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

[plumjam]

(brought here from Aliens Evolving thread)

Very old thread? You made that post less than 24 hours ago! It was the 20th post in a thread started today. You asked me to show you where you had ever said it and I did, giving you a link to a very recent post.

well thanks for telling me where you got that from.. so let's look at my post:

"That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.
Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction."

see the bolded word. Influence.
Individuals are capable (particularly individuals who examine their consciences more than others) of resisting influence. Influence refers to the social/media/political/cultural forces that would be at play in such a situation. A society pervaded by the kinds of moral beliefs more harmonious with atheism / exclusive materialism will have more of such influences available to the individual. This does not mean that any particular individual will succumb to them, in fact they may positively rebel, as their conscience tells them that this is wrong.

It does not appear to be the case. You've implied it numerous times. Sometimes you call them "materialists" but you also make it clear that you believe all atheists are materialists.

no I don't, but in my experience all the ones I've seen on this board are.

See if you can follow this syllogism

.

Premise one: Materialists tend to be less moral than theists.

*sigh* I have never argued this, I have been arguing about what happens when exclusive materialism is formulated into moral systems which are then adopted by societies.

Premise two: All atheists are materialists.

no, but all exclusive materialists are atheists

Conclusion: Atheists tend to be less moral than theists.

no.

You have made these arguments. I can show you if you like, but it would probably not serve any purpose because everyone else already knows it and you might likely deny it, just as you did this time when I showed you what you asked for.

you are misinterpreting what my arguments are about.

Is it possible that you are still unclear that you are saying atheism leads to immorality?

It does when the exclusive materialist philosophy espoused by all atheists I have seen on this forum is formulated into a system of morality which is then adopted by societies

Is it possible that you don't realize that this is an insult to atheists? Come on, Plumjam. I know you better than that. You're not that dim.

It is not an insult to any particular individual atheist. It is more a note of caution that it would be unwise of them if they allowed or encouraged some among their ranks to formulate moral systems more harmonious with their philosophy of exclusive materialism, and then endeavour to have these systems adopted by society as a whole.

You're simply wrong. You have been caught in contradictions and fallacious statements about atheism and about theism. You can admit it and I for one will find that honorable.

I would admit it if I believed that were the case. But you are making accusations/interpretations of what to you is my supposed position. But it is not a position I hold.

Sorry, but that is a direct contradiction to what you said. If the general trend is toward immorality, then any given atheist is less likely to be moral than a theist. That is what "general trend" means. Saying "some of my best friends are atheists" won't cover your prejudice.

I didn't say general trend, I said general influence.. and I have just explained what I meant by that. Socially sanctioned influence. To which particular individuals are eminently capable of resisting.

Generally my position goes something like this, which if you read some of the other posts, you might discern:

It is possible to formulate and propagate moral systems more consonant with the philosophy of exclusive materialism. However, these systems are moving away from objective moral truth.. basically because the underlying reality in which they are operating is not exclusively material. Therefore, when these systems are adopted by societies they have the abhorrent results they have produced.

Aside from the abhorrent results there is another factor which contributes to the historical fact that such materialist moral systems have been and will always be relatively short-lived. This is the fact that good, decent, compassionate, reflective atheist individuals (like good, decent, compassionate, reflective theists) have the wisdom to base their personal understanding of morality not on dogmatic intellectually held beliefs, but rather on their individual consciences. This factor plants in the consciousness of such people the unmistakable feeling that something is wrong with the moral system, and the moral system's hold is gradually eroded.

It is possible, for a while, for people to live in a kind of denial, in which they value their dogmatic beliefs over what their consciences are telling them. Eventually, though, the conscience is more powerful, and will win out.

My position is that when people dogmatically believe in exclusive materialism they are very often persisting in a state of denial about how their beliefs should relate to morality.
This is currently easier to do due to society now having reverted back to a moral system based on the spiritual view of the human, rather than the prior moral systems based on the exclusive material view of the human.

It is an uncomfortable subject for exclusive materialists. And so it should be.

In fact another motivation behind my thread is to show that, in day to day reality, exclusive materialists do not act within the moral realm in harmony with their intellectual beliefs, instead they act within the moral realm using a spiritual view of the human being.

This is a central inconsistency, which I just felt needed pointing out.

