Are all atheist antireligious?

[Cforcerunner]

How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!

'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?

I completely disagree with your presumptions, I believe that humanity really does have inherit inalienable rights and objective moral values, that is not contingent on the majority of people saying it is true. And I believe you and most people here have these same beliefs despite any theoretical philosophical stance .

[Cforcerunner]

How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!

'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?

That have objective effects on people, whole groups and societites. Is god the projection of those effects?

If you broke it down to a naturalistic worldview versus a theistic. If you offered a scenario with humanity being either created for some kind of purpose or occurring by chance incidentally with absolutely no intention; the existence of objective moral value/worth is much more compatible with the former.

[Stevil]

My point is that you can't prove God

Science does have some similarity to religion. They do start off with logical premises or ideas.
But then the go several steps further to test their ideas/assumptions.
Quite often after testing they find issues with their logical premises and then rethink the whole thing. This is how they keep themselves honest and on track with the truth.

How do theists ensure their premises/ideas/assumptions are correct?

[Too Few Lions]

How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!

'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?

I completely disagree with your presumptions, I believe that humanity really does have inherit inalienable rights and objective moral values, that is not contingent on the majority of people saying it is true. And I believe you and most people here have these same beliefs despite any theoretical philosophical stance .

I don't feel I'm the one making the presumptions! You're presuming that humanity has 'inherit inalienable rights and objective moral values', I don't make that presumption. To me we're just highly intelligent animals (by comparison to other animals), and any rights we believe we have or any morals we believe in are personal and social constructs, not an objective reality. I don't think we have any more 'inherent inalienable rights' than any other animal.

[Cforcerunner]

'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to.

This is a presumption. A conceptually problematic one at that. So if everyone doesn't "choose" to acknowledge and adhere to universal human rights. Let's say for example, a Nazi's regime treating jews as "lower" animals to be experimented upon and treated/disposed of, as lab animals for the sake and prosper of their own "superior" race. This appears to be perfectly natural human behavior. Simply natural selection fulfilling it's role in weeding out lesser fit sectors of humankind.

So if we say Nazi Germany has a ("self-created") moral obligation to find and exterminate all Jews in Amsterdam, and the Holland government has their own ("self-created") moral obligation to preserve their Jewish population, both of these are conflicting sets of moral beliefs, both contingent of the existence of their idealists. Are they both simply deluded in believing in something that is contingent upon their own belief? If all forms of what is to be considered "moral", are man-created, can there be such a thing as a "correct" decision? Should the moral decision henge upon the majority (between the two governments)? Is it possible to make no moral action? How is it even possible to make moral reflections upon either of these moral actions?

[Too Few Lions]

'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to.

This is a presumption. A conceptually problematic one at that. So if everyone doesn't "choose" to acknowledge and adhere to universal human rights. Let's say for example, a Nazi's regime treating jews as "lower" animals to be experimented upon and treated/disposed of, as lab animals for the sake and prosper of their own "superior" race. This appears to be perfectly natural human behavior. Simply natural selection fulfilling it's role in weeding out lesser fit sectors of humankind.

So if we say Nazi Germany has a ("self-created") moral obligation to find and exterminate all Jews in Amsterdam, and the Holland government has their own ("self-created") moral obligation to preserve their Jewish population, both of these are conflicting sets of moral beliefs, both contingent of the existence of their idealists. Are they both simply deluded in believing in something that is contingent upon their own belief? If all forms of what is to be considered "moral", are man-created, can there be such a thing as a "correct" decision? Should the moral decision henge upon the majority (between the two governments)? Is it possible to make no moral action? How is it even possible to make moral reflections upon either of these moral actions?

I think human rights are very important, but just because I think they are very important and a sign of a civilised society, that doesn't make them an objective reality. The fact that the Nazis were able to do what you have cited above and morally justify their actions shows that human rights and morals are not an objective reality. I feel you have just proven my point!

If there are such things as 'inherit inalienable rights' and 'objective moral values', what are they? For them to be an objective reality they should exist in all societies and have existed in all societies throughout history, otherwise they're not an objective reality (like say gravity). Please tell me what these inalenable rights are, do they exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran or North Korea for example?

Humanity also has a long history of slavery. What inalienable human rights did slaves have throughout history?

[Cforcerunner]

I think human rights are very important, but just because I think they are very important and a sign of a civilised society, that doesn't make them an objective reality. The fact that the Nazis were able to do what you have cited above and morally justify their actions shows that human rights and morals are not an objective reality. I feel you have just proven my point!

