So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[rocketdodger]

IMO it's a morally empty system. It cannot accommodate objective meaning or morality, and therefore the individual is left to 'make it up as he goes along'. It's no surprise then that such a belief system does not, in fact cannot be a genuinely inspirational factor in people's lives.
When exclusive materialists manage to be good, inspired people they do so not due to their belief in exclusive materialism, but rather in spite of it.

This represents a central contradiction in their lives.
On the surface they believe in exclusive materialism and therefore atheism. Yet in practice, in living their day to day lives they act as though they are not exclusive materialists and therefore atheists, but rather theists.

Those who do not live with and manage this central contradiction (i.e. who live and act as a belief in exclusive materialism would truly warrant) are literally free to make up meaning and morality as they see fit.. and that is where things start to go a bit crazy.

Here is a challenge, Plumjam -- come up with any value you can think of that you consider "good," and I will try to show you a way in which materialism not only can produce the same "good" in people but can also lead them to embrace it more wholeheartedly than theism.

I am really tired of these ignorant claims that materialism is "morally empty." Do people even know what "morality" means?

 

[rocketdodger]

My own position is the opposite. I do not believe myself so omniscient and omnipotent to be able to create the whole of morality and meaning for myself. Instead I (as in practice do the so-called atheists here) attempt to discern objective morals by exercising and examining my conscience.
Sure, just as people would see and describe the chair slightly differently, the same happens in conscience.
There is a great deal of coalescence, such as the Golden Rule.

Wait... you attempt to discern objective morality by examining your own conscience?

So what do you call it when the objective morality you find from this behavior is different from the one your neighbor finds by doing the same thing? Hint -- it begins with an "s."

 

[Lothian]

was Chad Varah inspired to create the Samaritans from his atheism or his theism?

Chad Varah was a sex therapist who supported abortion and gay rights. Which of these did theism inspire?

Why did Chad Varah distance himself from the samaritans or why did they distance themselves from him ?

 

[Pardalis]

That is a massive form of egoism on behalf of the human individual. A physical analogy would be someone ignoring the actual size and shape of a chair in favour of the size and shape he would prefer the chair to have.

Well, there are overweight people, small people and handicapped people. What about them?

 

[JoeEllison]

Wait... you attempt to discern objective morality by examining your own conscience?

So what do you call it when the objective morality you find from this behavior is different from the one your neighbor finds by doing the same thing? Hint -- it begins with an "s."

Maybe he thinks he's a god? Certainly, he has placed himself in a position of standing in judgment of others, as though he does think he's a god of some sort.

 

[rocketdodger]

Thus any old fool is set free to make up his own morality and meaning, with sometimes disastrous consequences.

...except, this is exactly what you claim you do, by examining your conscience.

I don't get it. On the one hand, you are saying that people should accept objective morality, which means by definition explicitly being told what to do. Yet, because you know darn well that this is a stupid idea and in fact is the cause of the vast majority of evil in the history of the world, you also claim people should generate morality themselves by looking inward.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "you can't have your cake and eat it, too?"

 

[plumjam]

I'm sorry, but what is your point? Are you trying to tell me that if I don't have some grand model that shows many layers of life after this life that my whole premise of there being no god is useless? This is my favorite question because I get asked this a lot. Why is there life? Why is there a universe? I don't know. Does it have to have a grand purpose in the end? And even if there was a God those two questions are still not answered until God tells us himself. What was the purpose of God creating life? Why did he create a universe? Was he just bored? Why did he leave the universe humanless for billions of years? These questions still aren't answered any more conclusively even if we say in some magical land there is a God controlling everything. So I don't know what the point of this thread is. Did you expect us to stumble, not give you a grand model of life, then through that have us reconsider that hey, maybe this whole God business isn't so bad afterall? Honestly, explain the intent behind this thread.

you ask a lot of good questions, and it would take too long for me to go into all that in a worthwhile way. The best answers I have found to such questions are here:

http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/

more of his writings available free to read here:

http://www.ambppct.org/meherbaba/BooksByMeherBaba.php#3

please note, that contrary to the picture many atheists seem so keen to present, these teachings are in no way antithetical to the core teachings of the great religions

there are some differences, but the commonality is much stronger

As to the intent behind the thread. To get some atheists to possibly reflect on the nature of their belief system in relation to inspiration, morality, meaning, and how they, in practice live their lives.
To get them to examine to what extent their actions are in harmony with their belief system.

