[bettingonosports]

Do you think they should exist, even in atheist standings? Why?

Which values/virtues do you find important?

Do ideals of liberty and freedom take precedent over everything for you, causing you to think that values and virtues other than those are unfair to your goal of freedom.

Or do you think values/virtues overrule freedom and should come naturally.

The majority is always right, until it decides otherwise.

[AK47rulz]

"Straight Edge" + "Excessive Meat" basically covers my life, TBH.

YJ

[lisualsethelp]

Do you think they should exist, even in atheist standings? Why?

Do you seriously think that atheists have no morals or values?

*Sigh* i would go on with this, but that isn't the point of the thread.

Most people just follow the mobs morals and standings. The Majority is not always right.

[arrendabomnem]

The majority is always right, until it decides otherwise.

I thoroughly disagree with this statement. If the majority decided that you were a witch and are to be sentenced to death, does that mean you're a witch? NO!

This is a stupid statement, although I do prefer democracy.

[AK47rulz]

The last comment was obviously meant to be a satirical view on democratic society.

Though it just came off as retarded, I'll agree.

YJ

[Michaelnewerb]

Shakes head

I may be the resident force of chaos but i do have what you people call standards and morals despite being what anyone decides to label me as atheist or otherwise!

Theres topics I dont comment on or care to discuss! I dont follow politics religion or science because these things really dont matter to me! Living what I have of a life with the time I've got left and having a little fun and spreading chaos is just what this little rodent,this force of GREED does! If thats a problem with people oh well! I never asked to be liked or accepted! I'm just glad there are people on here who have gone to the trouble of doing so!

[baritkello]

Do you think they should exist, even in atheist standings? Why?

Excuse me? Just because I am atheist does not mean I don't respect values or morals. It's like you are posting this with a bais, and that we aren't considered human to you.

[AALee]

The majority is always right, until it decides otherwise.

What about when the majority of people in the US thought people of different races should be segregated?

What about when the majority of people in the US thought banning alcohol would make the country safer?

What about when the majority of people in Germany thought Jews were the source of all their problems?

Do you think they should exist, even in atheist standings? Why?

You sir, are an idiot. Believe it or not atheists do have values, morals, and a conscience.

[himecthekWiff]

Virtue and Value are often judged by the people of the time. When looked upon in a history book we often find it foolish if not critically insane. One example is the Salem witch trials. How many lost their lives to the tells of witchcraft and devil worship. Now it is a sub culture that many apply to in the open.
Even during the last century this morality trials were being played with the Communist witch hunts of the 50's.

[CreativeSuiteDown]

"People's values change over time. And so do the leaders of a country. So there's no such thing as an enemy in absolute terms. The enemies we fight are only in relative terms, constantly changing with the times." -The Boss, MGS3

My favorite quote from that game. And that leads me to say, as long as the value's you have make you and the people around you happy, then they are worth having. So are the ones that go unnoticed. But the value's that get in your way, and make things hard for you or others, shouldn't belong. Or you need new surroundings.

To me, it's all a matter of perspective.

[dhrishiasv]

I think when he said the majority is always right, what he means is at the time whatever the majority decides goes, and at the time in their minds they're right. Not literally whatever the majority decides to be correct will be correct for all eternity.

When he asked about values, he was addressing it to everyone but making a specific point about atheists because they have no official moral guideline to follow aside from their own thoughts. Which logically makes more sense in my opinion, than listening to a old book for your morals but to each his own.

I think irregardless of anything else we should think for ourselves, and never just accept something because that's how it is. If we believe it's wrong we shouldn't compromise ourselves because someone tells us it's right. We each have to decide on our own our virtue, and values.

[arrendabomnem]

I think when he said the majority is always right, what he means is at the time whatever the majority decides goes, and at the time in their minds they're right. Not literally whatever the majority decides to be correct will be correct for all eternity.

So you're saying whenever there were separate toilet facilities for blacks and white in America, for example, you're saying that the majority of the people at that time thought what they were doing was right? But they have since changed their minds, so do you think that now (veiwing this from an unbais standpoint) they would ever revert, or do you think that the chance of such a thing ever happening is impossible, because of the majority always thinking that the point is racist? I want you to elaborate more on this point, because I'm not getting the total message.

When he asked about values, he was addressing it to everyone but making a specific point about atheists because they have no official moral guideline to follow aside from their own thoughts. Which logically makes more sense in my opinion, than listening to a old book for your morals but to each his own. Not really. As an atheist myself, I do take some of my morals from the bible, but they are very common sense bleh. Dispite being an atheist,I do read the bible from time to time as some of the stories are quite interesting if you don't enterperate them litteratly and force yourself to follow them.

