The Atheist Purpose?

[Kant we all...]

Great, Riley! Sounds like a fucking miserable life!

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Kant we all...
I don't know about "my" philosophic proof. But there are several in existence. The volume I have contains at least twenty; and, meshed togehter, they provide quite a nice homogeny. After all, reasons for belief do not amount to proofs; they amount to probabilities.

How nice to be able to claim proof without actually having to proffer it for debate. I would suggest that there are no logical arguments either for or against God whose premises cannot be challenged. BTW, arguments for or against do not amount to probabilities.


Tiassa:

I know, I know... I'm working on various replies to month old topics but here is a quickie:

I would still assert that atheism itself offers nothing but the freedom of choice. There is no inherent philosophy within to supplant that provided by religion. However, rarely is atheism reached by simple declaration, the process of thought that leads one to atheism provides alternatives along the way.

Speaking personally, it was a matter a pairing down my religious beliefs until I found that I had none. But for every clip of the skeptical shears, I was required to find an alternative explanation. It's a rather simple process, one that you use yourself. For instance; the rejection of creationism requires the acceptance of an alternative (say abiogenesis). The rejection of punitive 'morality' is supplanted by something else (social contract, social Darwinism, what-have-you).

You seem to be suggesting that atheism as an alternative to religion must necessarily provide that which it negates. But atheism isn't a negation of religion; it is a negation of theism. One may be atheist, yet retain much of the underlying religious philosophy as long as one can find a condition other than God that supports it. There for an Atheist needs to find a reason for loving one's fellow man other than "God will beat the shit out of you for all eternity if you don't". Frankly, it's not that difficult.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

RileyWins

RileyWins

Thank you. I'd like to take a hard look at the atheist position at some point in my life, but the running joke is that my own life experiences as a former atheist are inadequate. But there seems to be something about atheism that I don't get. Your post doesn't offer any specific surprises, but does give good grounds for examination:

- namely, that it's a scam, that you analyze what is missing from a person's life and you invent your religion to supply the missing desire or want.

Would you consider this a deliberate scam? Who is the original mastermind? Quite obviously, that name is lost to history, but if you can offer some suggestion of where to look for the beginning of the scam, it would be helpful. The reason I ask is that superstitions, the foundations for religions, existed before scams.

- and that by becoming a Christian, you would acquire an imaginary friend named Jesus who would love you totally and listen to every prayer

Well, it's just that compared to the history of ideas, Billy Graham is a demonstratively poor representative of Christ. Not that I'm going to go out on a limb in defense of either Christian theology or doctrine, but I would suggest that an honest examination of Christian history and the accompaniment philosophical heritage would reveal just how naîve your position is. You're attacking the symptoms of a disease, and not the disease itself.

But if that's what religion offers, why, yes, atheism comes up short.

If that's all you would expect to find in religion, that's all you'll ever find in it. And if it isn't enough for you, it's your own fault.

Atheism doesn't offer any imaginary friends that totally, totally love you despite your failings.

Nor does it offer the basis for any real friends that will allege to do the same. How does one reasonably justify love and the irrationality associated with it? For all the pain this idea causes, why do atheists still love? (Who knows, maybe some don't, but it's safer to assume that atheists are still capable of love. Of course, that's one of the reasons why atheism didn't work well for me.)

That's part of the price we pay.

On the other hand, we don't have to listen to priests or pastors or ministers who offer their opinions about what happens to us after we die, and then ask us to contribute a few dollars for the experience.

I have to agree with KWA ... sounds miserable. I mean, look at the basis of your judgment here. Life involves a certain amount of selfishness, but come now ... part of the "price" you pay also involves the rejection of community and tradition, and while these are not inherently bad rejections, the only reason you pay such a price is because of what you choose to buy with it.

So, the answer is, Atheism does NOT offer you the extras, the perks, that other forms of religion offer. It's part of the package.

So let me just get this straight here:

- An infrastructure upon which to base one's decisions according to ethics or morals is a "perk"?

At a most fundamental level, I tend to think it's a living necessity. Dare I suggest that just because one does not recognize something does not mean they do not use it?

At a vital level, though, you share something with one religion: Satanism. Satanism reminds Christianity (the Ninth Statement of Satan) that Christians need Satan in order to continue to be Christians; Satan has, by the Statement, kept the Church in business for years. Strangely, your position seems quite dependent on having an assertion of God to identify against, which leads me to revive a point I haven't yet invoked in this discussion:

Is atheism merely an anti-identification? That is, an identification against something else? Or is atheism it's own unique and independent identification?

My answer would have to start with a hard look at the religious position...

Atheist:

- One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods (American Heritage)
- 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. A godless person (Obs.) Syn: Infidel; unbeliever (Webster's Revised Unabridged)
- Related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"; someone who denies the existence of god. (WordNet)

There are a couple of reasons I included the above.

While I realize that I'm speaking in terms of filling a paradigm void, I get the sense that "god" and "religion" are somehow interchangeable to you, as your focus is on religions and not God. Now, I understand that I asked for things that have to do with the larger paradigm, but how does your beef with Christianity affect considerations of the notion of God itself?

God serves as the justification of the religious paradigm; the paradigms, being human affairs, are subject to much discussion for their human faults.

But if we ignore God for the moment, and look solely at religions held for seemingly irrational reasons, what of those who rely on philosophy to help them determine how right and wrong relate to them, be it Hegel, Hobbes, or even Bill Gates? Suddenly either religion takes a "step down" in significance to match less vital associations, or else those philosophical associations take a step up to equal religion?

So more what I'm after is whether or not this person reads Nietzsche or that person reads Camus, or this person is a complete classical Platonian, and so forth. Because what can come from there is an examination of how those justifications hold up, and some determination of where exactly the bargaining point between knowledge and faith occurs.

In the end, it's not just what people fill the void with, but why. However, before examining why, we must have some sense of what.

But if atheism is left as a tiny anti-identification, well ... that's a whole different story altogether, don't you think?

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Kant we all...]

