Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

Sure enough. Some people trap themselves in the delusion that morality is obedience to their God's wishes rather than their God's wishes being a just-so story explaining how their society would like its members to act, and ultimately that story was created from its authors' innate sense of right and wrong.

It leads people to say stuff like as they imagine that "because I want to" is a bad thing and will result in anarchy as people just do whatever selfish or psychopathic thing crosses their mind. They have blinded themselves to the trivial fact that most people most of the time don't want to do mean things because they will feel bad about it. Evolution made us that way. Mostly we are kind, considerate and cooperative. Sometimes we are selfish but we know instinctively to conceal such unfair behaviour because it will affect how others treat us.

Only people who have been bamboozled into thinking the only reason they're not a psychopath is that God will punish them for it are confused by this.

Morality begins when you are able to control your immediate desires in order to attain a higher good. This is where reason works.

You can say that you are always choosing according your desires, because this god which you believe in represents your supreme desire. May be, but the big difference is that an autonomous morality depends on your own rational capacity instead on what is written in a book, interpreted by an authority or oriented by your unstable mood. In the religious mood the alleged God's commands conflict often with our inner moral sense. In this case true believer is ready to put his son in the altar and take the knife. Whether or not the child is killed depends only on whether or not the angel arrives.

Abraham's story is very illustrative of what it means to be a true believer .

 

[David Mo]

Robin's claim is not the slightest bit incompatible with the existence of God.

I don't think so. Believing in a God turns moral commandments into absolute rules. If God commands us not to take our neighbour's wife, we cannot say, "It can be yes, it can be no."

I am speaking of a true believer, of course.

 

[David Mo]

Besides, why do actions formerly justified by belief in God need a justification after one becomes an atheist? What happens if you don't come up with a new justification for doing those things? Or some of them, anyway. I do all sorts of things I don't bother justifying to myself at all.

Again, you talk of things like "must" and "needs" as if there's some terrible consequence for not doing these things.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery".
Do have I to explain what consequences derive from not be able to justify this rule?

I don't know if the consequences would be "terrible" or not. It depends on our inner sense of morality. But they are important.

Anyway, when I put the example of existential anguish I was in a different subject. This is a feeling provoked by the sense of the absolute responsibility of my decisions. None god, I decide. How?

 

[David Mo]

Secondly it is not relativism since it is a universal statement that applies to all occasions

Tell me, do you think that believing Christians want to go to heaven? Or not?

If moral depends of human desires it is relative because human desires are multiple and variate. Unless you can show that a common moral wish exists and a unique way of morality is possible.

For example: the desire to go to heaven is related to religious beliefs. Only valid for true believers.

 

[David Mo]

There is no observable phenomena that indicates intelligent design. If, hypothetically, an alien were to introduce genes into a species, those genes would still have to go through the standard eliminating processes of evolution like random mutations, anyway. Unless some alien can simultaneously eliminate all forms of natural evolution, intelligence design makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not saying the belief in Intelligent Design is true. I am saying that its value of truth or falsehood is decided by explaining certain phenomena of nature. Eyes evolution, for example.

 

[Robin]

If moral depends of human desires it is relative because human desires are multiple and variate. Unless you can show that a common moral wish exists and a unique way of morality is possible.

All I have to show is that a consistent rule can be applied to all situations then it is not relative.

Do that which you most want to do, or if no path is possible that you want, then do that which is least objectionable to you.

Can be applied consistently to any occasion.

For example: the desire to go to heaven is related to religious beliefs. Only valid for true believers.

So, for a believer, it basically boils down to what they want, right?

 

[Robin]

I don't think so. Believing in a God turns moral commandments into absolute rules. If God commands us not to take our neighbour's wife, we cannot say, "It can be yes, it can be no."

I am speaking of a true believer, of course.

So you are saying true believers don't want to go to heaven? They really want to go to hell, but only agree to go to heaven out of a sense of odious duty?

 

[Robin]

"Thou shalt not commit adultery".
Do have I to explain what consequences derive from not be able to justify this rule?

I don't know if the consequences would be "terrible" or not. It depends on our inner sense of morality. But they are important.

Anyway, when I put the example of existential anguish I was in a different subject. This is a feeling provoked by the sense of the absolute responsibility of my decisions. None god, I decide. How?

Same way a true believer does, you decide what it is that you most want to do.

 

[David Mo]

All I have to show is that a consistent rule can be applied to all situations then it is not relative.

Do that which you most want to do, or if no path is possible that you want, then do that which is least objectionable to you.

Can be applied consistently to any occasion.

So, for a believer, it basically boils down to what they want, right?

In one sense, this rule is relative; in another sense, it is empty.