I'm sorry you have taken this as an insult. It was not meant as such. Rather it was just trying to get people to face up to reality.

 

[Nogbad]

It seems to me, because I have encountered this before on a number of occasions, that theists believe that a "real" moral framework can only come from a source external to man. That a human understanding of what is right and wrong is essentially flawed. I am not convinced that this is the case. Jesus taught a simple message "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This is not a difficult concept and requires no prophecies, golden trumpets, temples or churches, heaven or hell or any of the other fripperies of religion. The teaching says that our well being comes through being supportive of one another. From a purely materialist point of view do we observe this behaviour in troop or clan animals? Meerkats, for example, look after each other's young, keep lookout and gather food. Why do they do this? An individual meerkat is vunerable but as a troop they are strong. Humans are a troop animal - we prosper when we look out for each other we fail when we are divided. As sentient beings we are able to discuss and expand on what it means to be human and the extent and nature of what looking out for each other means. This has changed over the years and no doubt will continue to change. Our troops or clans have expanded from small groups to cities to countries to global.

Consequently I do not see such a big split between the material and the conscience. The conscience is telling us what is good for the species, our own inclination for personal gratification can (although not always) tell us otherwise.

 

[zooterkin]

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.
The moral systems derived from exclusive materialism have proved to be disastrous.

It is not an insult to any particular individual atheist.

No, just to (nearly) all the atheists on this board.


Basically, your argument is circular. We know what is right, because god has given us a conscience. Our conscience is proof of god.

A corollary is that somehow, when atheists use their conscience, they cannot come up with morality which is acceptable to you.

A second corollary is that somehow, any religious morality is acceptable. Somehow, any religion is correct, even when the tenets of that religion oppose those of another religion. How can that be?

By the way, you're fond of attacking atheists, but seem very coy about your own affiliation.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It is possible to formulate and propagate moral systems more consonant with the philosophy of exclusive materialism. However, these systems are moving away from objective moral truth.. basically because the underlying reality in which they are operating is not exclusively material. Therefore, when these systems are adopted by societies they have the abhorrent results they have produced.

What objective moral truth are you talking about?

This is currently easier to do due to society now having reverted back to a moral system based on the spiritual view of the human, rather than the prior moral systems based on the exclusive material view of the human.

Could you give an example of this reversal?

 

[Tricky]

I see you copied over some of that "aliens" thread here. That's good. This is where it needed to be. Unfortunately, you left out an important bit.

If you can find a quote of me saying "atheists tend to be immoral" I will take it back. But you won't, because I have never written that.

Okay, here it is.

That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.

"general influence" means the same thing as "tendency".
Now you can try to dance around and say that you didn't use the exact words, but any reasonable person can see that this statement indicates that you think the general influence for atheists is to be more immoral.

I truly hope you won't try to deny this. It would cause me to lose respect for you.

But deny it you did and still do.

No, Plumjam, there is no problem with anybody misinterpreting what you have typed. If what you say above about your meaning is true (and here, I shall employ that tool called "the willing suspension of disbelief") the problem is that what you type is poorly representing what you actually mean. There's no great shame in that. Many people have difficulty converting their thoughts into the written word.

So let us go on the assumption that you were unaware that what you have said demeans atheists in general (or "exclusive materialists", to use your made-up strawman of a term), directly suggesting that they have a "general tendancy" to be less moral. Okay. Now you know. I hope and expect that you will use this knowledge to frame your statements about atheism with more care.

And you can stop tap dancing now.

P.S.
Did you know that you can go to the source of a quote if you click on the

button to the right of a quoted person's name? You seemed to be in some confusion as to where I had obtained that quote.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, but if he was Christian, he might give a lot more.

If my auntie had testicles, she'd be my uncle.


If Bill Gates was a Christian, he might give less, or nothing at all.

The bible implies its not how much you give but how much of a sacrifice it is. (e.g. the parable of the woman with the 2 mites). If you give 2 billion but have 48 billion more that's probably not a big sacrifice- although its better than nothing. Also it can be argued that a lot of businesses suffered at the hands of Microsoft which is probably why there are a lot of lawsuits against them.

All of which misses the point, of course. Plumjam asked for an example of an atheist charity. One was provided.

What relevance a passage of your (not necessarily Plumjam's) holy book has to this, I have no idea.