How nice to be able to claim proof without actually having to proffer it for debate. I would suggest that there are no logical arguments either for or against God whose premises cannot be challenged. BTW, arguments for or against do not amount to probabilities.

Yes, nice indeed; had I less of a life to live, and more of a life to waste, I might perhaps bat wits with you behind the damned existential dread of a machine. Alas, to maintain my sanity, I can only add a few short comments here and there. Of course the premises can be challenged; just as any premises can be challenged, including the premises of the skeptic. The fact that there is an argument for or against anything presupposes the notion that there is a probability one way or the other.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Tiassa

First and foremost, before I respond to your earlier post I
want to apologize for harping on you about the size of your posts
(I did this about a year go). I used lack of reading-stamina
(due to continual sleep deprevation) as an excuse to be a dick.
Here is the closest thing I can find to an olive branch around here
:m: . Now, on to the good stuff...

When presenting the atheist idea (there is no God) to a religious person, what can the atheist offer to fill the void left behind by something on the scale of Christianity, for instance?

It's the ol' 'What's In It For Me' (WHIFM) question. I want to
step back and remove the word 'Atheism' and instead concentrate
on a concept/philosophy. 'Dont Accept Things Without Proof'.
There are actually some substantial benefits to this line of thinking; however, they may not be valued by everyone unless
you can apply some serious sales-weasel tactics to a pitch.
Some of the benefits include:

* Increased clarity of thought.
* Increased logic skill.
* Increased ability to distinguish fact from fiction.

Now, these items certainly don't sell themselves. Most folks could
care less, so how do you sell something like this? How do you
turn this into happiness? Well lets look at these items in the
absence of any philosophy (even what I proposed). What can
come of them?

* Killer sports cars!
* Smallpox vaccination!
* Computers!
* Video Games!
* Blenders!
* Watches!
* Roller coasters!
* Sky diving!
* Space exploration!
* Nano-bots!

and abstracting things a little more:

* The thrill of observing and comprehending natural phenomena.
* The thrill and satisfaction of taking empirical data and turning it
into something that increases the quality of life (for you and
others).
* The awe of and inspiration discovery.

and in the end:

* Happiness, recognition, increased quality of life.

As one for whom atheism failed for its inability to provide either an alternative foundation for ethical infrastructure or a philosophical escape hatch by which I could wholly circumvent the issue without becoming a completely selfish whore, I'm curious what I missed. What have the atheists to fill that void? Does one merely inflate one's ego with self-affirming individualist philosophies, or is there something more substantial you can offer those who want to ditch their gods but maintain their humanity?

My mind is free, my imagination soars, I'm successful, I have
a great family, I'm happy! Morals (the concept of right and
wrong) are just opinions that are directly linked to
acceptable/expected levels of altruism / exploitation respectively.
Morals don't have to be spawned from religion. They can be
spawned from Society (as is pretty much the case in the United
States). A human being has lots of exploitive programming in
the form of DNA. We (as individuals) cannot escape our current
genetic behaviors; however, we (as a society) have decided
to deem some of these behaviors as 'unacceptable' and act upon
such behaviors accordingly. The end result is that the quality of
life for the 'individual' improves.

-CC

 

[Tiassa]

Poopchutes, Popsicles, and Paradise

Raithere

Seriously: the other stuff will come in due time. I'm in no rush. Good discussions don't come as quick as two-bit comedy ....

I would still assert that atheism itself offers nothing but the freedom of choice. There is no inherent philosophy within to supplant that provided by religion. However, rarely is atheism reached by simple declaration, the process of thought that leads one to atheism provides alternatives along the way.

I accept that atheism itself offers nothing but freedom of choice. But look at the comparative values:

- Infrastructure for morality v. Freedom of Choice

It's a wonderful rhetorical argument, but to invoke politics for a moment, who thinks for a minute that the "Coalition of the Willing" is going to permit the Iraqis to choose a hardline religious government?

I suppose it could happen, but the actual point of that invocation is to remind that Freedom of Choice also gives people the power to make the wrong choices. I do not object to this at all; screwing up is part of what makes us human.

So what becomes important is the idea of what one chooses to fill the void. You have freedom of choice, what do you choose? (Yes, I see some suggestions to that exact point come next in your post.)

And the nature of that thought process, too: that is very important in this context.

Speaking personally, it was a matter a pairing down my religious beliefs until I found that I had none. But for every clip of the skeptical shears, I was required to find an alternative explanation. It's a rather simple process, one that you use yourself. For instance; the rejection of creationism requires the acceptance of an alternative (say abiogenesis). The rejection of punitive 'morality' is supplanted by something else (social contract, social Darwinism, what-have-you).

And these constructions are exactly what I'm aiming to coax into the discussion.

You seem to be suggesting that atheism as an alternative to religion must necessarily provide that which it negates. But atheism isn't a negation of religion;

Well ...

- What I am interested in is what you're view as an atheist is on disseminating the common atheist views and to what eventual end. Stamp out religion? If so then why? (Exsto Human)

- It does not provide anything that can't be found elsewhere (Persol)

- Atheism has no purpose other than to register a disbelief in a god or gods, or to assert that a god or gods do not exist. Anything else associated with atheism is not atheism and should be considered part(s) of new or other philosophies. (Cris)

Now I stop there largely because I'm always appreciative of Cris' spin on it, and because it appears I could go on for a little while from this topic alone.

It's not so much that I'm suggesting it, but that I still maintain that atheism is somewhat an anti-identification in the fact that the significance of the word comes in what it denounces, disregards, disbelieves, &c. The comparative does seem inherent to me, so there's the suggestion, I suppose.

But in light of Cris' remarks above, what I'm after is the anything else.

In one born an atheist (well, okay, I know, but you get the drift) and unsullied by notions of God, the anti-identification does not exist; it is simply a state of mind and being. But we live in a world where a vast majority of people believe in God and those beliefs tend to perpetuate themselves in new generations.

And that's where the comparative becomes functional. How to infect the irrational with the rational, how to chip away at its base.