It is empty because people really do what they want. Even those who commit suicide or masochists. This is a psychological law, if not a tautology. You cannot say that your rule is to order to the sun to be hot.

It's relative because "whatever you want" doesn't has a unique content. Therefore, you are ordering different things. You are matching the value of opposites. This is relativism.

 

[David Mo]

So you are saying true believers don't want to go to heaven? They really want to go to hell, but only agree to go to heaven out of a sense of odious duty?

I think your answer has nothing to do with what I put to you. I am not saying that the believer does what he does not want. If he chooses to believe in a god, it will be a free choice, even if he hidens it to himself by saying that God has chosen him. I'm saying that by choosing this makes God's commandments an absolute, that he can no longer refrain from keeping them, even though they may go against his deepest desires or whatever reason dictates to him. Review Abraham's case that I discussed above, please.

And his choice makes God's commands an absolute in other sense: he thinks that they are mandatory for him and the rest of the humanity.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Morality begins when you are able to control your immediate desires in order to attain a higher good. This is where reason works.

People do that all the time instinctively. Reason then pats itself on the back.

Abraham's story is very illustrative of what it means to be a true believer .

The idea that it's praiseworthy to obey the voices in your head to the lengths of killing your own children has never appealed to me, even if they're going to say they were kidding just before you do it.

Everyone comes out of that story looking like a dick.

 

[Robin]

I think your answer has nothing to do with what I put to you. I am not saying that the believer does what he does not want. If he chooses to believe in a god, it will be a free choice, even if he hidens it to himself by saying that God has chosen him. I'm saying that by choosing this makes God's commandments an absolute, that he can no longer refrain from keeping them, even though they may go against his deepest desires or whatever reason dictates to him. Review Abraham's case that I discussed above, please.

And his choice makes God's commands an absolute in other sense: he thinks that they are mandatory for him and the rest of the humanity.

So eternal reward isn't their deepest desire? They forego their deepest desire and reluctantly go to eternal reward instead. Is that it now?

 

[Robin]

In one sense, this rule is relative; in another sense, it is empty.

It is empty because people really do what they want. Even those who commit suicide or masochists. This is a psychological law, if not a tautology. You cannot say that your rule is to order to the sun to be hot.

It's relative because "whatever you want" doesn't has a unique content. Therefore, you are ordering different things. You are matching the value of opposites. This is relativism.

You seem to want this consistent rule to be somehow "relativist".

I take it then that you don't think it is a good idea for people to ask themselves what it is that they really want out of life.

So what approach do you recommend people take when deciding what to do?

 

[Robin]

It seems to be that what Abraham wanted more than anything else, in that story, was to be obedient to God.

 

[Robin]

What interests me is the knee-jerk assumption that "what you want" must equate to negatives " totally despise others, be depraved, cruel, cowardly" and so on.

Does the average person really want to be like that? If so then I must always have met non average people in my life, because in my experience people want to get on with others, to have healthy relationships, to be kind, to be brave and so on, even if they admit to themselves that they often fall short of this.

 

[Robin]

I am not speaking of particular beliefs in particular religions. There are still worse that you quote. I have laid clear that I was speaking of the deny of a general concept of God. Because that the atheist don't believe in any god all inquiry about particular precepts is improcedent.

You were saying that when we want to formulate a positive philosophy for life, we should involve theists for balance.

I was giving reasons why this would be counter productive. You gave another example why involving theists would not be useful yourself. If we want to discuss a positive, rational approach to morality and ethics, do we really need to involve a group for whom the poster boy for peak moral goodness was someone who was prepared to murder his son on the say-so of a powerful supernatural being?

 

[calebprime]

I was hoping "improcedent" could be my English vocabulary word for the day, but sadly it is not English.

 

[JesseCuster]

"Thou shalt not commit adultery".
Do have I to explain what consequences derive from not be able to justify this rule?

There can be lots of consequences to commiting adultery. I'm sure we all can imagine or have experience of how adultery has consequences (none of those consequences have nothing to do with God, because God doesn't exist).

I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion?

I'm not talking about the consequences of your actions, I'm talking about the consequences of not justifying your actions.

You said that atheists must justify those actions that they previously justified by their religious beliefs. I pointed out that 'must' is a strong word as it implies there will be bad consequences if the atheists doesn't justify those actions.

I want to know why atheists must justify actions they used to justify by their beliefs and what consequences there will be if they don't.

 

[Cainkane1]

As an atheistic I'm optimistic that I will not be sauteed in Hell for eternity like the majority of the human race is going to if you are right.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I want to know why atheists must justify actions they used to justify by their beliefs and what consequences there will be if they don't.

Might also be worth noting the rather loaded assumptions that atheists used to be theists and that they used to be able to justify their behaviour from their religious beliefs.

Neither of those is a given.