Also the Gates Foundation has received criticism that a high proportion of their donations go to technology. The LA Times had a article about some of the criticisms of where the Gates Foundation money is going.

Again, quite irrelevant to the point.

 

[linusrichard]

the exclusive materialist philosophy espoused by all atheists I have seen on this forum

I am an atheist. I am on this forum. You have seen me. I have not espoused exclusive materialism. Going by your definition of exclusive materialism from earlier in this thread, it is not a philosophy to which I subscribe. I told you as much earlier in the thread. The first time you said that all atheists on this forum subscribe to exclusive materialism, you were wrong. This time, you're still wrong, but you knew or should have known that you were wrong. Some would call that a lie.

(Of course, this is all assuming that your definition of exclusive materialism is correct. If it's not, I might be an exclusive materialist - I don't know. I'm only going by your definition.)



It is when discussions turn the way this thread has gone that I have to dust off my Rorty:

Berlin ended his essay by quoting Joseph Schumpeter, who said, "To realise the relative validity of one's convictions and yet stand for them unflinchingly, is what distinguishes a civilized man from a barbarian." . . .
Schumpeter's claim that this is the mark of a civilized person translates into the claim that the liberal societies of our century have produced more and more people who are able to recognize the contingency of the vocabulary in which they state their highest hopes - the contingency of their own consciences - and yet have remained faithful to those consciences. . . .
such recognition is the chief virtue of the members of a liberal society, and that the culture of such a society should aim at curing us of our "deep metaphysical need."

I don't expect this to convince plumjam or DOC one notch. I only offer it because I think it's a fair description of where I think a few people here might be coming from - it's more or less where I'm coming from.

 

[DOC]

All of which misses the point, of course. Plumjam asked for an example of an atheist charity. One was provided.

It your referring to charity money given by Gates and Buffet that is not an atheist charity. That is money given by 2 men who claim to be agnostic. There is no evidence that either Gates or Buffet are atheists.

 

[joobz]

Yes, but if he was Christian, he might give a lot more. The bible implies its not how much you give but how much of a sacrifice it is. (e.g. the parable of the woman with the 2 mites). If you give 2 billion but have 48 billion more that's probably not a big sacrifice- although its better than nothing. Also it can be argued that a lot of businesses suffered at the hands of Microsoft which is probably why there are a lot of lawsuits against them.

You'e made this argument before, and it was terrible then as well.
If Gates was religious, he could have given less to charity and more to the church. So, your point is nonsense. The fact that he started the largest new philathropy ini the last decade and he doesn't believe in god simply proves that you do not need god to do good. And believing in god doesn't prevent people from doing bad.

Also the Gates Foundation has received criticism that a high proportion of their donations go to technology. The LA Times had a article about some of the criticisms of where the Gates Foundation money is going.

recieving criticism and deserving criticism aren't the same thing.

Warren Buffet has admitted to being agnostic. There is no evidence that I've seen that he is an atheist.

explain to me again what god an agnostic believes in?
Oh yeah, that's right they don't believe in god either.



The only thing this thread has taught is that you don't need god to do good, but people can use god as an excuse to be horrible arrogant. A personality trait which would be considered in opposition to being moral. I'll leave it for everyone to draw their own conclusions.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It your referring to charity money given by Gates and Buffet that is not an atheist charity. That is money given by 2 men who claim to be agnostic. There is no evidence that either Gates or Buffet are atheists.

DOC, I think you still live under the delusion that atheism is a movement like Christianity. Appealing to agnosticism is just silly… if Gates don’t hold a belief in a god, then he has an atheist position in regards to such belief.

Here’s another mover of lots of money to charity: George Soros. Not that it should matter if someone is an atheist or not.

 

[joobz]

It your referring to charity money given by Gates and Buffet that is not an atheist charity. That is money given by 2 men who claim to be agnostic. There is no evidence that either Gates or Buffet are atheists.

agnostics do not believe in god. Therefore they fit the bill.

Besides, most agnostics/atheists don't give in the name of "agnosticism/atheism" in the same way that you don't give money in the name of not believing in Zeus.

Look toward any secular charity and you will see many agonstics/atheists there.