This is why the anything else becomes important. What an atheist chooses to assist ethical or moral judgment is an issue of interest because, despite atheism being what it is by Cris' remarks, what it usurps in the irrational conscience is a very large collection of ideas.

One may be atheist, yet retain much of the underlying religious philosophy as long as one can find a condition other than God that supports it.

To revisit Atheism 101, and I'm sorry to have to ask, but why does the atheist retain the underlying philosophy while rejecting the Godhead?

Forward speculation only helps to keep me from losing my place after I get your input: I'm generally of the impression that the active rejection of gods stems from the irrationality of the theistic assertion. What about the underlying philosophy retained, when scrutinized to such a degree as the godhead, holds up? It is as much affinity as the religion itself.

There for an Atheist needs to find a reason for loving one's fellow man other than "God will beat the shit out of you for all eternity if you don't". Frankly, it's not that difficult.

Why is murder wrong?

I mean, generally speaking, I agree: it's not that difficult. But we're merely resting on a more obscure--by nature of its fundamental vulgarity causing it to "blend in" with the natural setting--set of presumptions. "Rational to a certain degree" seems appropriate, and one of the challenges seems to be that people in general can't quite agree on what constitutes objective living necessity, and so forth--they cannot agree on how to classify things in order that we should proceed together in a common ideology. On the one hand, we have the luxury of making such considerations, to the other, it's hard for me, personally to not make such considerations.

And let's think about murder: We're supposed to be appalled at a murder in our community. I don't know what to say about a murder in, say, Europe. Quite obviously, it's hard to figure out what to say about wars, rumors of wars, and even starvation. What, aside from the sheer inconvenience of it for everyone except a murderer, and in some cases including the murderer, makes murder wrong? So while we might make the morbid joke that, while it's always been, generally speaking, wrong to rape and kill a child, if you did it with the Church's blessing, it was okay. As a comparative irrationality, I would ask for anyone's assistance here: While murder has always, generally speaking, been considered wrong, if you did it (under what conditions?) then it is okay.

Now, what of those conditions have any real objective basis?

(I repeat myself for general effect; I know I've put you through this one before, but who knows who's reading? Besides, it fits in rather well here.)

I mean, while God kicking you in the poopchute seems a silly enough reason to do anything, are we looking for truly better reasons, or just reasons that sound better?

And while I know you're not one to simply write off the parts of religious philosophy that don't have to do with poopchutes, the danger of doing so obviously exists, though it would not be fair to suggest in any way that this might be symptomatic of some thought processes that lead someone to affirm their atheism.

But what I hope to get people to think about it--and I'm not quite ready to drag them kicking and screaming to the mirror yet--is the basis of any values, especially--as the topic has it--in relation to the atheistic assertion and the implications it bears when communicated to other people.

Okay, so I didn't work popsicles into it. That's okay. I only have Otter Pops.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by airavata
i know there is no such thing as god hence i don't care.

I'm an atheist, but I don't know God doesn't exist, and neither do you.

 

[James R]

tiassa:

You are worried, it seems, about where things like morals and ethics are supposed to come from, if not from religion. What does an atheist do about these things? On what foundation does he or she base a moral system?

The first thing to realise is that mere authority is not a logically convincing basis for moral prescriptions. Suppose the priest of a religion tells me that killing is wrong. I ask why. Now, is it sufficient to tell me that God has declared it to be wrong in his Holy Book? That I shouldn't kill because somebody has said I shouldn't? Personally, what I want is a convincing <b>argument</b> as to why killing is wrong, not an argument from authority. If it has been declared wrong by God, then surely God must have had a good reason, right? So, what's the reason?

Clearly, both religious and secular people have put a lot of thought into such questions over the years. The funny thing is, they have tended to reach similar conclusions on many issues, despite their widely differing views on the nature and existence of God. This suggests to me that a particular religious base is not the thing which ultimately determines the moral code of a society, though I admit that the particular means of enforcing the code and educating people about it have historically depended very much on the predominant religion.

What is an atheist to do about ethics and morality, then? The answer, at a deep level, is the same as for a religious person. The atheist develops a basic moral sense based on inbuilt instincts, and a higher moral sense from general philosophical arguments, the strongest of which work equally well whether they be secular or religious.

Atheists are not really adrift in a world without moral certainty - at least not much moreso than are religious people. Whether a person lives a morally good life can be judged on the basis of criteria which are largely universally acknowledged. By and large, most atheists share much of general moral philosophy with the religious.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: Re: Perhaps it's time to re-examine another atheist purpose

Originally posted by RileyWins
So, the answer is, Atheism does NOT offer you the extras, the perks, that other forms of religion offer. It's part of the package.

Atheism forces you to look for strength, meaning, and purpose from within rather than through appeal to an imaginary friend. It compels you to take control of your own life. For me, the "perks" of religion can't even compare to the inner strength, and the acceptance of life simply for what it is, that I have gained since becoming an atheist.

 

[Godless]

The atheist purpose!!.

Simple: one only has to realize that some of us just don't like to take "crap" from authroritive figures who speak nonsence about some ideological subjective existence called "god", and that it speaks directly through these figures in some old ancient book, and their say so is the law of man.

Really if we were to follow the bible to the letter we wouldnt have the civilization we have today.

What void? are you speaking of Tiassa, The only void I feel is SUNDAYS ARE MINE again I can do anything I feel like on Sundays without going and literally hearing some SOB, try his best to make me feel like sh*et, and pass his plate for the loot, he rakes in every week!!. No void really only more mula in pocket that I can spend on Sunday fleamarkest!!.

 

[Tiassa]

Crunchy Cat

Crunchy Cat

What is that far in the past is that far in the past, and, as you have noted the fruits of introspection, I can hardly argue with that. If I accept the olive branch, please understand that I claim no victory--I've been rather mean to people about reading comprehension over the last year or so--and would rather merely accept the peace that you bring.

* Increased clarity of thought.
* Increased logic skill.
* Increased ability to distinguish fact from fiction.