 

[plumjam]

Wait... you attempt to discern objective morality by examining your own conscience?

yes, in exactly the same way in order to discern the size and shape of the chair I examine my own individual visual perceptual experiences.
Just because they are my own visual perceptions doesn't mean the chair does not 'objectively' exist 'out there'.

So what do you call it when the objective morality you find from this behavior is different from the one your neighbor finds by doing the same thing? Hint -- it begins with an "s."

I call it the same thing as you seeing the chair slightly differently from your own angle, and due to your visual/brain apparatus not being entirely identical to my own.
Yes... s.... hmm... 'seeing' then.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

As to the intent behind the thread. To get some atheists to possibly reflect on the nature of their belief system in relation to inspiration, morality, meaning, and how they, in practice live their lives.
To get them to examine to what extent their actions are in harmony with their belief system.

Why is an atheist believing? I think if you have a lot of evidence supporting your view of the universe that it no longer remains to be just a mere belief. And I can be inspired, moral, and meaningful without pretending there is a deity guiding me. Why is that so hard for theists to understand? Putting a god in the picture is simply unnecessary plurality.

And again, atheism is not a religion. There's no dogmatic guidelines to follow. You simply have a godless world view and that's it. Everything else is just personal to you.

 

[Pardalis]

To get them to examine to what extent their actions are in harmony with their belief system.

Simple.

My daily activities have nothing to do with god. So harmony? You betcha.

 

[plumjam]

It is denied because, quite simply, agents which express moral and meaningful expressions can, quite simply, be inverted.

The physical analog is to look at a chair and say, "that chair is nice," and then have someone else look at a chair and say, "that chair is not nice".

The niceness is not a physical property of the chair - it is a physical property of the agent responding to the chair.

So you do not understand what the analog is quite simply. And I doubt you are much interested in correcting it.

A chair designed by a top furniture designer will get a virtually unanimously superior aesthetic rating from viewers, than would a chair designed by a chimpanzee. So, yes, aesthetics, 'niceness' is objective too.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

As to the intent behind the thread. To get some atheists to possibly reflect on the nature of their belief system in relation to inspiration, morality, meaning, and how they, in practice live their lives.
To get them to examine to what extent their actions are in harmony with their belief system.

You keep tripping over at the start - atheism isn't a "belief system" that's what theism is.

Although strictly speaking "theism" also isn't actually a belief system, it's merely a belief in some form of supernatural entity; albeit many theists also seem to have a belief system that includes that belief.

So when you talk about atheists v theists in regards to anything bar that one believes in a supernatural entity and the other doesn't you actually need to specify what belief system you are actually talking about. For example is it Christianity or Judaism - followers of both of those are theists but they do not share a common belief system.

 

[m_huber]

I'm personally just glad that there are theists out there willing to act like atheists.

In fact, that was part of my transformation to atheism. I was a hard-core christian, and I was preparing to make a move in life that would have put me in dire financial straights. My mother (who has seminary training) managed to convince me that God would not provide for me. I was left with a bizarre contradiction: in the theoretical setting, God always is said to provide. In the realm of reality, God can't provide. And those who teach the ways of God know that just as well as anyone else. So, even though people (and it was more than just my mother) claimed to be believers, they acted like unbelievers.

So, if the moral acts of atheists are best described as "atheists acting like theists," then perhaps you should wonder if instead, the best acts of the theists are actually "theists acting like atheists."

Or perhaps even better, "atheists and theists acting like humans."