I think irregardless of anything else we should think for ourselves, and never just accept something because that's how it is. If we believe it's wrong we shouldn't compromise ourselves because someone tells us it's right. We each have to decide on our own our virtue, and values. Yes, I totally agree with this point. Many points were made and the church forced them back, such as the Earth not being at the centre of the universe, homosexuality and more current - and more worringly - the cervical cancer jab. I'm personally very concerned about this. I go to a mostly girls Catholic school, and despite the fact that most schools should be offering it, they are not. They're not offering a simple jab to save teenagers from death. Religion should stay in religion and no more. Just as fantasies should stay in fantasies and nothing more. Just like Josef Fritzl should have, but didn't.

[AK47rulz]

IMO it's obvious what Haxes said.

The majority IS right, because that's how it goes. Who are you to say that blacks and whites should live together? Maybe it was right to enslave and persecute black people. The only reason that we don't, is because the majority says it's wrong.

YJ

[bettingonosports]

What about when the majority of people in the US thought people of different races should be segregated?

What about when the majority of people in the US thought banning alcohol would make the country safer?

What about when the majority of people in Germany thought Jews were the source of all their problems?



You sir, are an idiot. Believe it or not atheists do have values, morals, and a conscience.

1. They were right until they decided they werent.

2. I said no such thing about atheists.

---------- Post added October 10th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ----------

I am in fact half-atheist. lol

but seriously.

---------- Post added October 10th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ----------

IMO it's obvious what Haxes said.

The majority IS right, because that's how it goes. Who are you to say that blacks and whites should live together? Maybe it was right to enslave and persecute black people. The only reason that we don't, is because the majority says it's wrong.

YJ

exactly.

---------- Post added October 10th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ----------

To me, it's all a matter of perspective. That, in so many words, is my personal motto.

Something in this thread is going to get sigged.

Also, I agree with how Atheist's get their morals and values from common sense. My basic belief is don't do anything to anyone that you wouldnt want done to you, unless its either you or them.

---------- Post added October 10th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ----------

lol, i was thinking his thread was gonna die.

[AK47rulz]

I am in fact half-atheist. lol

Wait; what?

YJ

[bettingonosports]

I thoroughly disagree with this statement. If the majority decided that you were a witch and are to be sentenced to death, does that mean you're a witch? NO!

This is a stupid statement, although I do prefer democracy.

You thouroughly disagree b/c you do not understand.

What made the majority wrong? How do I know if I'm a witch?

The majority eventually decided that I was not a witch. We both agreed, I was part of the majority, and we lived happily ever after.

My logic comes from this:

A girl says she wants black eyeliner b/c everyone else has it.

Her mother replies, "if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you want to do that, too?"

Because she doesn't know how to respond in a way that will get what she wants, she replies, "No, mamn," and tries a different approach.

The correct response was: "Well, if everyone was doing it, they obviously had a good reason for it."

And irl, they probably would, wouldnt they?

Point made.

And I apologize if my questions werent as impartial and unbiased as i tried to make them. But they are honest questions, who's answers I'd like to be sure I know.

What is truly the meaning and purpose of value and virtue except to establish order in humanity?

---------- Post added October 10th, 2009 at 09:51 PM ----------

Also, @YJ,

I am half-atheist b/c I believe in everything they believe in, and then some.

I believe in logic. I believe in evolution. I believe in Science, and the way of the world.

Because of this, I believe in a most basic law, that governs all the universe, in cause and effect. Nothing happens unless something causes it.

I believe anything that defies logic or science fits the basic definition the term "miracle".

I believe the universe either began(A) or always was(B). Both of these absolute possibilities (logic states that either A or B must be true) are logically impossible.

Because of this, I believe that the paradoxical term known as the universe proves that there has been at least 1 miracle occurred in the universe.

Something had to create the universe, and someting had to make that something, and so on. It's a paradoxical contradiction that cannot be unbroken.

Thus a mircle must have occurred, and I am agnostic.

[Hftqdxpm]

Because of this, I believe that the paradoxical term known as the universe proves that there has been at least 1 miracle occurred in the universe.

That one miracle, as you call it, may in fact be just a coincidence. For the universe to be the way it is, all the cosmic numbers and strings had to occur the way it did. If one such thing was altered during the commencement/existence of the universe, the universe wouldn't be destroyed, it would just be different.

The majority is always right, until it decides otherwise.