A great rifle with lots of ammunition and no scope means nothing to me as a Christmas gift, for instance, on the grounds that I don't hunt, don't shoot, and have no practical application for the tools.

What people choose to set their tools to: that's more important. I'm not going to argue against the presumption of the benefits you've listed; it works well enough to examine them compared to the actual fruit I hope to harvest.

* Killer sports cars!
* Smallpox vaccination!
* Computers!
* Video Games!
* Blenders!
* Watches!
* Roller coasters!
* Sky diving!
* Space exploration!
* Nano-bots!

And while I appreciate greatly the value of the ultimately cool, one cannot on the one hand claim the connection between the benefits of atheism and what those attributes have brought people who were not necessarily atheists, as many Creationists are fond of reminding us with ill-snipped quotes about the mysteries of the Universe.

* The thrill of observing and comprehending natural phenomena.
* The thrill and satisfaction of taking empirical data and turning it
into something that increases the quality of life (for you and
others).
* The awe of and inspiration discovery.

Seeking again the connection between these things and atheism, I'm tempted to remind that we cannot reserve these things to the atheist. Many a theist has enjoyed these things aplenty, as one of the odd realities of such a debate is that one typically runs out of life to experience things with before the abstract things lose their applicable value.

* Happiness, recognition, increased quality of life.

In other words, you seek the same things religions do?

My mind is free, my imagination soars, I'm successful, I have
a great family, I'm happy! Morals (the concept of right and
wrong) are just opinions that are directly linked to
acceptable/expected levels of altruism / exploitation respectively.

How interesting, I must admit.

Morals don't have to be spawned from religion. They can be
spawned from Society

This is true, but ...

(as is pretty much the case in the United
States)

Between Puritanism, Deism, stump preachers, religious universities, and a President who looks to God for guidance, it's very hard for me to separate the threads of religion from the rest of the American ideology. If you can straighten it out easily to support your assertion, by all means do that voodoo that you do so well ....

A human being has lots of exploitive programming in
the form of DNA. We (as individuals) cannot escape our current
genetic behaviors; however, we (as a society) have decided
to deem some of these behaviors as 'unacceptable' and act upon
such behaviors accordingly.

What objective basis is there for the marking of something as unacceptable? Certainly, it's not all personal aesthetics, is it?

The end result is that the quality of
life for the 'individual' improves.

And that statement is so subjective that I fear you've gone and gotten religious on me all of a sudden.

This is perhaps an anemic and pointed reply, but my part in this topic has become pretty much thematic, so I'm trying to shake the cycle. Things are getting brighter, though: I can see some daylight glittering off an exposed foothold in the mountain of presumptuous muck that I admit has surprised me.in a certain aspect. I'm absolutely puzzled by the nature of the responses, which largely miss the outside corner by a hairsbreadth if they're close.

Think of it like going to buy a car:

"What is the Bonus Package?"
Items designed to make your trip easier.
"Such as?"
Items that make you more comfortable, help you see better, make control easier.
"Such as?"
Items that are much better than the competitor's.
"But what are they?"
(Second salesman enters conversation.)
They're items designed to make your trip easier.
"Yes, but ...."
But what? They'll make you more comfortable, help you see better, make control easier, and are better than the competitor's.
"But what are these items?"
(Two salesmen in unison.)
They're the Bonus Package!

So what is it? Is it manual transmission? Tiptronic? Maybe just a cup-holder and a flip-down CD-control that will interfere with my field of vision?

It's the Bonus Package, tellyawhat ....

Er ... sorry. Like I said, it's getting a bit thematic. Perhaps tomorrow I will find a language, dialect, or otherwise that communicates the actual question and elicits the answers I hope to examine. Mind you, this all is just a starting point, and it's starting to scare me how regularly people are misfiring.

KC Lights? Puncture-proof tires? (What's the f--king frequency, Kenneth?!)

I know, I know ... it's The Bonus Package.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: The atheist purpose!!.

Originally posted by Godless
What void? are you speaking of Tiassa, The only void I feel is SUNDAYS ARE MINE again I can do anything I feel like on Sundays

As the priests and preachers are so fond of saying, "Amen!"

Having your Sundays for yourself is one of the "perks" of atheism, and truly one of the most notable of the practical benefits I have reaped from shedding my religion. Also, I don't have to feel bad about taking the Lord's name in vain anymore, God dammit!

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Kant we all...
But I was saying that certain philosophic arguments start out that way, but then science comes into the picture and ruins it.

The only time that science ruins an argument is when you start with the conclusion and try to make a mad dash to ignore evidence in order to ensure that it remains well supported.

You are supposed to start with information and draw a conclusion from that, not start with a conclusion and then look only for information which supports it. You can find tidbits to support anything.

 

[Tiassa]

James R

Forgive me if I delay a more substantial response to your post; I'm happy to see it, as it gives me something to work with. I've got at least one other good starting point going on, but at present I'm stunned by the plethora of responses that involve people wailing, "Me! Me! Me!"

That in and of itself is quite hilarious. The implications, of course, of such rampant selfishness, are not funny at all.

In the meantime, I feel my patience thinning a little bit, so it's best to skip out on the deeper considerations for a little while.

Really, it's just that I'm taken aback somewhat. While I expected a certain self-oriented overtone in the responses, I did not expect the dense clamoring I've been witness to.

So right now I'm looking at your post and nodding, and then looking at other posts and feeling puzzled, and looking back at your post and nodding, and looking around and finding out that I'm not sure how to proceed next. It's hardly a bounty worth celebrating, imho, but I'm sure there's something about it all that I'm missing.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Mystech]

Origionaly posted by TiassaIt's not so much that I'm suggesting it, but that I still maintain that atheism is somewhat an anti-identification in the fact that the significance of the word comes in what it denounces, disregards, disbelieves, &c.

You have to understand that these things are only "What is significant in the world" if you are a religious person. To an Atheist, strutting around as though you know the answers to the questions which no one has enough information to answer is not what makes life significant.