 

[zooterkin]

They have no religious agenda. It was specifically set up as a nonreligious organisation. Volunteers are banned from discussing their religious beliefs with callers.

I don’t think many churches would support their value ‘That everyone has the right to make fundamental decisions about their own life, including the decision to die by suicide’

I don't mean to derail this discussion, but while I would not disagree with any of that, I would say non-religious is not the same as atheist; it's just not something they take any account of in their work. Christians and members of other religions, as well as atheists, work as and support Samaritans. Pretty much the same applies to already mentioned Red Cross/Crescent, and Médecins Sans Frontières. I don't see why Plumjam demands that there be a specifically atheist charity or organisation anyway; atheism is not an organisation itself. We might equally well demand that there be a charity run by all religions together, but with no atheists supporting it. I think it's more in the nature of the religious to exclude those who don't believe their particular brand of belief than for atheists to only work with other atheists.

No, I don't think so. I believe the truly arrogant statement is one which denies the possibility of objective truth in areas such as morality and meaning.
Thus any old fool is set free to make up his own morality and meaning, with sometimes disastrous consequences.

So, who set up your morality? Not god, as set out in the bible, since I'm pretty sure you follow neither the example nor the supposed pronouncements of god as recorded there. How did you choose which rules to keep, and which to ignore?

 

[plumjam]

And I can be inspired, moral, and meaningful without pretending there is a deity guiding me. Why is that so hard for theists to understand? Putting a god in the picture is simply unnecessary plurality.

And again, atheism is not a religion. There's no dogmatic guidelines to follow. You simply have a godless world view and that's it. Everything else is just personal to you.

As an atheist on this board you are almost certainly a believer in exclusive materialism. In an exclusively materialist reality, the reality ultimately, as a whole, has no possibility of objective meaning. It is thenceforth a combination of self-delusion/ sloppy thinking/ denial to try to reintroduce small subjective meaning into such a scenario.
If the whole is meaningless the parts are ultimately meaningless too. In practice all the atheists so far are introducing this bogus meaningless meaning.
In this they are betraying a 'believe atheism, live theism' approach.

 

[Darat]

Anyone who is claiming that a god means there is an objective morality is once again just saying "it's turtles all the way down".

 

[Pardalis]

A chair designed by a top furniture designer will get a virtually unanimously superior aesthetic rating from viewers, than would a chair designed by a chimpanzee. So, yes, aesthetics, 'niceness' is objective too.

I don't really understand what you are getting at with the chair business.

There are many different types of chairs, rocking chairs, stools, couches and you can even use someone else's knee to sit on, so there isn't one custom made chair, there isn't an "objective morality".

 

[zooterkin]

As an atheist on this board you are almost certainly a believer in exclusive materialism. In an exclusively materialist reality, the reality ultimately, as a whole, has no possibility of objective meaning.

I'm with you up to here, I think, if you mean all that is real is that which we can perceive evidence for.

It is thenceforth a combination of self-delusion/ sloppy thinking/ denial to try to reintroduce small subjective meaning into such a scenario.

Nope, lost you completely at this point. Care to restate it in a different way? Maybe an example?

 

[plumjam]

So, who set up your morality? Not god, as set out in the bible, since I'm pretty sure you follow neither the example nor the supposed pronouncements of god as recorded there. How did you choose which rules to keep, and which to ignore?

The Creator of everything created everything, including morality. We perceive objective morality via moral intuition/conscience. This intuition/conscience is at a different level of development in all individuals, as is physical perception.
In the past individuals have set out the results of their moral consciences, sometimes in systems of rules etc..
These systems vary in quality in relation to the degree of development of the individual conscience.
So, for example, the consciences of the great saints and mystics were much better developed than those of, say, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.. who probably did what they could to avoid examining their consciences.

As to which systems to favour and which to reject, that's up to your own individual conscience.

 

[Pardalis]

The Creator of everything created everything, including morality.

No, morality is a human concept so that we can live together in relative peace. Just like chairs are a human invention so that we can sit down and rest our legs.