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

[joobz]

Translation: "I like this. You should, too."

Admittedly, To my western ears, it is a pretty piece. Although a bit boring for my tastes.


I like this a bit more

 

[Suddenly]

yeah, but the point is that neither of you were so inspired by atheism that you chose to go into working with the homeless, whereas some people who wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of doing that are so inspired by theism that they go into that area.

I hate when people respond from page one in a huge thread, but here I am....

My athiesm inspired me to do what I do, which is take a huge pay cut to work with prisoners, many of whom will never see the outside of a prison again. Some are guilty some are innocent. It would be easy for someone religious to just shrug at the innocent stuck in prison and rationalize that this person will recieve a just reward in the thereafter.

I share no such belief, and find it important to find justice in the here and now.

As a result of athiesm I have become more sensitive and inspired to work with the poor and oppressed in a number of ways. Believing in future reward and punishment is a way to rationalize laziness and apathy towards these sorts of things.

 

[Foster Zygote]

and if part of humanity chooses to believe that it is better than another part of humanity, and uses science to try to justify this... what does humanism do then?

The moral humanist rebels! He/she chooses to fight against the forces of ignorance and oppression masquerading as science. The moral humanist stands up and shouts "BULL****!!!, you are human beings too. You have the same rights as those who seek to oppress you".

 

[John_Geeshu]

Hi John, good to see you. I enjoyed our discussion yesterday.

My take is that moral standards are not arbitrary. This is because moral standards derive their value in direct relation to the meaning of life. Like I said yesterday, the meaning of life is the journey of consciousness.

At the human level what we call morality is that which advances us along the path in this journey of consciousness. So, unselfishness in all its forms is what weakens our identification with the individual ego/mind/body, expanding our consciousness and furthering us along the way to infinite consciousness (God realisation).

This is where the real meaning of morality lies.

What is the God realization you speak of? By capitalizing God are you in fact referring to a transcendent entity? I ask this because I note that you think that the standards of objective morality come from the meaning of life, and I am therefore wondering who or what the God consciousness is and what role it plays?

Another question that occurs to me is, are these moral standards necessarily objective?

 

[KingMerv00]

I hate when people respond from page one in a huge thread, but here I am....

My athiesm inspired me to do what I do, which is take a huge pay cut to work with prisoners, many of whom will never see the outside of a prison again. Some are guilty some are innocent. It would be easy for someone religious to just shrug at the innocent stuck in prison and rationalize that this person will recieve a just reward in the thereafter.

I share no such belief, and find it important to find justice in the here and now.

As a result of athiesm I have become more sensitive and inspired to work with the poor and oppressed in a number of ways. Believing in future reward and punishment is a way to rationalize laziness and apathy towards these sorts of things.

I have a good atheist friend who works in a prison and with the mentally ill as a nurse. She also enjoyed helping very sick NUNS at the Catholic college she went to.

She loves her job more than I could ever hope to.

 

[zooterkin]

My bad - I was referring to the link Plumjam provided to meher baba in post #780. I wasn't being facetious - the resemblance is uncanny, at least with the image on the web page.

Ah, I see what you mean (thanks to wikipedia, not being familiar with Mr Jeremy's oeuvre ). Yes, it's an uncanny likeness.

 

[Foster Zygote]

and if a part of christianity chooses to believe that christ is not the saviour, and uses a copy of Viz to try to justify this, what does christianity do then?

As I asked: Who doesn't like a good fire?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Basically, plumjam's arguments seem to be pretty much just an appeal to consequence.

'But... if statement x is true, then bad things a through d could be true as well! So surely it isn't!'

It's like a scientist saying he thinks atoms can be split, and another replying, 'but if that's true, what if an anarchist faction decides to detonate an atomic bomb on our capitol?', and the first scientist going, 'hm, yes, didn't think of that. You're right, surely atoms can't be split'.

So basically, plumjam's philosophy is:
1. If morals are subjective, it would mean societies could arrive at some pretty horrid morals.
2. I don't want that as it would be sad.
3. Thus, morals are not subjective.

Which is no better than me going:
1. If atoms can be split, then it's possible to make horrific atomic bombs that could kill millions of people.
2. I don't want that as it would be sad.
3. Thus, atoms can't be split.

and if part of humanity chooses to believe that it is better than another part of humanity, and uses science to try to justify this... what does humanism do then?

Then we gang up on them and kick their collective anuses, that's what. Surely you must've heard of World War II? You know, eugenics in Nazism, Allies bombing Germany to the hot place, eugenics destroyed?

 

[John_Geeshu]

I've already provided examples of objective moral truth.
Raping and killing a child purely for fun is wrong.

Keeping in mind that I have read the entire thread ...

It's not enough to provide examples of what you think is an objective moral truth. You must also tell us why you think these two examples are objective moral truths.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ok I am missing something here (it's late and nearly time to got the pub)

Is that "no handing chicken dinners to pimped up evil gremlins"

Pretty close. It's the international sign for "No Trolls" (qv).

Have a pint for me too, please.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's not enough to provide examples of what you think is an objective moral truth. You must also tell us why you think these two examples are objective moral truths.

But that's easy!

t=d=o

In which t=Theist's opinion, d=Deity's opinion, and o=Objective truth

It has always been thus.

 

[Pardalis]

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

I worry about you

If I go to heaven then we'll see eachother then (come to think of it this might be hell ). No need to worry here.

If I go to hell then it's because I deserve it, then you shouldn't worry about me but instead be glad I'm there.