 

[Nogbad]

There are any number of charities and foundations that have no religious component, equally, there are many that do. I fail to see the relevance of the argument. To say that those who have given would have given more if they were religious is hardly a very convincing argument.

It would seem that the underlying argument is that no matter what is done, if it is not based on theism it is irrelevant or, if one prefers, if it was done by an atheist it ain't worth a damn

 

[joobz]

It would seem that the underlying argument is that no matter what is done, if it is not based on theism it is irrelevant or, if one prefers, if it was done by an atheist it ain't worth a damn

that's exactly the argument.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Leaving aside for a moment DOC's quibble about whether Gates would have donated a tithe or Buffet is a certain flavor of non-believer - shouldn't the fact that they should be donating money to encourage abortions, putting pornography in every home and raping any woman they found desireable be the center of his "argument" rather than just quibbling about how much Gates theoretically would have donated (Benny Hinn anyone) or exactly what sort of non-believer Buffett is?

 

[Vic Vega]

Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.

Really? Have you told a fundamentalist Muslim this? How did he respond?

You don't get it and, based on the nonsense you continue to post, it doesn't appear that you ever will. Atheism says NOTHING about someone except that they don't believe in a supreme being. That's it. Nothing more. It's really that simple. Trying to make it mean more than that is a waste of your time and ours.

I do all of the things that many theists do. I donate to many of the same charities and care about many of the same things. My life has just as much meaning and purpose.

 

[Pardalis]

Thanks.
*winking at you like the guy in your avatar*

(is that Jack Kerouac?)

Yeah, Jacques Kerouac holding the puck of his 400th goal.

 

[Roadtoad]

Really? Have you told a fundamentalist Muslim this? How did he respond?

You don't get it and, based on the nonsense you continue to post, it doesn't appear that you ever will. Atheism says NOTHING about someone except that they don't believe in a supreme being. That's it. Nothing more. It's really that simple. Trying to make it mean more than that is a waste of your time and ours.

I do all of the things that many theists do. I donate to many of the same charities and care about many of the same things. My life has just as much meaning and purpose.

I think you've pretty much hit the high points on this "debate," Vic, but the reality of this thread is that it's nothing more than a place for Plumjam to sit in judgement of people who disagree with him and urinate on them.

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. Where did I see this before? Perhaps in the Churches I attended for so many years, coming from the pulpit and the pews?

 

[joobz]

Leaving aside for a moment DOC's quibble about whether Gates would have donated a tithe or Buffet is a certain flavor of non-believer - shouldn't the fact that they should be donating money to encourage abortions, putting pornography in every home and raping any woman they found desireable be the center of his "argument" rather than just quibbling about how much Gates theoretically would have donated (Benny Hinn anyone) or exactly what sort of non-believer Buffett is?

Well, according to DOC, The gate's foundation's attempts at dealing with the AIDS problem in africa could be considered evil. Afterall, didn't some christians claim that AIDS is a punishment for promiscuity and gay sex?

 

[Vic Vega]

I think you've pretty much hit the high points on this "debate," Vic, but the reality of this thread is that it's nothing more than a place for Plumjam to sit in judgement of people who disagree with him and urinate on them.

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. Where did I see this before? Perhaps in the Churches I attended for so many years, coming from the pulpit and the pews?

Yes, I know. I just couldn't bear to read through the entire thread. These arguments get so tedious. Trying to get people like DOC or plumjam to even understand just how uncomplicated the term atheist is and that it says only ONE, SINGLE, SIMPLE thing about people who identify themselves as such, is very frustrating.

Plumjam's assertion was something I had to comment on. There are very few guarantees in life, but here's one for you. Every one of the suicide bombers responsible for the murders of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children over the last several decades were theists.

 

[joobz]

Yes, I know. I just couldn't bear to read through the entire thread. These arguments get so tedious. Trying to get people like DOC or plumjam to even understand just how uncomplicated the term atheist is and that it says only ONE, SINGLE, SIMPLE thing about people who identify themselves as such, is very frustrating.

Plumjam's assertion was something I had to comment on. There are very few guarantees in life, but here's one for you. Every one of the suicide bombers responsible for the murders of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children over the last several decades were theists.

It'd like to know what part of god's universal moral code they used to justify the bombings.

It's been my contention that if god is there, we don't need his morality. It's proven horrible and I think we can do better.