Atheism is nothing more than a belief in the truth, we don't take the answers to life the universe and everything at face value just because someone at some point in history happened to write them down. Build your life on your own rational perception of the world, not what someone else has told you your paradigm should be.

 

[Tiassa]

Atheism: shock religion?

You have to understand that these things are only "What is significant in the world" if you are a religious person.

So why is murder wrong?

I'm under the impression that the assertion that atheism, for its rejection of a fixed moral base, leads to amorality at best, is still as offensive a notion as ever.

And yet, that's essentially what the atheists are telling me: no foundation to ethics, the freedom to do what one wants with no real consideration of the consequences. The outpouring of concern for the self in this topic has been astounding.

To an Atheist, strutting around as though you know the answers to the questions which no one has enough information to answer is not what makes life significant.

That's as broad and idealistic as the notions of religion that I defend. Which is the ultimate betrayal: Atheism, in the end, offers nothing that the religions don't. I, personally, have no problem with this, but the living manifestations of atheism don't seem to grasp this yet.

Atheism is nothing more than a belief in the truth

Such attempts at ennoblement are characteristic of religions, as well.

we don't take the answers to life the universe and everything at face value just because someone at some point in history happened to write them down

This is an issue you choose to pick; the juxtaposition seems based on the bigoted presumption that all religious folk are as stupid as you pretend all atheists to be smart.

Build your life on your own rational perception of the world, not what someone else has told you your paradigm should be.

Rational to what degree? That is the question that atheists seem deathly afraid of. In the end, what I'm looking for with my part in this topic is the atheist's prescription to life. The response, though, sounds like a wide-eyed evangelical load of crap, which is unfortunate in the sense that it makes it harder to get to the crux of the issue: Where does your atheistic rationality turn to faith? Even as a staunch defender of atheism, I noticed that many atheists fled from this question.

Rational to what degree?

Why is murder wrong?

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by tiassa
So why is murder wrong?

Not because the goddess told you. Go find your own answer.

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm under the impression that the assertion that atheism, for its rejection of a fixed moral base, leads to amorality at best, is still as offensive a notion as ever.

Well on some level you may be correct. Because Atheism doesn't have any code of morallity attached with it (As it is not a religion or a faith, or any more complicated idea than that there is no God) an Athiest could have any code of ethics which he wants. This dose not mean that an Atheist is an immoral person, from the first statement you should realize that when discussing morals and atheists you're going to have to treat it on a case by case basis. To assume that somehow all athiests have the same morals is as false as it would be to assume that religion is the only valid source of morality. Why is the moral which is dictated to me by another worth more than the moral I come up with myself?

Originally posted by tiassa
And yet, that's essentially what the atheists are telling me: no foundation to ethics, the freedom to do what one wants with no real consideration of the consequences.

No one ever said there are no consequences. If anyone, atheist or other said that there aren't consequences for your actions then I think it'd be pretty safe to call them a diluted lunatic. Why do you feel that having no common moral dogma makes someone immoral? Atheism isn't a religion, we dont' all think alike, nor do we all hold the same values.

Originally posted by tiassa
Atheism, in the end, offers nothing that the religions don't.

It offers a world without religion. It offers the personal freedom to figure thigns out on your own. Beware of Dogma!

Originally posted by tiassa
the juxtaposition seems based on the bigoted presumption that all religious folk are as stupid as you pretend all atheists to be smart.

You're making some pretty rude assumptions here, I've said nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by tiassa
Rational to what degree? That is the question that atheists seem deathly afraid of.

What do you mean to what degree? I should certainly hope that it's as best you're able.

Originally posted by tiassa
In the end, what I'm looking for with my part in this topic is the atheist's prescription to life.

Well, sorry, sister, there is no unified consensus, because Atheism isn't a movement, or a faith or a community. It's a belief, one based on reason, and aside from the realization that there isn't a bit of evidence pointing directly toward the existance of a God you're not going to get any other sort of unified idiology.

Originally posted by tiassa
Where does your atheistic rationality turn to faith? Even as a staunch defender of atheism, I noticed that many atheists fled from this question.

If it requires faith on your part, then you're probably doing it wrong. After all, that's what's wrong with religion.

 

[Tiassa]

Is that a chipmunk on your shoulder?

Not because the goddess told you. Go find your own answer.

Whatever you say, Dale. Now, are you capable of answering the question or does it really scare you that much?

To assume that somehow all athiests have the same morals is as false as it would be to assume that religion is the only valid source of morality. Why is the moral which is dictated to me by another worth more than the moral I come up with myself?

I'm almost unsure what to say to you at this point. You're bleeding so badly at this point that I want to wrap some gauze around your throat to staunch the flow, but you're just paranoid enough to think I'm trying to kill you.

It is very difficult for me to examine the diversity of atheistic morality or ethics--something I've been trying to do in this topic--when the atheists just don't feel like cooperating. Go ahead and reinforce the stereotype that atheism is a cheap dodge for the intellectually lazy if you want. However, it seems like a stupid way to degrade yourself, and for what? Pride?

Do "all atheists" invent their decisions off the cuff? I can't imagine that it is so. But when asked about the basis of those decisions, all I get is a bunch of wide-eyed evangelism about clear vision and the freedom to do what you want.

I used to say that I heard the atheists and agreed with them on many things, but it is difficult to agree with what is simply not there to be heard.

The moral dictated is just as prone to error, if not moreso, as the moral concluded. However, it would be nice if atheists in general could make the process leading to those conclusions a little more accessible. I mean, atheists come in here to bitch about whatever they feel like, but in the end, they've got nothing to offer. Come on ... I apparently have more respect for the "atheist intellect" than the atheists do. How does this happen? I'd ask you to tell me, but given how not forthcoming atheists have been in this topic, it seems rather pointless, don't you think?

