Where the rubber meets the road.

[mrwho]

Going back on the thread a little:

with the philosophy of atheISM,
anything can be justified by atheism since there is no line to be
crossed

No line? What about laws? What about our conscience (surprisingly, atheist do have a conscience)? What about doing what we feel is right?

Again, if the only thing stopping you from doing any harm is religion, then you're a dangerous person. Because when religion tells you to do something (like, perhaps, offering a human sacrifice), you'll most probably do it.

[Akitu]

Going back on the thread a little:



No line? What about laws? What about our conscience (surprisingly, atheist do have a conscience)? What about doing what we feel is right?

Again, if the only thing stopping you from doing any harm is religion, then you're a dangerous person. Because when religion tells you to do something (like, perhaps, offering a human sacrifice), you'll most probably do it.

You realize why I stopped trying to get any part of a discussion in edgewise? We have one person advocating both sides pulling irrelevant facts and data out of thin air and basing it all on a biased opinion that without religion, there is no morality in the world. He can argue for and against himself and never win!

Once the discussion actually gets some logic in it, it may be easier for someone else to add their two cents, but in the meantime - I support your attempt to take on a human wall of ignorance. Because pedophiles.

[Darren King]

Your second quote is an accurate definition of atheism. The first was the
definition of a skeptic, which you fixed yourself with the second quote. Now
that we are on the same page what an atheISM means, let’s get back to the
doctrine that there is no God and moral relativism. So we stay on the
same page here, this is not about atheiSTS specifically, but the
philosophy of atheISM. Based on the other threads, I think we can all
agree theism can be used to justify all sorts of things. Some things
religion uses theism to justify are good, like it is against the law to murder,
to rape, to steal, to take advantage of children, etc. Not all of the
things religions have used theism to justify have been good though,
unfortunately, it has been used to justify wars, genocide, laws discriminating
against women or homosexuals, etc. Which is why most people hate religion, and
I can’t say I blame them. But before we throw out the baby(theism) with the
bathwater(religion), let’s look at atheism. AtheISM can be used to justify
ANYTHING. Pedophiles, rapists, thieves, serial killers can all justify their
actions by saying there is no God and nothing really actually matters, to
each their own, survival of the fittest. Obviously, the majority of people
still disagree and would stop them. But EVERYTHING they do can be justified
under atheism, since there is no line to cross. I know, I know, just
because anything CAN BE justified by atheism doesn’t mean it will be. I
just wanted to point out that is a serious problem with the philosophy of atheISM,
anything can be justified by atheism since there is no line to be
crossed, whereas, with the philosophy of theism not everything can be
justified, there are many things that do cross lines.

Really??? I said, Really??? If I say I don't believe in Santa Claus, it means I think he doesn't exist. It doesn't mean I think he exists but I refuse to admit it.
I don't understand your need to bring God, and ones belief in Him or not, into a discussion about pedophiles. Maybe you should take your questions to certain Catholic priests. They may be able to answer them for you. They can likely talk on both sides of the question.
As for atheism, whether I am an atheist or not ( i'm not saying I am) doesn't make me any more or less moral. One is no more or less likely to be a pedophile.
As mrwho stated, God, and religion in general, have been used to justify some horrendous things. Most wars have one religion or another to blame for their occurance.

[Chameleon]

aaaaand we're back to discussing atheiSTS. I had hoped to discuss the "philosophy" of atheISM, things like "where did we come from?", "What is the purpose of life?", "What happens after we die?", "why are pedophiles wrong?" You know, philosophy.

phi·los·o·phy


(f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means
and moral self-discipline.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles
of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than
empirical methods.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such
inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or
beliefs.

5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums
of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics,
aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular
field or activity; an underlying theory: an original
philosophy of advertising.

8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

[Darren King]

aaaaand we're back to discussing atheiSTS. I had hoped to discuss the "philosophy" of atheISM, things like "where did we come from?", "What is the purpose of life?", "What happens after we die?", "why are pedophiles wrong?" You know, philosophy.

phi·los·o·phy


(f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means
and moral self-discipline.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles
of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than
empirical methods.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such
inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or
beliefs.

5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums
of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics,
aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular
field or activity; an underlying theory: an original
philosophy of advertising.

8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Without atheISTS there would be no atheISM. They are kind of inseperable. Same as without religion there would be no religious fanatics.

[Akitu]

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or
beliefs.

Felt the need to highlight this section... Where do pedophiles come into this? What is Jerry Sandusky's opinion on the definition of philosophy?

[Chameleon]

Jerry's philosophy is he did nothing wrong. I've been thinking though, and realized I made a mistake. While it may be true Jerry Sandusky, NAMBLA, and many other pedophiles might think of themselves as "freethinkers", that having sex with children is "progressive" and they are doing nothing wrong, it is not very kind to blame other atheists for that. The blame for what Sandusky did lies with Sandusky. I should have just brought up moral relativism and left pedophiles out of it, since everyone here agrees they are wrong they are kinda moot. Since I still object to what one group of "freethinkers" thinks I will take it up with them, not here.

[Akitu]

Jerry's philosophy is he did nothing wrong. I've been thinking though, and realized I made a mistake. While it may be true Jerry Sandusky, NAMBLA, and many other pedophiles might think of themselves as "freethinkers", that having sex with children is "progressive" and they are doing nothing wrong, it is not very kind to blame other atheists for that. The blame for what Sandusky did lies with Sandusky. I should have just brought up moral relativism and left pedophiles out of it, since everyone here agrees they are wrong they are kinda moot. Since I still object to what one group of "freethinkers" thinks I will take it up with them, not here.

So you acknowledge within your own thread that pedophiles are as a whole considered bad, by groups of people both with and without religion? Does this not contradict just about everything you opened the thread with? People without religion still have moral beliefs and ultimately have to deal with their own conscience regarding things of an abstract nature eg. pedophilia.

Ergo - morals and acceptable behaviour are deemed as such by the masses, not by a single group, whether or not religion is tied into it.

[Darren King]

So you acknowledge within your own thread that pedophiles are as a whole considered bad, by groups of people both with and without religion? Does this not contradict just about everything you opened the thread with? People without religion still have moral beliefs and ultimately have to deal with their own conscience regarding things of an abstract nature eg. pedophilia.

Ergo - morals and acceptable behaviour are deemed as such by the masses, not by a single group, whether or not religion is tied into it.

I was going to put it in much simpler form.......... WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

[Akitu]

I was going to put it in much simpler form.......... WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

In the interest of trying to keep it as a discussion, I'll say that nobody "won" or "lost", but Chameleon has definitely argued for and against himself, and now says "I was incorrect" with a lengthy post about how the discussion didn't go the way he wanted it to... I can't help but wonder why, when one side can't decide which side it wants to argue for...