Freedom of speech or freedom to stir up the pot for hateful sake?

[Plane]

Atheist literally means without God.

It is being defined negatively , what is the positive side?

Humanist? To make Humanity the central theme ? Or can a Humanist also have God on his side?

Agnostic seems kinda nutral , I wonder if a militant agnostic could be found?

[Amianthus]

Atheist literally means without God.

It means "without theism".

[Cynthia]

Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?

Sure they can; why would you think that they cannot?

Plane, of course an atheist can define "good". .....Goodness isn't the point here.

One's belief systems is the point. The resentment of a group people towards another group of people based on their belief system..... to be astonishing.  

The atheist good. I have good friends who are atheists.

Why not just put up a sign in the front yard? Why not put the sign up in the mall to show the beauty of expression for expression sake?                      . ....(pun intended)

[Plane]

Atheist literally means without God.

It means "without theism".

Hm isn't that even worse?

[Plane]

Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?

Sure they can; why would you think that they cannot?

Plane, of course an atheist can define "good". .....Goodness isn't the point here.

One's belief systems is the point. The resentment of a group people towards another group of people based on their belief system..... to be astonishing.  

The atheist good. I have good friends who are atheists.

Why not just put up a sign in the front yard? Why not put the sign up in the mall to show the beauty of expression for expression sake?                      . ....(pun intended)

They are within their rights to state thir case in a civil manner , even on the side of a Bus.

Christians are in possession of the same right , so we should not squalk at it .


Once their case is stated , then their case is a point that can be discussed .

An athiest has to decide what is good , I have a Buddhist vothe for instinct and an professorial vote for logic , but I don't have the definition yet.

[Amianthus]

Hm isn't that even worse?

Why would you think so? Atheists think that "with theism" is worse.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It seems that a basic belief of Christians is that if one does not believe in God, then God will dislike that person. I a not sure why this should be so. I see no reason why a person might simply conclude that God does not logically exist, based on the lack of a personal appearance by said Deity, or even an occasional deep voice coming from a bit of burning shrubbery.

A God that was omniscient should be able to understand why a man did not believe, based on the empirical evidence.

[Cynthia]

Hm isn't that even worse?

Why would you think so? Atheists think that "with theism" is worse.

Frankly,I have yet to see a "theist" (i.e. believer) judge the Atheists as "worse". I have to say that there are some who do.


However, the atheist, that holds little or no compassion for the theist, tends to do so with more "judgement"....e.g "being worse".
If a theist is a true theist there is no jump to judgement against any person--believer or non believer.

Yet, the atheist tends to outline a clear resentment against the believer. ...Thus the nature of the signs placed up against the believer.

I find that to be suspect. I find that to be anti in it's clearest form.

It's ok to believe one is not equal to the individual's core system. It's another to "protest" that belief out of resentment. Christians usually do not form the opinion of the latter.


btw,
I used the word hateful in my thread topic title...I meant to say resentful.

But, I believe that both can truly be hateful.....

An automobile driver can be calm, law obiding ...yet

An automible driver can also be a raging hell on wheels.

Choice is key....intent is even more to the point.

[Amianthus]

An athiest has to decide what is good , I have a Buddhist vothe for instinct and an professorial vote for logic , but I don't have the definition yet.

Well, you didn't get a "definition" because you didn't ask for one. You said, specifically:

can an athiest define good?

And the answer to that is, yes they can.

Here's a few discussions about it:

The concept of what's good or what is evil depends on social, cultural & religion dictates of the region. Example, stealing may be evil in some culture but not to others especially in times of famine. Genocide including slaughter of animals of those who do not believe in their god may be righteous to adherent of the Bible, but not to the Buddhist who teaches "Do not harm any sentient beings." Adultery may be evil to some, but not to a particular tribe in the Amazon jungle, where the wife can sleep with other men with the permission of the husband. Lying is not evil if it will produce good result. Most of us did white lies before.

God/s does not have a patent on what's good or Evil. If the gory practices in the Holy Scriptures are done today, surely, they have to answer to the Law of Humans.

The concept of what's good and evil also evolve with the times. Divorce in the ancient times are mostly allowed if the fault is with the women, not with men. Now it's both side.