The moral dictated or the moral concluded? Who cares if both the process of dictation and the process of conclusion are both false? I feel like I'm asking people for dietary science and getting a Homer Simpson, "Food goes here" for a response. In the end, it tells me what I need to know, but I'm not going to trust it since somewhere down the line another atheist will, as many do, try in vain to point out what I've got wrong about it. People need to do more than just tell me I'm wrong; half the time I'm convinced that people don't know what it is they're telling me I'm wrong about. This topic is no different.

So ... go ahead and rest on your haunches while drowning in abstractions. As much as I like abstractions, situations occasionally call for something a little more direct, and what am I supposed to think when the only people who can give it to me are people who have been through this routine before?

No one ever said there are no consequences.

That's their own fault. For all the rush to "Me! Me! Me!" what am I supposed to think of such utter lack of consideration toward the consequences?

But the consequences ... there's a start. But that's the only hint I'm giving you because spelling it out in forty-foot-tall flaming letters, I fear, still won't make it clear to people. And no, I don't think it's a hard question.

Why do you feel that having no common moral dogma makes someone immoral?

Why do you think that's actually the issue? I don't care how common or uncommon it is. Atheism, especially at Sciforums, is loaded with flash and no substance.

Of course, I might go back and dig up some old topics. Seriously, the rejections of objectivity posted by some of our atheists were simply flabbergasting. And that pattern hasn't ceased. I have seen little, if any evidence, in the last year, that this has changed. Atheism seems to be represented as a shock-religion, an excuse to tell other people they're wrong without ever having to give two shakes to what's actually right.

Atheism isn't a religion, we dont' all think alike, nor do we all hold the same values.

And while I know that, please understand that the inability of atheists to provide diverse substance or substantial diversity speaks objectively, and that voice is louder than your presently-unsupportable claim.

It offers a world without religion. It offers the personal freedom to figure thigns out on your own. Beware of Dogma!

On the one hand, I'll say that it's a crying shame that more of you atheists don't take advantage of those offers.

And, to the other, it offers no comparative basis to affirm what one figures out.

You're making some pretty rude assumptions here, I've said nothing of the sort.

Ask around. If you don't want your perception of my rudeness to increase, please do something to assuage my perception of your cowardice.

In the meantime, you wrote, we don't take the answers to life the universe and everything at face value just because someone at some point in history happened to write them down. Now, as we are having a comparative discussion, would you please tell me, so that I am clear on the issue, to whom you refer in your juxtaposition? Or else, while I'm willing to accept that the condition is not applicable to any group as a blanket, I would have to ask what the point of such an anemic assertion was in the first place.

Easy enough?

What do you mean to what degree? I should certainly hope that it's as best you're able.

Where does the rational meet the faith? Where does the objective meet the subjective? Where does necessity meet affinity?

Well, sorry, sister, there is no unified consensus, because Atheism isn't a movement, or a faith or a community.

You have no idea who you're actually dealing with, do you? There's a specific reason I insert that otherwise pompous-seeming inquiry. Who, aside from you and a few other paranoid atheists, says I'm after a unified consensus?

It's a belief, one based on reason, and aside from the realization that there isn't a bit of evidence pointing directly toward the existance of a God you're not going to get any other sort of unified idiology.

Stop distracting yourself with shadows. Should I go so far as to note the word atheist's instead of atheists'? Perhaps I should have used "an" instead of "the", but I'm quite sure, based on the rest of this topic, that it would have made no observable difference.

In the meantime, you note that atheism is a belief "based on reason", yet you cannot understand the question, Rational to what degree?

At some point your "reason" becomes faith. Why is murder wrong? Do you understand the question yet?

Answer the question of why murder is wrong without invoking a faith point to stand on. I've been asking people for over a year around here, and generally people don't take a swipe at it. Yet that unwillingness to answer the question apparently should not be taken to mean that nobody has an answer. Should I presume on faith, then, that atheists have their diverse, reasonable answers that they're simply unwilling to share with the rest of the world?

If it requires faith on your part, then you're probably doing it wrong. After all, that's what's wrong with religion.

That is the funniest thing you've said so far.

Why is murder wrong?

You're on. Answer the question if you can. After all, if your answer requires faith, you're probably doing it wrong.

Or ... something approximately like that?

But take a risk. Go on. What's the matter? With no imaginary friend to promise you it will be okay, you're afraid to try?

Well then ... if it's not worth the effort to have a clue, is it worth the effort to have an opinion?

All I ever want from anybody is an honest answer. What I can't figure out is what--objectively, reasonably, or rationally--frightens the hell out of so many atheists when honesty is involved.

What frightens me more is if what I've been getting in large part since entering this topic constitutes honesty among the flock answering. With only a couple of exceptions, I applaud the generally comedic scampering taking place. I really hadn't expected it. Silly me: I guess faith compelled me to expect better of people. But I will, with time, learn. And maybe then I can shut off all my compassions for their irrationality and life a piously atheistic life?

Seriously ... I'm left at an odd crossroads. On the one hand, I'm stunned by the "dishonest" answers I'm getting in. To the other, if we acknowledge the legitimacy and honesty of the answers, then what frightens me is the dangerous condition of my atheist neighbors.

You know, Mystech ... something that constantly amazes me around here is the occasional phenomenon where something harsh I've said comes flying back at me in scrambled-eggs-from-a-shotgun form. I know people are reading and picking up on some of my habits, but the turnabout always misses wide. While I don't care to debate the reasons why at this time, I do care to point out that it's amazing to me that some of our atheists haven't picked up on a very simple point of mine about learning. If you meditate for the scientifically-suggested psychological value, spend some time with the words, "Unfinished Process".

I promise you that if you look deep enough into your vaunted objectivity, you'll eventually run smack into a granite wall of presumption. It's part of the human condition.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Tiassa

one cannot on the one hand claim the connection between the benefits of atheism and what those attributes have brought people who were not necessarily atheists,

Of course not; however, one can predict how things would be
today if 'Acceptance without proof' was done away with 2000
years ago. We would probably be colonizing our little edge of
the Universe by now.

In other words, you seek the same things religions do?

Correction. I've attained (no matter how temporary it may be) the
things that religions seek.

