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

[joobz]

gee whizz, so you are saying that sometimes people get things wrong.

Yup, they do. And they sometimes get it right. But in both cases, it has nothing to do with god. It's all their own.

 

[plumjam]

Athiest values? How about the Golden Rule? Works for everybody else....

There is nothing at all in the atheist/ exclusive materialist world view that in any way can justify the golden rule.
We are just animals trying to survive and pass on our genes. With such an understanding of life, rather than apply the golden rule, it would be much 'better' and more logical if all men became serial rapists.
It would likewise be 'better' if instead of applying the golden rule all 'burdens on society' such as the mentally handicapped, the senile, and the terminally ill were gotten rid of immediately.

The fact that we find the above abhorrent is because in practice we actually put more faith in our moral intuition and conscience than we do in the logical consequences of exclusive materialism.

We know, intuitively, that there is something very wrong about exclusive materialism.

 

[Pardalis]

Again, define "intuition".

 

[Married2aWooster]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity. (1),(2)

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?(3)
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?(4)
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?(5)
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

Fatally flawed assumptions needed to logically follow your post:
1) Proselytism and/or collective action are normal components of atheism - Do I really need to explain this?
2) Typical atheists view typical theists as stupid. - The only trait atheists share is a lack of belief in a divinity.
3) Theists inherently have good behaviors. - History records differently
4) See #1
5) See #1

Addressing the specific questions is rather moot given this perspective, isn't it?

 

[plumjam]

Who said anything about individual visual perception?

I mentioned it at least a couple of times with the chair example, and the kid being murdered example.

What we perceive with our senses can be corroborated by different means.

No. It can only be corroborated via the senses.

What does this say about "intuition"?

just the same, intuitions can only be corroborated by other intuitions, your own or those of other people

My life has meaning to me.

subjective meaning, which, absent of a link to objective meaning, is literally meaningless.

ETA: And you have no business telling me what to do with my own life.

how was I doing that?

Darwinism is a scientific theory that doesn't have anything to do with morals or ideology. Heck, it doesn't even have anything to do with atheism per se.

It's the founding principle of a whole world view, the evolutionary paradigm. It's everywhere in education, academia and the media. When it attempted to assert itself in the field of morality it was several more times disastrous than any religious abuses in the past. So gladly we have now (been forced to) returned back to theistic morality, even if it is not explicitly named that way by those involved.
It's now called Universal Human Rights. Of course no empirical evidence can support these rights; it's a spiritual view of man, rather than an exclusive materialist one.

ETA: and btw, the theory of evolution helped a great deal in the advance of science and medicine.

how?

What about the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Islamic terrorism? You're not going to convince me that religion is the way to go, it has quite a crappy track record.

yes, people get things wrong. But when the spiritual view of man was subtracted from morality people got things several times more wrong.

 

[plumjam]

Fatally flawed assumptions needed to logically follow your post:
1) Proselytism and/or collective action are normal components of atheism - Do I really need to explain this?
2) Typical atheists view typical theists as stupid. - The only trait atheists share is a lack of belief in a divinity.
3) Theists inherently have good behaviors. - History records differently
4) See #1
5) See #1

Addressing the specific questions is rather moot given this perspective, isn't it?

Thanks Prof.
That made no sense at all.

 

[Married2aWooster]

Thanks Prof.
That made no sense at all.

Makes us even.

 

[plumjam]

Makes us even.

see? you too have a spiritual view of man

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Did no one else follow up mr jam's suggestion that answers to the Universe and everything else were to be found in the works of Meher Baba?

I did; and respectfully suggest that mr jam might consider following The Avatar's example and maintain silence for 44 years.

He was born into a Zoroastrian family of Persian descent. He was educated in Poona and attended Deccan College there, where at the age of 19 he met an aged Muslim woman, Hazrat Babjan, the first of five "perfect masters" (spiritually enlightened or "God-realized" persons) who over the next seven years helped him find his own spiritual identity. That identity, Meher Baba said, was as the Avatar of this age, interpreting that Vedantic term to mean the periodic incarnation of God in human form. He placed himself among such universal religious figures as Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed. " I am the same Ancient One come again into your midst," he told his disciples, declaring that all major religions are revelations of "that One Reality which is God."