How are they "very important" and what constitutes a "civilized" society? How are your first statements both important and yet completely devoid of any sort of reality? Your correct, my example with the Nazi's presupposed your subjective moral values, and made a grand example of natural selection at it's finest!

If there are such things as 'inherit inalienable rights' and 'objective moral values', what are they?

You already said they were "very important" and "a sign for civility", so I assume you are familiar with some of their fundamentals that everyone here already takes as granted. But lets limit the scope to simply the right to not get killed or all your possessions capriciously taken from you by the whim of the government.  

For them to be an objective reality they should exist in all societies and have existed in all societies throughout history, otherwise they're not an objective reality (like say gravity). Please tell me what these inalenable rights are, do they exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran or North Korea for example?

Humanity also has a long history of slavery. What inalienable human rights did slaves have throughout history?

Okay, so moral values are up to bodies of people to make. If slavery was a norm and endorsed in the 1800s, was it then, the moral thing to do relative to that time period?

[xSilverPhinx]

Okay, so moral values are up to bodies of people to make. If slavery was a norm and endorsed in the 1800s, was it then, the moral thing to do relative to that time period?

Why don't you answer that question yourself? The bible has a few verses on how slaves (yes, they existed) should be treated. Others have the god of the bible explicitly endorsing slavery and encouraging his people to take slaves from rival tribes. Was it the moral thing to do relative to that time period?

[Heisenberg]

It's a bit presumptuous to assume the people here haven't examined their motivations to the same degree as you.  Perhaps they have and have just reached different conclusions.

I think it's possible to respect a religious person without being supportive of their religious beliefs.  I know way too many smart, nice, fun, good etc religious people to discount them all just because they have a quirky view of reality.  Even many skeptics still have some oddball belief even if it may not be religious in nature....we all compartmentalize to some degree.  

You're both right, and I should have chosen my words more carefully.

Magic Pudding, I didn't mean that they hadn't examined their motivations just as I have. I really just meant that they are more accepting of other people's beliefs than I am. I'm not in the business of telling people what they can and can't do, but you better believe I'm going to let them know if I think what they're doing is wrong, be it morally wrong or simply false.

Whitney, I shouldn't say that i just flat out don't respect anyone religious. I can certainly act in a civil manner with them and have a conversation while doing my absolute best not to condescend to them. But to me, if you're into one of the big religions, then you fall into one of two categories. You either believe that your book literally happened, which I find downright stupid, or you pick and choose which parts to believe, which I find to be hypocritical. So should I say that I don't respect ANYONE religious? Probably not. But I am likely to take every single thing they say with a grain of salt based on how they've formed their religious beliefs. It gives me an idea of how they view the world. That there are so many intelligent religious people is what I find so perplexing. At the end of the day I think intelligence can be broken down into different categories, and just because you aced your MCATs doesn't mean that you 'get it'.

[xSilverPhinx]

How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!

'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?

That have objective effects on people, whole groups and societites. Is god the projection of those effects?

If you broke it down to a naturalistic worldview versus a theistic. If you offered a scenario with humanity being either created for some kind of purpose or occurring by chance incidentally with absolutely no intention; the existence of objective moral value/worth is much more compatible with the former.

Not naturalistic worldview, humanistic. I don't see morality as being a naturalistic thing, and it's non existent outside moral agents.

There are situations and mental states that people generally prefer not to be in, people with conflicting interests need to live in societies in order to thrive and it's really a strategic cooperative game that people have to play in order to reach  as many goals as they have in common. Morality isn't purely subjective, because there are goals: people wanting to live well and happy, in cohesion. There's also the biological arguments for altruism and behaviours that societies would see as moral too (mirror neurons which cause people who have them to mirror the mental state of another in themselves, empathy, etc). As I mentioned before, actions do have objective consequences that are independent of one's subjective value. But morality is not objective.

Huh? Where does purpose come in? ??? What does it have to do with morality?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But to me, if you're into one of the big religions, then you fall into one of two categories. You either believe that your book literally happened, which I find downright stupid, or you pick and choose which parts to believe, which I find to be hypocritical.

You may be being a little overly simplistic in this analysis.  Today's Christians had their "book" chosen for them by other generations. The Bible as we know it did not exist during the life of the apostles, and the New Testament books were chosen much later.  Why would a modern Christian be bound by the selection of texts made by people in the 4th Century?  Based on historical analysis of the extant texts, a Christian today might come to the conclusion that some texts have more historical validity than others.  That's what I've done, and I don't seen anything hypocritical about that.  I have simply arrived at a different conclusion than that of the early church councils. Christians have been somewhat at odds from the beginning about exactly which texts should be in the canon.

