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

[rocketdodger]

By your logic all subjective assessments are literally of equal value. So Hannibal Lecter is literally just as moral as Superman.

But that would be nonsense.

Unless the definition of morality was something along the lines of how one acts given the values they hold.

Which it is.

 

[delphi_ote]

So why is plumjam avoiding my question?

Anyway chaps, I'm taking a break from this thread.
Don't forget that God loves you

Right after being pressed to answer the very same questions he asked us about his own world view, he "takes a break." Coincidence?

 

[Oroborus]

This is a parody, right?

 

[delphi_ote]

It would. And that happens to be true. Do you disagree?

It is trivial to decide whether shooting a man in the head is right or wrong. It is non-trivial to decide whether starting a launch sequence on a nuclear warhead is right or wrong.

It is trivial to decide whether poisioning a man's drink is right or wrong. It is non-trivial to decide whether the chemical you want to use in your manufacturing plant will hurt the local population or not.

I disagree, to an extent. A person capable deducing that these things are unethical is also capable of doing them anyway.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

This may seem paradoxical. Why is atheism more immoral on a social than an individual level?

This is patently wrong and you know it.

Hint for the future: Instead of taking it as a given that atheist societies are worse than theist ones and then trying to make sense of this through various hypotheses... challenge objectively your statement that atheist societies are evil in the first place. With respect, trying to explain how atheism makes you evil is like trying to explain how homeopathic medicines work. Forming theories and hypotheses based on a given statement only works if you can back up the given statement in the first place.

 

[rocketdodger]

I disagree, to an extent. A person capable deducing that these things are unethical is also capable of doing them anyway.

Yeah you are right. I should have said "more rational people are able to behave with potentially more moral responsibility" which implies that they can do more good but also more bad.

 

[Olowkow]

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.

Foster: Is that from the "Monty Python" funniest, killer, joke routine? I was going to Babelfish it, but I was afraid I might wind up in hospital!

 

[joobz]

Nice!

Which is why I'm putting zero effort into this. Parroting this nonsense is easy. If plumjam can't answer his/her own question about his own belief, why bother?

What? You didn't like my little take on plumjam's thingy, i mean argument.

 

[Wowbagger]

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

I'm going to Disney World!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I'm not actually an atheist, but someone had to say it!)

 

[delphi_ote]

What? You didn't like my little take on plumjam's thingy, i mean argument.

Not at all! I thought it was fantastic!

I'm just saying serious debate with someone demonstrating this level of intellectual dishonesty isn't really worth anyone's time.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

My argument regarding atheism vis-a-vis morality is that when the exclusive materialist world view behind most atheism expresses itself socially in the form of new moral systems the result is disastrous, because it represents a drift away from the objective moral truth.

This may seem paradoxical. Why is atheism more immoral on a social than an individual level?
Well, this is because atheists almost always (except when powerful social pressures are brought to bear upon them, such as under Stalin, Pol Pot etc..) may have atheistic beliefs, but they live (in the moral dimension) as theists.

(snip)

The reality is that through the history of religion this kind of thing has been the rare exception. However, under systems of morality based on atheistic materialism, this kind of thing was pretty much the rule.

Plumjam has already started such a thread. It was demonstrated that the totalitarian systems he claimed to be a natural result of atheism were in fact based on the Soviet interpretation of Communism. The facts that the state itself was a virtual religion and that intellectual atheists were often imprisoned and executed because they were perceived as a threat to the state were both ignored by Plumjam.

Plumjam, I can only conclude from observation that you are incapable of admitting error. Communism and atheism are not the same thing. Again, Communism and atheism are not the same thing. What happened in Russia, China, Cambodia etcetera was done in the name of Communism, which was a virtual religion unto itself. These states/religions declared official atheism (based on something that many people believe Karl Marx to have said that he actually did not) in order to suppress rival power systems.

Hey now, don't interrupt plumjam when he's presenting his 100% irrefutable argument that all atheists are Stalin. With that kind of false cause and guilt by association reasoning, how can anyone in their right mind possibly disagree? Feel free to hop on the hamster wheel any time. Don't you know that every atheist alive today is a joint reincarnation of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot? Don't you know that if atheists were left to their own devices, they'd slaughter millions of people in the name of Atheism?

In fact, the only thing keeping me from knifing and old lady and swiping her purse is the fact that I still secretly believe in God, and feel him breathing down my neck, watching everything I do. Morals and ethics could not have evolved, because we never see moral or altruistic behavior elsewhere in nature, and such behavior obviously offers no survival advantages whatsoever. All animals are savage beasts who eat their own young, and humans would be no exception, were it not for their unwavering faith.