Meher Baba's cosmology may be summarized as follows: the goal of all life is to realize the absolute oneness of God, from whom the universe emanated as a result of the whim of unconscious divinity to know itself as conscious divinity. In pursuit of consciousness, evolution of forms occurs in seven stages: stone or metal, vegetable, worm, fish, bird, animal, and human. Every individualized soul must experience all these forms in order to gain full consciousness. Once consciousness is attained, the burden of impressions accumulated in these forms prevents the soul from realizing its identity with God. To gain this realization the individual must traverse an inward spiritual path, eliminating all false impressions of individuality and eventuating in the knowledge of the "real self" as God.

http://www.lovestreetbookstore.com/whois.htm

Now that is perfectly clear isn't it? :snicker:

Though I suppose we could ask how he knows any of this nonsense to have any foundation what-so-ever in reality.

Or to express things sicinctly -- how did he know he was right? Which I think is where this thread started.

And I have still not have seen anyone give an answer.

 

[CapelDodger]

Atheist values? How about the Golden Rule? Works for everybody else....

It certainly works for me. I don't aspire to sainthood, or expect it of others, but I try not to do harm. That's my default rule.

If other people choose different rules I'll respond accordingly. After all, they chose the rules. Can I help it if I love it ?

 

[anticonspiracy911]

So Plumjam, let me ask you this: is your faith based solely on comfort or truth?

 

[plumjam]

Did no one else follow up mr jam's suggestion that answers to the Universe and everything else were to be found in the works of Meher Baba?

I did; and respectfully suggest that mr jam might consider following The Avatar's example and maintain silence for 44 years.


http://www.lovestreetbookstore.com/whois.htm

Now that is perfectly clear isn't it? :snicker:

Though I suppose we could ask how he knows any of this nonsense to have any foundation what-so-ever in reality.

Or to express things sicinctly -- how did he know he was right? Which I think is where this thread started.

And I have still not have seen anyone give an answer.

I am.
He used an alphabet board and I'm using the keyboard.

 

[Olowkow]

There is nothing at all in the atheist/ exclusive materialist world view that in any way can justify the golden rule.
We are just animals trying to survive and pass on our genes. With such an understanding of life, rather than apply the golden rule, it would be much 'better' and more logical if all men became serial rapists.

Now he's an expert on how atheists think. How original!

It is revealing to me how a person's mind works when he equates "rapists" with some ideal of male behavior. You don't get it, rape is about violence and domination, not sex. You are insulting, sir, to both religious and non-religious people alike who are just trying to find their way through life by doing the best they can with their philosophy. No one needs your absurd indictments.

It appears to me that you may have never actually had an honest one on one conversation with an atheist, let alone anyone who thinks differently from yourself. If you have, I am guessing that you are meek and smiling in person, not the total boor that you have represented yourself to be in this forum. You could learn a lot from people here, but you never will.

 

[Tricky]

If she was trying to murder both of them, I might.

No. Just sitting. Or maybe kissing. But under Sharia law (a theist concept) she has dishonored the family and a family member is within his right to kill her.

If such a system exists my conscience, and yours, tells us that's wrong. This is a clue to the objectivity of it. That a theist and atheist agree.

But not all theists agree. Their morality is based on the "word of God", yet it differs from yours. Thus, religion-based morality is not objective. (To save time, this is where you use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.)

I would like to know the identity of the person who brought such a system into play. Such a person I would not pay much attention to when they are making moral claims.

God. Or to be more correct, a man imagining there is a God and he knows what God wants. Just as you do.

I wouldn't allow a visually impaired person to be my 'guide-dog'.

You might if you were walking through a pitch black room. It's all relative.

feel free.

Okay. In some varieties of Shinto they believe that the soul arrives some time after birth, and so abortion and even infanticide are condoned.

Cannibalism is moral under some African religions. (Although this shouldn't bother you since many of your religion practice ritualized cannibalism.)

We can do this all day, but it is quite clear from these few examples that theism does not imply an objective moral code. It is very much subjective.

gee whizz, so you are saying that sometimes people get things wrong.