If there isn't a heaven or hell then I'll just die, like you. So why worry?

 

[rocketdodger]

Basically, plumjam's arguments seem to be pretty much just an appeal to consequence.

'But... if statement x is true, then bad things a through d could be true as well! So surely it isn't!'

It's like a scientist saying he thinks atoms can be split, and another replying, 'but if that's true, what if an anarchist faction decides to detonate an atomic bomb on our capitol?', and the first scientist going, 'hm, yes, didn't think of that. You're right, surely atoms can't be split'.

So basically, plumjam's philosophy is:
1. If morals are subjective, it would mean societies could arrive at some pretty horrid morals.
2. I don't want that as it would be sad.
3. Thus, morals are not subjective.

Which is no better than me going:
1. If atoms can be split, then it's possible to make horrific atomic bombs that could kill millions of people.
2. I don't want that as it would be sad.
3. Thus, atoms can't be split.

The utterly pathetic part of all this is that Plumjam seems completely (and purposefully) ignorant of the fact that his arguments can and have been used to justify more atrocities than materialism ever has.

I agree with your diagnosis, Safe-Keeper. Its just too bad that Plumjam isn't critical enough to use his games on his own ideas -- he would arrive at the conclusion that god is impossible because people can use god as justification for horrible things.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dear Moderators,

is there any chance you could rename this thread "The willful self-serving misinterpretation by overly defensive atheists of the OP, thus enabling a victim mentality and mutual self-pity party...... thread" ?

I take it from this post, you cannot defend the connotation you clearly illustrated by the posts you followed up with after the OP? I remind you again what those were:

Lest you try to claim you posted an innocent OP that is being misconstrued, here are a few of your follow up comments from the 1st page:

Originally Posted by plumjam:
so it's basically an emptiness, a nothingness

as I expected, entirely negative

Originally Posted by m_huber: Arguably, there is no truly good endeavor.

Plumjam continues: Folks, this is where atheism, taken to its extreme, leads you.

Really, need I say any more?

....of course it's a belief system, commonly it's a belief in exclusive materialism

...sorry, but that's just naive. Lack of belief in certain things, such as the spiritual, commonly promotes beliefs and values based on a world view based on their opposite.. i.e. materialism

Then there was your inability to list a single accomplishment of your own:

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
So, PJ, have you listed your great accomplishments here? Could you direct me to the post # so I don't have to search through 8 pages?

no, unlike you I'm naturally modest

Why not instead of crying for mama to rescue you, you apologize to the atheists you had the foolishness to presume you were better than?

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Ah, I see what you mean (thanks to wikipedia, not being familiar with Mr Jeremy's ouvre ). Yes, it's an uncanny likeness.

Sorry for the ongoing derail -
Feel the need for a disclaimer here - believe it or not, Mr. Jeremy has actually appeared on Penn & Teller's Bullsh**!, which is where I first became acquainted with the name. He has since achieved(?) some minor 'B' celebrity status and has appeared on various reality shows.

I thought people here would know the gentleman because of P&T.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

yeah, but the point is that neither of you were so inspired by atheism that you chose to go into working with the homeless, whereas some people who wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of doing that are so inspired by theism that they go into that area.

More ignorance on your part, PJ.

My atheism inspires me to work against the damaging lack of critical thinking in the human population evidenced by belief in gods and magic. We can keep the positive influences of god beliefs, few as they are. But there are tremendous proven negative consequences directly resulting from god beliefs and my atheism inspires me to work against those damaging beliefs.

 

[joobz]

Why not instead of crying for mama to rescue you, you apologize to the atheists you had the foolishness to presume you were better than?

The Irony is that Plumjam's religious view has been used many times in the past to CAUSE moral/social injustice. It's provided only superficial meaning to life. "I know that My life is meaningful because it's more meaningful than yours."

my beliefs are not saying everyone who is not currently living with a big interest in spirituality are living meaningless lives.. it's all to do with whereabouts you are in the journey at the moment.

But the assumption is, if you are "further along" you'd understand. This is a rather arrogant and self-serving view, don't you think?

I can understand how it might look that way, yes.
On the face of it it goes somewhat against our western assumptions of human equality.
But that's not really the case. God is equally present in all sentient beings.

It's just that in spiritually more advanced beings God is more manifest

This notion that there are humans which are closer to god than other humans is really the ultimate driving force in creating social injustice. What makes this view any different than any other Group A claims they are better/more moral than Group B?

I know Plumjam will comment on how, "Well since he IS closer to god, he knows he's right." But that's just circular logic which ultimately fails to demonstrate any objective morality. It's really just another way of saying, "I'm better than others becuase god said so."


Personally, I do not hold any anger or negative views toward Plumjam. I respect him for his opinions, even though I do not agree with them. In truth, I enjoy his threads and posts more than many other people who share his views. I simply hope that one day he'll understand why his argument stems from a desire for self-importance and that he doesn't need an external diety to be important. Simply being a human amongst humans is all we need.

 

[m_huber]

To harp back to the "beauty" argument, Plumjam, I think you need to watch Shrek. It is a touching movie that features the concept of beauty prominently, allowing the viewer to see how even ugly can be beautiful, to someone.

 

[plumjam]

Wow, these responses are getting increasingly irrational, some bordering on the hysterical.
I thought people here were supposed to be 'critical thinkers'. So what's with all the obviously false interpretation, ridiculous extrapolations, bizarre assumptions and non sequiturs ?

Night all.

 

[Pardalis]

Be sure to make your bedtime prayer.