Between Puritanism, Deism, stump preachers, religious universities, and a President who looks to God for guidance, it's very hard for me to separate the threads of religion from the rest of the American ideology. If you can straighten it out easily to support your assertion, by all means do that voodoo that you do so well ....

What objective basis is there for the marking of something as unacceptable? Certainly, it's not all personal
aesthetics, is it?

I'll address these puppies at the same time and I will focus on
American society. In the infancy of American society, someone said
"Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of happiness". Whether this was
inspired by religion or not is a 'don't care' item at this point. Any
reference to 'God' is simply not made and this is where religion
seperates from American ideology. Now as far as what is deemed
as unacceptable, I would say the basic concept is anything that
that impedes "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of happiness" for
the individual. Of course that's a little high level which is why we
have a legal system to handle the nitty gritty cases that come
along.

So what is it? Is it manual transmission? Tiptronic? Maybe just a cup-holder and a flip-down CD-control that will interfere with my field of vision?

Happiness & Satisfaction without the fear of eternal suffering?
A manual transmission may not matter to some people while it
matters greatly to others. I think you need to ask yourself 'what
matters to me?' and 'what will make me happy?'. If you can
answer those questions I can probably tell you how accepting
things without proof would roadblock those items (which indirectly
shows you why NOT accepting things without proof is so
valuable).

Ciao (hammey hammey)

 

[Tiassa]

James R

JamesR

What has me so confused has something to do with the perspectives of the atheists who have responded so far. One can no more bag on all the atheists than one can bag on all the Christians, Witches, Buddhists, &c. But the practical result of this little exploration is stunning.

So here's the essential problem I face.

While many of us can agree that religions generally present a plethora of problems to the world while alleging to solve others, it seems difficult to do anything about it when the standoff is merely the maggot calling the grub white. Comparatively, while atheists claim atheism to be a tiny idea, what atheism addresses has massive implications for one not an atheist. This is only important in terms of the idea of what to do about the problems of religion.

It seems to me that, as religions perpetuate themselves more easily through the generations than atheism, that the atheists will, in order to alleviate some of the problems of religion, have to chip away at myriad strata of religious complication.

This is not being done. By and large, our atheists here at Sciforums have shown themselves incapable of giving honest consideration to these issues. The reason the "anything else" (see Cris' early contribution to this topic) is important is because that "anything else" includes the aspects of life that a religious person would be throwing away should an atheist sell him on the idea.

So to me, it seems like a con job: Someone wants you to take a pill to make you feel better, but won't tell you what it is. "Take it," goes the mantra. "You'll feel better. I did." Well, what's in it? "Take it. You'll feel better. I did." I took the pill; it did not deliver. I cannot expect a religious person to accept the prescription without better information, and that information is what the atheists, so far, refuse to cough up. It's as if they're afraid to stand up to support what they claim to believe in.

And in the comparative, that's not an encouraging sign. For someone superstitiously indoctrinated to see courage in convictions--e.g. a religious person--the philosophical foundering (actually, that's too dignified a term for it) I see among Sciforums' atheists is not an encouraging sign.

The advocacy of atheism taking place at Sciforums only makes the idea seem sinister.

This is problematic to someone like me who would like to see the world become a better place as a result of humanity's philosophical growth, yet atheists seem to treat philosophy like a hobby, an excuse to sit around drinking and ridiculing other people. I can get that from Christianity, for heaven's sake.

But in terms of making the world a better place, atheists are officially part of the problem. I didn't want to have to say it that way, but when I stop and think of the fact that condom boxes have pictorial instructions, and that some boxes of toothpicks actually have written instructions on them ... well, I guess I'm running out of options.

Why does an atheist criticize religions? Personal affinity? Fine, but what reason do I have to respect that person at all? For being human? Nay, for they have rejected that respect as insufficient or inappropriate. And, having seen the inherent respect rejected, I'm scrambling to find some objective reason to give a rat's ass what any atheist has to say.

Take any atheist ... do I have to do an interview complete with mood lighting and Barbara Walters? "What books to you wead wegulalwly?" What art moves you? What ideas ring as true despite an atheistic dedication to objectivity (ha!)? Where a religious person might base their decision on religious dogma, what does the atheist base their own decision on? And don't say "reason" or "rational considerations" because that's a vague answer. What do religious people use? Religious texts. Great. Now, can we be more particular, or have we reached a stalemate due to cowardice?

So to me there is an essential questions that I had been avoiding: Do atheists have any benefits to offer the world? Apparently none that other people don't. Does atheism offer any benefits to the world? Apparently not.

Hence atheism becomes part of the problem.

I've also noticed that in the last year or so, our atheists have been less and less willing to stand on objectivity. Is this perhaps because of the trouncing I gave objectivity when people told me that my experiences as an atheist were not sufficient to give me insight into atheism? Nobody could answer then, and nobody can answer now.

There is a functional, living problem among people today, and atheists, while decrying religion as an often-times cause of those problems, really has nothing to offer other than petty bitching.

Reason? Rational considerations? Logic? Let's see some true objectivity here, eh? Like I've pointed out: Catholicism is tight philosophy if only you buy the a priori.

I can now say the same of atheism, based on practical observation and interaction. Some of us may strive for a better world, but it seems our atheists, by and large, strive only for a subjective definition of an improved self.

This is a disappointing betrayal of reason, logic, objectivity, and rationality. I'm sick and tired of atheist liars coming in here and talking about reason and rationality when those aspects have nothing to do with the atheists or their atheism. It's perversely dishonest, and only lends to the difficulties people in general experience. And that's what my fucking problem is.

You are worried, it seems, about where things like morals and ethics are supposed to come from, if not from religion. What does an atheist do about these things? On what foundation does he or she base a moral system?

It's more a general question. We know where the religious morals come from. But at some point I must engage the functional reality: atheists are trying to fight a snow job with snake oil, ending up with a slippery and dangerous mess in which they might actually hurt themselves.