Because science is materialistic and science doesn't have an absolute understanding of the nature of consciousness or human ethics, it stands to reason that there's more to reality than materialism. Since anything we don't fully understand, including that which exists outside of material reality, is ruled by God, it stands to reason that all morals must come from God. So what if it doesn't make any sense that a higher objective moral standard makes God an unnecessary moral exemplar, or that God's arbitrary will would make his morality purely subjective and unknowable? The answer to anything we don't understand, without exception, is "goddidit."

History shows us that perfect faith always has favorable results. The early Christians labeled the Jews "Christ-killers" and for centuries the Church incited people against them with accusations of blood libel and host desecration, even up to the 1940s. The Church went so far as to decree that baptism lacked the redeeming power to save Jews, and opened up their genealogical records to the Third Reich. Surely nothing bad could have come of that, and even if it did, well it's always an exception to the rule whenever fanatical theism results in the slaughter of millions of people. Therefore we can safely ignore these exceptions.

Finally, in case you still missed the point, All Atheists Are Stalin. Geez, don't make me repeat myself.

 

[plumjam]

Hey now, don't interrupt plumjam when he's presenting his 100% irrefutable argument that all atheists are Stalin. With that kind of false cause and guilt by association reasoning, how can anyone in their right mind possibly disagree? Feel free to hop on the hamster wheel any time. Don't you know that every atheist alive today is a joint reincarnation of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot? Don't you know that if atheists were left to their own devices, they'd slaughter millions of people in the name of Atheism?

In fact, the only thing keeping me from knifing and old lady and swiping her purse is the fact that I still secretly believe in God, and feel him breathing down my neck, watching everything I do. Morals and ethics could not have evolved, because we never see moral or altruistic behavior elsewhere in nature, and such behavior obviously offers no survival advantages whatsoever. All animals are savage beasts who eat their own young, and humans would be no exception, were it not for their unwavering faith.

Because science is materialistic and science doesn't have an absolute understanding of the nature of consciousness or human ethics, it stands to reason that there's more to reality than materialism. Since anything we don't fully understand, including that which exists outside of material reality, is ruled by God, it stands to reason that all morals must come from God. So what if it doesn't make any sense that a higher objective moral standard makes God an unnecessary moral exemplar, or that God's arbitrary will would make his morality purely subjective and unknowable? The answer to anything we don't understand, without exception, is "goddidit."

History shows us that perfect faith always has favorable results. The early Christians labeled the Jews "Christ-killers" and for centuries the Church incited people against them with accusations of blood libel and host desecration, even up to the 1940s. The Church went so far as to decree that baptism lacked the redeeming power to save Jews, and opened up their genealogical records to the Third Reich. Surely nothing bad could have come of that, and even if it did, well it's always an exception to the rule whenever fanatical theism results in the slaughter of millions of people. Therefore we can safely ignore these exceptions.

Finally, in case you still missed the point, All Atheists Are Stalin. Geez, don't make me repeat myself.

Is there a monthly or annual Strawman Award?
If so I unreservedly nominate the above post.
Such a fine and torturous example of the art of deliberate misinterpretation surely should not go unrewarded.

 

[Pardalis]

So we're atheists/agnostics, what's it to you Plum?

 

[Roadtoad]

Is there a monthly or annual Strawman Award?
If so I unreservedly nominate the above post.
Such a fine and torturous example of the art of deliberate misinterpretation surely should not go unrewarded.

Considering you've demonstrated mastery of strawmanship, I'd think you'd have had greater appreciation for the post, particularly given its incredible accuracy.

 

[zooterkin]

Given that the main factor in morality is conscience it isn't going to make a great deal of difference if you're an atheist or a theist in that context.

However, for some people, the belief that there is an omniscient being, who is aware of all your actions, watching, may well prove a disincentive to performing a crime they know no human will know of.

See? You haven't been understanding a word I've said. I therefore feel under no obligation to reply further.
Go back and reread if you feel like it.

I'm not sure you've understood the implications of what you have been saying.

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.

What you have left unsaid, but which is implied, is that in a theistic society, the 'moral system based on a spiritual view of the human' (whatever that might be) tends to reinforce the conscience. Therefore the beliefs of the theist are important. If that wasn't the case, then I don't see what point you are trying to make.

I still don't see how you believe that any theist belief whatever is inherently better than atheism.

