right or wrong - beneficial or not.

You knew your god was morally right, thats why you decided to worship him/her/they/it. How then were you able to decide between your god and his nemesis?

[ElCid]

ElCid, just because atheist dropped Judeao-Christian-Pauline morality does not mean that we don't hold moral principles to live by. We do. But because atheism is not homogeneous and is not a religion, the principles of Stalin, of Dawkins, of Superlucky and mine are not necessarily the same. Having said that, most atheists now hold secular morality, which has a complete set of moral principles, which are even the basis of the laws of our country. As such, our national principles like freedom of speech, diversity, religious tolerance are something we take for granted. We are respectful and comfortable of current morality. What I am curious about is how you Christians can simply tolerate our country's law like free speech that allows blasphemy and like diversity that allows Islam and gays to live unmolested. Clearly, our current national morality is best suited for us atheists.

We don't kill, it is not moral under secular morality. Some atheists fornicate as fornication is not a crime nor prohibited by secular morality. As you have claimed that Christian morality is also based on human rights, then, that's good as we therefore have practically the same morality. We only have differences in the areas of RH, blasphemy, respect of diversity, curtailment of the dominance of religion in national life, etc.

You are completely confused Ateo and you don't know what you are talking about. So if what you're saying is whatever is legal is moral then if you were born during the time of the roman empire: infanticide, prostitution, honor killing, slavery, pederasty and sodomy would be perfectly acceptable to you. I know the last two already are .

What is legal is not necessarily moral Ateo. Cannibalism for example is legal in some instances in some countries - would you say it is moral too? And what you are telling me is that you don't have any morals at all since your morality evolves with the state and with its laws. So if tomorrow it becomes legal to kill old people and those that are incurably sick - you will be equating it with what is moral. With an attitude like that, you won't probably have any scruples if you were born a german during the time of Nazi Germany or a soviet during the time of Stalinist Russia. I don't see now why you won't identify with the philosophies of Nietzsche and De Sade if they were adopted by SECULAR authorities as they were incorporated into the laws of the state.

And we do not have the same morality since atheism does not espouse nor teach any. You have ADOPTED our morality as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is practically an extension of the morality in scripture and catholic teaching.

[Ateo]

Don't be OA, ElCid. Morality is indeed subjective and tends to be governed by society. If you were born in Israelite Patriarchal times, you would be having genocide one day and rape virgin captives. You would suck an infant's penis in a circumcision ritual called mezizah. And if Pieno missed the sabbath, the you would be obliged to kill him. If your wife was not a virgin on your wedding day, you are required to stone her to date. Incest sould be so common that if your daughters serve you wine, you can anticipate what happens next.

We have since moved on from those ancient barbarity. Even atheist morality is modern now.

Don't lecture me on Ethics 101. I know tgat legal is not exactly moral. But except for a small difference, our laws are our outward expression of our morality. For example, criticizing Jesus is perfectly legal and moral. Using condom is legal and moral. Sodomy is legal and moral too. Working on the Lord's Day is perfectly legal and moral. Our laws manifest our secular morality.

[Ateo]

You are still claiming that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Christian? Yea right! It is that Declaration that supported Feminism that you so feared about. It allowed gays to make ladlad. It demoted Jesus to be just equal with all other gods that need to be all tolerated. It made blasphemy legal under the principles of free speech. In RoT, almost everbody is having fun with blasphemy.

The Declaration is so crucial to atheism such that if you Christians had a role in it, I thank you so very much.