Comments on: Two more Newsweek articles of interest http://atheists.org/blog/2006/09/09/two_more_newsweek_articles_of_interest A Blog of Atheist Thought Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:05:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: billh http://atheists.org/blog/2006/09/09/two_more_newsweek_articles_of_interest/comment-page-1#comment-44319 billh Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-44319 This is one Newsweek I will purchase. Sorry your interview did not make it, I would love to have seen it. This is one Newsweek I will purchase. Sorry your interview did not make it, I would love to have seen it.

]]> By: godless77 http://atheists.org/blog/2006/09/09/two_more_newsweek_articles_of_interest/comment-page-1#comment-44320 godless77 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-44320 I find the Newsweek article to be infuriating. I mean, screw the Baptist preacher! There are PLENTY of immoral xians out there.<br /> George Bush comes to mind.<br /> I would argue that atheists are more moral than religious people because we base our "morality" on the golden rule rather than some 2000 year old collection of myths and fairy tales.<br /> You know, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Not "Do unto those that believe in the same god as you, and fuck the rest".<br /> Yeah, real humane and moral...<br /> PS: I'd love to see Harris or Dawkins as guest bloggers on here. I find the Newsweek article to be infuriating. I mean, screw the Baptist preacher! There are PLENTY of immoral xians out there.
George Bush comes to mind.
I would argue that atheists are more moral than religious people because we base our “morality” on the golden rule rather than some 2000 year old collection of myths and fairy tales.
You know, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” Not “Do unto those that believe in the same god as you, and fuck the rest”.
Yeah, real humane and moral…
PS: I’d love to see Harris or Dawkins as guest bloggers on here.

]]> By: island57 http://atheists.org/blog/2006/09/09/two_more_newsweek_articles_of_interest/comment-page-1#comment-44323 island57 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-44323 I didn't think the Newsweek article was very good. The author made a point of noting that Harris and Dawkins are agnostics, and I felt like atheism got the short end of the stick throughout the writing. Like a bully kicking more sand in our faces, he pointed out that American Atheist has a paltry membership of only 2500 and an annual budget of about a million dollars. (Dave, is that true?) The use of cartoon images in place of photos of Harris, Dawkins, and O'Hare gave me the impression that it's either too dangerous to show real faces of nay-sayers or just not worth the trouble to print color pictures of them. Good grief. I didn’t think the Newsweek article was very good. The author made a point of noting that Harris and Dawkins are agnostics, and I felt like atheism got the short end of the stick throughout the writing. Like a bully kicking more sand in our faces, he pointed out that American Atheist has a paltry membership of only 2500 and an annual budget of about a million dollars. (Dave, is that true?) The use of cartoon images in place of photos of Harris, Dawkins, and O’Hare gave me the impression that it’s either too dangerous to show real faces of nay-sayers or just not worth the trouble to print color pictures of them. Good grief.