The majority only believes that they are right. It does not necessarily mean they are right. The Bible brought us our morals and ethics and such. I am an atheist, but I still abide by the law. Alot of these laws are based upon these morals straight from the Bible. No person(s) has the right to say what is right and what is wrong. If one person's view was considered superior to another person's, then they are not equal, therefore, we do not have equality. If the majority decides to follow one side, it, in no possible way, can depict that it is correct.

Let's say we go back in time when morals and such were still developing. Person A has a sharp object in his/her hand. Person B approaches Person A. Person A (for whatever reason) decides to thrust the sharp object into/near the thoracic region of Person B. Person B receives obvious damage. The question is, did Person A do the right thing? The majority now would say he/she is a madman/woman and did the wrong thing. But who can really decide that Person A is right or wrong? Since when did pain, blood loss and death become a bad thing? It could easily have been the other way around. Obviously, somebody decided to only have their own view heard, therefore, that being the only statement, it would appeal more to others, causing them to choose and agree. That is quite narrow. The majority could easily have been wrong. It is in fact, very lucky that person A was considered wrong. If not, I doubt the world would be peaceful (or peace and war wouldn't exist anyway). That is a coincidence.

The source of our morals is the bible. Important messages were placed into a story format, which others can read for an experience that may have been somewhat 'educational' back then. The only important aspect of the Bible were the morals within them. What went strange was when people started to take the 'story' part quite literally. The purpose of the Bible was perhaps ignored to some degree. As an atheist, I choose to only follow some of the morals which I think are relevant to me. I do not follow concepts that lack any proof either. I depend on logic, it is required of my job as a scientist. I do not depend on emotions and such to lead me. If something has proof, it may as well be all the more logical.

In summary, no person or persons have the right to say what is right and what is wrong. This is regardless of whether they have a religion or not. I accept that I do not have any right to say what is right or wrong, I expect it to be the same for every other human dead/alive. Otherwise, there is no equality.

The Bible has messages like "Be kind to your neighbour" etc. That was the purpose, the moral. The other 'story' events were most probably not the intended message of the Bible, and thus gullibility has mislead others.

[bettingonosports]

@Pride:

How, then, does anything exist at all, if the laws of cause and effect cannot be defied? Even if there is something bigger than the universe, like i have considered, like a multiverse (look it up on wiki), something would have to have made that multiverse and so on, unless they have existed forever.

And how can something exist forever w/o physically defying logic?

What is defying logic, but a scientific anomaly, and what fits the definition of a miracle?

And that is how I feel atheist views fit into agnosticism.

---------- Post added October 11th, 2009 at 06:49 PM ----------

And yea, my majority lingo is purely satire.

And it was created solely to help you reach and/or maintain that conclusion. And I made it all by myself! lol

[Hftqdxpm]

I too have thought of and read about the 'multiverse', and my conclusion is that what we call the 'multiverse' is just more parts to add to the universe. The universe as I've read, is composed of the four dimensions we all know (length, width, height & time) and perhaps another 7 dimenisons that exist solely for the quantum aspects of matter (these are unaffected by the other dimensions, for eg. the Neutrino). Our universe has one thing that I found rather interesting. For a black hole to exist, there has to be an object that is compressed into a singularity. For a singularity to exist, an infinite amount of time has to have passed (since there is no limit to how many times an object can be halved) or none at all, therefore the universe has to be infinite in terms of the dimension of time. This however, is impossible! An infinite amount of time simply has not passed. This suggests that time itself does not exist as a dimension, to begin with.

In terms of time, there is no beginning and no end either. That is what happens when someone tries to explain something that exists forever. It is far easier to comprehend it conceptually than it is literally. We cannot, for this reason, travel backwards or forwards in time. If we could, we'd have to alter the other dimensions as well.

Lets say something created the universe, a universe that has no boundaries. If something did create the universe, then what created the creator of the universe? Once again, it enters an infinite loop of creation. Leading us to the same conclusion: time mustn't exist!

The miracle, I'd say, is the universe. It could have existed in an endless amount of versions, but it had to be this way, and we're trying to question why. It doesn't matter, we can't change it. We cannot create/alter the physical and quantum laws (these are universally constant), but we can create our own laws, our morals and ethics, which can be altered.

[bettingonosports]

i've come to the same basic conclusion.

the idea that god is omnibeing presents that he is everything.

This would make it logical to assume that he is the universe.

Either that, or time as we know it does not exist. Our entire belief in how time flows and how things happen after something happens, 1 second here, and then 1 second later, is flawed.

That seems kinda eery to me that Human Logic can be flawed. How can we believe anything we deduce if we know that we are wrong? The existence of paradoxes prove that our logic contradicts itself...and how can there be any other logic?

/head hurts.