And being one who generally rejects superstitious paradigms (I can't believe how few of our atheists can actually figure that out) I'm inclined to now seek the allegedly-objective paradigms affecting atheists. And none of them can give me a rational answer.

The first thing to realise is that mere authority is not a logically convincing basis for moral prescriptions.

I don't think atheists have any more or less right, based on my observations, to say word one about logic. In theory, I can see how this comes about, but the central rejection of God based upon reason or logic is as far as "logic" goes with the atheist. People can tell me all they want about atheism-in-theory, but the observable and practical result in this topic has been a dismal showing by selfish atheists.

Personally, what I want is a convincing argument as to why killing is wrong, not an argument from authority. If it has been declared wrong by God, then surely God must have had a good reason, right? So, what's the reason?

You understand almost exactly the reason I ask about why murder is wrong. I don't have an answer to why murder is wrong that doesn't rely on a bulwark of faith. How about you? Anyone? Anyone?

So much for "logic" and "reason".

The funny thing is, they have tended to reach similar conclusions on many issues, despite their widely differing views on the nature and existence of God. This suggests to me that a particular religious base is not the thing which ultimately determines the moral code of a society, though I admit that the particular means of enforcing the code and educating people about it have historically depended very much on the predominant religion.

And this is why you could, for a while, find a litany in my posts: It's a human problem. It's a human problem. It's not a Christian, atheist, male, female, Democratic, Republican, Communist, ad nauseam, problem. It's a human problem. Black? White? Yellow? Red? Something in between? It's a human problem, not an ethnic one.

But people didn't seem to care, so I tacked again and have seen pretty clear waters, but an atheistic navigator can give me no better practical advice than a religious person, and the religious person at least is honest enough to admit that they believe something because God says so. Atheists have cut themselves off from this particular out, and as a result are left screaming, "Reason, rational considerations, logic!" as if they're begging the gods of such to magically appear. They ought to pray a little harder.

What is an atheist to do about ethics and morality, then? The answer, at a deep level, is the same as for a religious person. The atheist develops a basic moral sense based on inbuilt instincts, and a higher moral sense from general philosophical arguments, the strongest of which work equally well whether they be secular or religious.

Won't argue with a word of it. In fact, it's a form of an answer I was hoping to see.

And I can deal with that answer because it gives us a chance to explore the methods of what an individual atheist considers.

Atheists are not really adrift in a world without moral certainty - at least not much moreso than are religious people.

Won't argue with that, either. And I can't say, in light of massive rejection by atheists of objective integrity, that they will, either. Of course, anything is possible.

Whether a person lives a morally good life can be judged on the basis of criteria which are largely universally acknowledged.

Thoroughly subjective, but I happen to agree to a certain and appreciable extent.

By and large, most atheists share much of general moral philosophy with the religious.

So help me out here ... this is a part that atheists seem afraid of:

- Why?

I just don't quite get it. One rejects God as the impetus for morality because it is illogical, irrational, or unreasonable, yet accepts components of the paradigm because ...?

I mean, to me, the idea of "why murder is wrong" has not changed much as I've moved from paradigm to paradigm. But when it came to atheism, objective integrity demanded that the reason have some objective foundation. None can be established that doesn't ultimately rest on presumption for credibility; even the anthropological considerations must presume value before saying that murder is detrimental to a value.

And that's the hitch that I personally hit. I am not an atheist because it is impossible to employ complete objectivity. One cannot be human and completely objective simultaneously. Show me a definitive result suggesting otherwise, and I'll start reformulating around that factor. But it hasn't happened, and it's not going to.

So now I see a Religion Forum that's pretty much good for two things: a few theists to beat their heads against the wall, and a plethora of atheists to beat their chests like apes. And this isn't tremendously different from life. Take a public manifestation: Dr. Neudow won an important case against religion in the courts. Too bad he essentially had to perjure himself in the act of filing the lawsuit by naming his daughter as a co-defendant and intentionally misrepresenting her. Although I have to admit, even I did not kid myself into thinking that gender-neutral pronouns were the next step in atheistic thought.

Since I have to do everything myself around here--drawing people a picture sometimes isn't enough--I figure I might as well start up the offerings.

Two points which are included in my canon of ideas:

- "Chinese Music", by Perdurabo

- Rilke's Second Letter to Kappus (Mitchell Translation)

Note: I generally use the Burnham Translation of Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet, which translation is more poetic in itself than Mitchell's, which seems to seek a form of literalism in lieu of effect. The rhythm is off in English in the Mitchell Translation, but that may be the price we pay for treating a poet as science.

Nonetheless, these considerations are closer to me than the Bible, and at most times they're closer to me than the Law of Thelema or the Witches' Reed (which are essentially the same statement).

So ... who reads Nietzsche? Hume? Schopenauer? How about Ray Bradbury? You know, I've known people who took their life-lessons from Fried Green Tomatoes and did okay by them.

But comparatively, it would appear that atheists have none of this. They have no quiet influences. They have no comparative basis by which to view their ethical determinations. It's not an inherent condition of atheism, by any means, but a seeming choice of the atheists themselves.

I'm not getting on my knees and begging people to not be dumb ****ers: I can draw my conclusions from people's inadequacies as well as I can something more positive.

But I really thought quite a bit more of the intellectual capacities of a number of posters around here. That disappointment is my own damn fault, though; I should just accept that people are as stupid as they seem.

And I do admit that I would go a little lighter on these issues, but from the outset, I've only gotten two substantial responses that don't utterly and completely miss the point (yours is one of those two).

So let's talk about the results: The conclusions are in severe danger of being wrong, perhaps? If I fail to collect the information because I don't want to look, then I worry about such a problem. But if the conclusions are in severe danger of being wrong because of the fundamental emptiness or dishonesty of so many of our atheists, does that not lead to a fairly obvious conclusion of its own?

(I don't know ... I don't know ... I'll give it another whack later, James R ... in the meantime, as I prepare to post this, I see something in the general discussion that makes me smile with disgust. I'm now too distracted to note what I haven't covered, so I'll take a whack at it later.)

:m:,
Tiassa