[Heisenberg]

You may be being a little overly simplistic in this analysis.  Today's Christians had their "book" chosen for them by other generations. The Bible as we know it did not exist during the life of the apostles, and the New Testament books were chosen much later.  Why would a modern Christian be bound by the selection of texts made by people in the 4th Century?  Based on historical analysis of the extant texts, a Christian today might come to the conclusion that some texts have more historical validity than others.  That's what I've done, and I don't seen anything hypocritical about that.  I have simply arrived at a different conclusion than that of the early church councils.

And what allows you to arrive at these conclusions? Assuming that there is a god, weren't the people that were alive closer to his time and were given 'eyewitness testimony' by people who knew Jesus more qualified to decide what was actually happened than you are? Show me a list written by one these people that says which biblical stories are true and which are metaphorical and I'll concede that this is an acceptable way to view religion.

Christians have been somewhat at odds from the beginning about exactly which texts should be in the canon.

Yea, from the beginning. As in, right after this stuff was supposed to go down. Even THEY couldn't agree on it, yet here we are 2000 years later and people are still choosing which books to believe.

And I had a good chuckle at the use of canon. It reminded me of arguments I used to have over whether or not the Star Wars EU (thats expanded universe for you cool people) was part of the Star Wars canon.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

And what allows you to arrive at these conclusions? Assuming that there is a god, weren't the people that were alive closer to his time and were given 'eyewitness testimony' by people who knew Jesus more qualified to decide what was actually happened than you are? Show me a list written by one these people that says which biblical stories are true and which are metaphorical and I'll concede that this is an acceptable way to view religion.

I'm not aware of any such list, but I am aware of the earliest existing writings, which were the authentic epistles of Paul. He does mention some historical facts (as I interpret them) about Jesus, and he also mentions an allegorical interpretation of one OT story in Galatians (Sarah/Hagar).  The writer of Hebrews engages in extensive metaphorical interpretation of the OT.

[Too Few Lions]

I think human rights are very important, but just because I think they are very important and a sign of a civilised society, that doesn't make them an objective reality. The fact that the Nazis were able to do what you have cited above and morally justify their actions shows that human rights and morals are not an objective reality. I feel you have just proven my point!

How are they "very important" and what constitutes a "civilized" society? How are your first statements both important and yet completely devoid of any sort of reality? Your correct, my example with the Nazi's presupposed your subjective moral values, and made a grand example of natural selection at it's finest!

You appear to have missed the first part of my sentence (I've put it in bold for you this time). It's a personal view, NOT an objective statement of fact. The rest of your argument appears to make no sense. I see no direct connection between the Nazis persecuting the Jews and natural selection, that is a rather idiosyncratic connection of your own making. It's not representative of my views or moral values, so you dismally failed if you were trying to presuppose my views on the subject. The Nazi hatred and persecution of the Jews would appear to me to be largely built on the 1500+ years of hatred and persecution of Jews by Christians in Europe that directly preceded it.

If there are such things as 'inherit inalienable rights' and 'objective moral values', what are they?

You already said they were "very important" and "a sign for civility", so I assume you are familiar with some of their fundamentals that everyone here already takes as granted. But lets limit the scope to simply the right to not get killed or all your possessions capriciously taken from you by the whim of the government.  

Fair enough I agree that those are good things, but they're not objective values or inalienable rights. If I'd have been an atheist living 500 years ago in Europe I'd have been tortured and murdered for not believing in your god, and those Christians of the time would have thought that I had no human rights as a non-believer, not even the right to live.
We take these things for granted because we live in civilised modern (probably western) countries. Not all countries hold these values as dearly as we do, and very few societies throughout history have.

For them to be an objective reality they should exist in all societies and have existed in all societies throughout history, otherwise they're not an objective reality (like say gravity). Please tell me what these inalenable rights are, do they exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran or North Korea for example?

Humanity also has a long history of slavery. What inalienable human rights did slaves have throughout history?

Okay, so moral values are up to bodies of people to make. If slavery was a norm and endorsed in the 1800s, was it then, the moral thing to do relative to that time period?

The point is that slavery existed for thousands of years, obviously we view it as wrong, but it clearly hasn't been viewed as immoral or wrong for most of human history. You're claiming we all have inherent inalienable human rights and that's an objective reality and not a subjective cultural view, but how can that be when slavery existed for thousands of years and was completely morally acceptable? Even today there are plenty of people living in societies where they don't have the most basic human rights you listed above.

[Norfolk And Chance]

How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?

I have no interest in proving whether they exist. Just prove god, that'll be fine. Crack on. We're waiting. Thanks.