I'm saying that the defintion of "wrong" changes with time and location. History and anthropology make this quite clear.

While I suspect my verson of morality would have a lot in common with yours due to cultural influences, I would be a fool to insist that my version is objective. That does not mean though that I won't defend my moral code, to the point of fighting for it if it came to that. I obviously think its right or I wouldn't hold it. That doesn't mean I can't recognize the possibility of being wrong. I have changed my moral position many times in my life as I came to different understandings.

 

[Pardalis]

I mentioned it at least a couple of times with the chair example, and the kid being murdered example.

No, that's not what you said.

No. It can only be corroborated via the senses.

And that makes no sense, according to your own premise. (see below)

just the same, intuitions can only be corroborated by other intuitions, your own or those of other people

It's not the same. It's still not objective data.

You seem to have lost track of your own argument. Let's backtrack a little.

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.

And how is "internal" evidence "objective"?

because just as my internal visual perceptions refer to an 'external' 'objective' reality, likewise do my internal moral intuitions refer to an 'external' 'objective' moral reality

Again, how can you compare physical data to "intuition"?

subjective meaning, which, absent of a link to objective meaning, is literally meaningless.

Yes, of course it's subjective, it's my life. I don't give a **** about what you think of my life.

When it attempted to assert itself in the field of morality it was several more times disastrous than any religious abuses in the past.

It didn't and it doesn't. The theory holds up pretty well to the evidence, what certain groups of people have decided to do and misinterpret it has nothing to do with the scientific validity and applications of the theory itself.

So gladly we have now (been forced to) returned back to theistic morality,

No we don't.

It's now called Universal Human Rights.

And what about abortion, gay rights and women's rights? Aren't Islam and Christianity for example in complete contradiction with human rights?

Of course no empirical evidence can support these rights; it's a spiritual view of man, rather than an exclusive materialist one.

No it's not, it's in complete concordance with humanistic values.

how?

Oh please...

yes, people get things wrong. But when the spiritual view of man was subtracted from morality people got things several times more wrong.

Moving the goalposts again, when religion is wrong people are to blame, and when religion gets it right, god is responsible...

That's not being objective.

As Joobz said:

Yup, they do. And they sometimes get it right. But in both cases, it has nothing to do with god. It's all their own.

 

[plumjam]

So Plumjam, let me ask you this: is your faith based solely on comfort or truth?

why do you hate America so much?

 

[Empress]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

I'm not certain I understand the point of this post. I realized I was an athiest when I was about 12 or 13 despite being raised in a religious home. Yet, I don't think I've done anything differently from any of my siblings, despite the fact that I'm the sole athiest. Well, except not attending religious services, obviously.

I've given as much time and money to the needy as any of them. I've never tried to convert anyone to my lack of religous views. I've simply gone through my life trying to make the world better whenever possible. If I see a need, I attempt to fill it. After all, I believe this life is all we have. I want my life, and everyone else's, to be the best possible. Don't theists want the same?

 

[anticonspiracy911]

why do you hate America so much?

That doesn't answer my question.

And while you take the time to answer my question, have a good read at the following link: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyIntNoRB.HTM

 

[Pardalis]

Plum, you still have to define "intuition", in order to know what it is exactly, so we can measure it and appreciate it.

 

[plumjam]

Now he's an expert on how atheists think. How original!

It is revealing to me how a person's mind works when he equates "rapists" with some ideal of male behavior. You don't get it, rape is about violence and domination, not sex. You are insulting, sir, to both religious and non-religious people alike who are just trying to find their way through life by doing the best they can with their philosophy. No one needs your absurd indictments.

It appears to me that you may have never actually had an honest one on one conversation with an atheist, let alone anyone who thinks differently from yourself. If you have, I am guessing that you are meek and smiling in person, not the total boor that you have represented yourself to be in this forum. You could learn a lot from people here, but you never will.

well, you'll be familiar with the genius idea of the 'selfish gene'.. and if there's no objective morality what is stopping someone who believes in that kind of materialist theology coming along and encouraging all men to be serial rapists?

remember, if there's no objective morality, that system is exactly equally as 'good' as any other.