Slavery is OK during the Biblical times until the time of Abraham Lincoln, but today, slavery is evil. Usury and putting interest on a loan is evil according to the New Testament, but now it's a common practice.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_define_good_and_evil

Society teaches us right from wrong and it both censors and censures us when we deviate too far. Moralistic humanists with no religious beliefs do good because we recognize and empathize with the suffering of other human beings and we wish to act to prevent it. When we do bad things, we are punished instantly by our own conscience. Surely behaving correctly because you believe that you are being watched constantly and will be judged later is neither truly altruistic nor truly moral.

http://www.helium.com/items/267047-good-without-god-secular-humanism-and-morality?page=2

Moreover, since self-interest is not an adequate basis for morality, there is reason to believe that heaven and hell cannot perform the regulative function often attributed to them. Heaven and hell are often construed as the carrot and stick that God uses to make us toe the line. Heaven is the reward that good people get for being good, and hell is the punishment that bad people get for being bad. But consider this. Good people do good because they want to do good - not because they will personally benefit from it or because someone has forced them to do it. People who do good solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not good people. Someone who saves a drowning child, for example, only because he was offered a reward or was physically threatened does not deserve our praise. Thus, if your only reason for performing good actions is your desire to go to heaven or your fear of going to hell - if all your other-regarding actions are motivated purely by self-interest - then you should go to hell because you are not a good person. An obsessive concern with either heaven or hell should actually lessen one's chances for salvation rather than increase them.

Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards. Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, George Edward Moore, and John Rawls have demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. Contrary to what the fundamentalists would have us believe, then, what our society really needs is not more religion but a richer notion of the nature of morality.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html

I can dig up plenty more if you're really interested. I don't think you are, since you didn't bother to look yourself...

[Amianthus]

However, the atheist, that holds little or no compassion for the theist, tends to do so with more "judgement"....e.g "being worse".

You're reading more into my words than I put there. Obviously, an atheist prefers to live without theism, therefore for that person, "with theism" is worse. If it were not, they would not have chosen to be atheist.

[Cynthia]

However, the atheist, that holds little or no compassion for the theist, tends to do so with more "judgement"....e.g "being worse".

You're reading more into my words than I put there. Obviously, an atheist prefers to live without theism, therefore for that person, "with theism" is worse. If it were not, they would not have chosen to be atheist.

"worse" is a term I hate to hear....reminds me of that idiot on MSNBC....worse, worser and worsest.

What's his name?

Keith Oberman?

He's a joke.

[Plane]

Hm isn't that even worse?

Why would you think so? Atheists think that "with theism" is worse.

I was talking about defineing oneself negatively.

One never hears an Italian say I am Non French.

If I were to tell you that I am non bald it would be a partial truth , but kind of strange to say it that way.

[Amianthus]

I was talking about defineing oneself negatively.

One never hears an Italian say I am Non French.

If I were to tell you that I am non bald it would be a partial truth , but kind of strange to say it that way.

It's accepting pejorative descriptions, like black people calling themselves "niggers." "Atheist" was a term that was applied to them by theists, and they accepted it.

Besides, they generally call themselves "secular". They generally only refer to themselves as "atheist" when you ask them which of the many "gods" they believe in - and their answer is "none". The term arose during a period of state supported religion.

Using your example, what would be your response if you were asked "which European country do you live in"? Your answer would have to include a negative of some form. When you ask a person who does not believe in supernatural beings which of those he believes in, his answer would also have to include a negative.

[Plane]

I was talking about defineing oneself negatively.

One never hears an Italian say I am Non French.

If I were to tell you that I am non bald it would be a partial truth , but kind of strange to say it that way.

It's accepting pejorative descriptions, like black people calling themselves "niggers." "Atheist" was a term that was applied to them by theists, and they accepted it.

Besides, they generally call themselves "secular". They generally only refer to themselves as "atheist" when you ask them which of the many "gods" they believe in - and their answer is "none". The term arose during a period of state supported religion.

Using your example, what would be your response if you were asked "which European country do you live in"? Your answer would have to include a negative of some form. When you ask a person who does not believe in supernatural beings which of those he believes in, his answer would also have to include a negative.

Exactly so , named as if bereft of something you don't think we have either.

A question of my Euro-ness could be answered with an assertion of my American-ness.

But if asked if one were spritual could there be an assertive answer or is the negative preferable?

[Amianthus]

But if asked if one were spritual could there be an assertive answer or is the negative preferable?

Sure, then they use terms like "objective", "realist", "free thinkers", etc.