I'd like to see you provide any evidence at all for the statements in that last quote box above, by the way. What state of denial? What "prior moral systems based on the exclusive material view of the human"? In what way do "exclusive materialists [...] not act within the moral realm in harmony with their intellectual beliefs"?

 

[plumjam]

So we're atheists/agnostics, what's it to you Plum?

I worry about you

 

[plumjam]

What you have left unsaid, but which is implied, is that in a theistic society, the 'moral system based on a spiritual view of the human' (whatever that might be) tends to reinforce the conscience. Therefore the beliefs of the theist are important. If that wasn't the case, then I don't see what point you are trying to make.

the point is that in a materialistically founded moral system such as those of the nazis and communists the erroneous belief element is forced onto the individual conscience. When erroneous belief takes priority over the individual conscience things start to get dirty. In a theistic system the belief is much closer to objective ontological and moral truth, and thus when the belief element is forced onto the individual conscience it is nowhere near as harmful.

I still don't see how you believe that any theist belief whatever is inherently better than atheism.

I haven't exactly said that. However, they are typically a great deal better. (for the above reasons)

I'd like to see you provide any evidence at all for the statements in that last quote box above, by the way. What state of denial? What "prior moral systems based on the exclusive material view of the human"?

social darwinism, nazism, communism

In what way do "exclusive materialists [...] not act within the moral realm in harmony with their intellectual beliefs"?

For exclusive materialists there is no objective meaning and therefore can be no objective morality... but unless subjective meaning and subjective morality are founded upon objective meaning and morality there is literally no real meaning or morality in the universe
These, whether they like it or not, are the intellectual beliefs of exclusive materialism.

In reality which exclusive materialists, on a moral day-to-day level actually live in harmony with these beliefs?
It would be a life of complete nihilism and meaninglessness.

Most of the atheist materialists on this forum exhibit an admirable preoccupation with uncovering objective truth via science etc..
However, if there is no objective meaning then discovering objective truth is literally meaningless. But their consistent and hard-working actions in this regard signify (you might say betray) that in practice they do implicitly accept that there is objective meaning.

So it is a case of believing one thing, yet in practice acting completely counter to that belief.
That is the contradiction.

I'm surprised more people can't see it.
But then I guess most people who can see it will have moved on from here.

 

[Oroborus]

Edit: I think bokonon said it better.
|
\/

 

[bokonon]

the point is that in a materialistically founded moral system such as those of the nazis and communists the erroneous belief element is forced onto the individual conscience. When erroneous belief takes priority over the individual conscience things start to get dirty. In a theistic system the belief is much closer to objective ontological and moral truth, and thus when the belief element is forced onto the individual conscience it is nowhere near as harmful.

When we kill witches, it is for their own good.

For exclusive materialists there is no objective meaning and therefore can be no objective morality... but unless subjective meaning and subjective morality are founded upon objective meaning and morality there is literally no real meaning or morality in the universe
These, whether they like it or not, are the intellectual beliefs of exclusive materialism.

The fact that I don't believe in objective meaning or objective morality doesn't make my subjective meaning and subjective morality imaginary, so your assertion that "there is literally no REAL meaning or morality in the universe" is simply false.

In reality which exclusive materialists, on a moral day-to-day level actually live in harmony with these beliefs?
It would be a life of complete nihilism and meaninglessness.

I live in harmony with my beliefs. I don't pretend that MY meaning and MY morality is objective, because it isn't. My life is meaningful to me, whether it is meaningful to you or not.

Most of the atheist materialists on this forum exhibit an admirable preoccupation with uncovering objective truth via science etc..
However, if there is no objective meaning then discovering objective truth is literally meaningless. But their consistent and hard-working actions in this regard signify (you might say betray) that in practice they do implicitly accept that there is objective meaning.

Not in my case. I find subjective meaning sufficient, especially when I'm the subject. I think you're deluding yourself when you pretend that whatever meaning you find in YOUR life is objective, but whatever floats your boat.

So it is a case of believing one thing, yet in practice acting completely counter to that belief.
That is the contradiction.

No contradiction, no pretense. Where on earth did you get the notion that hard work requires objectivity?

 

[plumjam]

The fact that I don't believe in objective meaning or objective morality doesn't make my subjective meaning and subjective morality imaginary, so your assertion that "there is literally no REAL meaning or morality in the universe" is simply false.

I guess we are all free to make up our own laws of physics then.
Without believing that your subjective understanding of the laws of physics refers to objective laws of physics the whole enterprise becomes meaningless and ridiculous.
The same applies to meaning, morality, and thus the way we live our lives.