]]> By: Slimmins http://atheists.org/blog/2006/09/09/two_more_newsweek_articles_of_interest/comment-page-1#comment-44324 Slimmins Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-44324 There's nothing committing one person to be more moral than any other. Even a Christian can be immoral, despite beliefs in whatever personal tenets said Christian holds to be true. And atheism on its own is not a moral doctrine; it's also not an Amoral doctrine. It states nothing of morals, only a lack of belief in any God mythology. The more correct comparison would be between Atheist, and Theist. Which again says nothing of morality, because one need not be a Christian to be theistic. One, for example, can believe in a god of whatever form, and attribute, and not have it be anything related to the Christian concept of god. Morals practiced under said non-Christian god could be completely different from anything stated in any biblical precepts. Say, for example, one could develop the concept of a god titled gOd (notice the necessary capital 'O'). Believer in this god could claim (s)he knows that all other gods, including the Christian god, are false, because they are man-made, and rely on man materials to propagate, say through word-of-mouth, texts (bible), and any other physical medium of communication. Believer in gOd could claim that one can only know gOd through personal meditation under water, through which gOd decides to communicate the TRUE message. The amount of potential god concept creation is endless, and in turn meaningless without evidence of something other than "glorified" personal views of perception.<br /> <br /> Just as all theists (not necessarily just Christian) need not hold to the same ethical views, not all Atheists need hold the same ethical views either. An atheist can be personally just as cold and sadistic for whatever reason, as can a theist for whatever reason god-related or not. An atheist can also be personally a very good person who only cares to either help others through whatever means, as can any atheist/theist also adopt the same view that all people follow their personal interests to whatever makes them happy so long as they don't seek to harm anyone in particular. Then again, depending on the level of sensitivity another person holds, ideas of what is considered harmful also vary. Some people welcome pain as a sign of growth, so it is not considered harmful.<br /> <br /> What people fail to realize is that god ideas aren't fundamental to human behavior. Humans are fundamental to their own behavior; so it is up to them in their capabilities, as people to formulate, and follow whatever ethical systems are considered most reasonable. Does nature require a person to necessarily be reasonable? No, a person can also be unreasonable in that same person's ethical views - so, for some slavery is ethical, and so is blaming other people for all perceived wrongs in one's own life, and this idea of wrong depends on ethics adopted by the subjective theistic/atheistic human creature. There’s nothing committing one person to be more moral than any other. Even a Christian can be immoral, despite beliefs in whatever personal tenets said Christian holds to be true. And atheism on its own is not a moral doctrine; it’s also not an Amoral doctrine. It states nothing of morals, only a lack of belief in any God mythology. The more correct comparison would be between Atheist, and Theist. Which again says nothing of morality, because one need not be a Christian to be theistic. One, for example, can believe in a god of whatever form, and attribute, and not have it be anything related to the Christian concept of god. Morals practiced under said non-Christian god could be completely different from anything stated in any biblical precepts. Say, for example, one could develop the concept of a god titled gOd (notice the necessary capital ‘O’). Believer in this god could claim (s)he knows that all other gods, including the Christian god, are false, because they are man-made, and rely on man materials to propagate, say through word-of-mouth, texts (bible), and any other physical medium of communication. Believer in gOd could claim that one can only know gOd through personal meditation under water, through which gOd decides to communicate the TRUE message. The amount of potential god concept creation is endless, and in turn meaningless without evidence of something other than “glorified” personal views of perception.

Just as all theists (not necessarily just Christian) need not hold to the same ethical views, not all Atheists need hold the same ethical views either. An atheist can be personally just as cold and sadistic for whatever reason, as can a theist for whatever reason god-related or not. An atheist can also be personally a very good person who only cares to either help others through whatever means, as can any atheist/theist also adopt the same view that all people follow their personal interests to whatever makes them happy so long as they don’t seek to harm anyone in particular. Then again, depending on the level of sensitivity another person holds, ideas of what is considered harmful also vary. Some people welcome pain as a sign of growth, so it is not considered harmful.

What people fail to realize is that god ideas aren’t fundamental to human behavior. Humans are fundamental to their own behavior; so it is up to them in their capabilities, as people to formulate, and follow whatever ethical systems are considered most reasonable. Does nature require a person to necessarily be reasonable? No, a person can also be unreasonable in that same person’s ethical views – so, for some slavery is ethical, and so is blaming other people for all perceived wrongs in one’s own life, and this idea of wrong depends on ethics adopted by the subjective theistic/atheistic human creature.

]]> By: Esperdome http://atheists.org/blog/2006/09/09/two_more_newsweek_articles_of_interest/comment-page-1#comment-44326 Esperdome Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-44326 At the end of the first article, when it is suggested that a nasty battle is brewing between Science and Religion is where he lost me.<br /> <br /> But I consider the article as a whole in the 'any publicity is good publicity' category. At the end of the first article, when it is suggested that a nasty battle is brewing between Science and Religion is where he lost me.

But I consider the article as a whole in the ‘any publicity is good publicity’ category.

]]>