• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Skepticism is a philosophy. Atheism is applying that philosophy toward religion. Would you call skepticism about N-rays a belief system? I somehow doubt it. Is your lack of belief in the divinity of Zeus a "belief system"?

As to materialism, I'd still like your definition. I gave you mine earlier, but since I'm a nice guy, I'll do it again. Materialism is the position that there is no evidence for anything beyond the physical universe.

I fail to see how that would have any affect whatsoever on morality, unless you are only being moral for supernatural, i.e. unmaterial rewards.

well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul, God, the afterlife, objective morality, objective meaning etc..

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.

So, in short, you may be atheists but fortunately you have the good sense to live as theists.
 
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.)
If you have been looking for an athiest charity that endeavours to improve the plight of individuals, I am surprised you have not come across or heard of the Samaritans.

They do lots of fantastic work. As part of Befrienders Worldwide they work in 6 continents. You can find more details here
 
Well, lots of responses. Sorry, but too many directed to me to answer individually.
Some were decent enough. Unfortunately most were facetious and/or ad hominem and/or entirely negative.
Apparently, me even having the gall to ask such questions shows I have 'a giant hole' in my life. :rolleyes: Lol.

For the quibblers who keep arguing that atheism is not a belief system as such, please get real and quit the pedantry. I did explain that the atheism on this board, in my experience, has always come pre-packaged with a positive belief in exclusive materialism. This is a point that people are studiously avoiding.

Maybe I should say instead then: so you're an exclusive materialist and therefore an atheist, what next?

See what I mean, folks? He is fundamentally unwilling or incapable of dealing with what people tell him in any serious way. He ignores or dismisses reality when it doesn't suit his real agenda, which is attacking atheism in order to make himself feel better. We tell him that we don't think the way he says we do, we don't believe the things he says we do, we don't feel the way he insists that we must feel... and he claims that we're lying, or that we don't actually know what's going on in our own lives, but he does.
 
well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul, God, the afterlife, objective morality, objective meaning etc...
Well, my definition specifically said that there is no reason to believe without evidence. That is completely different from saying a thing is impossible.

As for morality, there are lots of commonly accepted things about morality, almost always based on empathy rather than God or the afterlife. And morality is, by definiton, subjective. It changes over time. It wasn't all that long ago that slavery was not considered immoral by many Christians. In fact, a famous man wrote...
Fredrick Douglas said:
The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the opressors. For my part I would say, wecome the infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the vey name of religion into an engine of tyranny and bararous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels in this age than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!

That was only about 150 years ago. What could be less "objective" than a morality that changes in such a short time?

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.
IMO, the same could be said of theists. If you don't think theists are "making it up as they go along", explain why different theists have such different moral codes? What makes you or any theist the arbiter of what is the "correct morality"? Your faith in God? No thanks. I've seen the kind of morality the God of the Bible has. I'll take empathy any day.

This represents a central contradiction in their lives. On the surface they believe in exclusive materialism and therefore atheism.
No they don't, at least not the way you define it. That is nothing but a straw man.

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.
This would be true if one believed that living a moral life is contradictory to materialism and atheism. But this is not the case. You are assuming that theists have a monopoly on morality, and you are quite simply and demonstrably wrong.

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.
There is no central contradiction. Repeating it numerous times won't make it true. The origins of morality are complex, but they are not the exclusive domain of theists, no matter how much your faith requires it to be true. It appears that this is your fundamental assumption. You are essentially making the circular argument that theists tend to be more moral than atheists because morality derives from a belief in god.

I can say, "Theists are less moral than atheists because they only do it for supernatural reward. " If this is my fundamental assumption, then all conclusions to be made will support that assumption.

But I do not defend that assumption. Theists have as many reasons for being moral as atheists, and they mostly relate to empathy. It is a faulty assumption. I do not believe you can defend your assumption either.

So, in short, you may be atheists but fortunately you have the good sense to live as theists.
This is about as arrogant a statement as I've ever seen anyone make.
 
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?

Keep doing what I was doing, not waste time on thinking about something that may or may not exist and focus on the important stuff, family, work, art, women...
 
Last edited:
If you have been looking for an athiest charity that endeavours to improve the plight of individuals, I am surprised you have not come across or heard of the Samaritans.

I'm not sure they count as atheist (though how are we measuring these things?); they are non-religious in how they operate, but they were founded by a vicar.
 
well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul

How can you prove it exists?

Same thing, and while its existence is being disputed and fought over things won't change a bit, the world will keep doing what it always has been doing, so why bother?

the afterlife,
We'll know when we get there, so why worry?

objective morality, objective meaning etc..
Objective? You think by following your god's teachings you are objective? What about the 10000 other religions out there? Why did you choose this one and not the others?

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'.
I think atheism is about being aware of our own limitations, our own subjectivity. Obviously you think you have the "Truth", which is kind of arrogant don't you think?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure they count as atheist (though how are we measuring these things?); they are non-religious in how they operate, but they were founded by a vicar.
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’
 
well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul, God, the afterlife, objective morality, objective meaning etc..

Sounds interesting. So "Exlusive Materialism" is a denial of all things that cannot be measured? Or just the things you can nitpick out to support your definition of it?


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.

So, without belief in all the stuff you have listed in you definition of "Exclusive Materialism", people can't be good?
Are you saying we need god(s) to be good?
Or just that we need to believe in objective meaning and morality, which, in your opinion, comes part-and-parcel with a belief in god(s) to be good?
You may feel that way. Don't assume that this makes it true of everyone else.
If your implication is that we need god(s) guidance to be good, do you think this guidance is represented in the Qur'an, Torah, Bible, and other holy texts?
How then do you explain the moral teachings of these texts that are held to be highly immoral in todays world?
If you want to claim divine guidance for good morality, you have to accept everything written in your Holy Book of choice (and how did you choose that book, he ponders...). If you have to pick and choose the morals from your chosen book, then you are obviously using some outside source of moral guidance, and therefore cannot possible claim that your holy book is a moral guide.
And saying "Well, God(s) told me what the good ones are." is a cop-out. Besides, wouldn't that mean that god(s)' own laws were wrong, and she/he/it/them had to change their morality?
And wouldn't a change in morality run entirely counter to what you are trying to say about morality being "objective" (i.e. constant)?


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.

How many times do you need to be told that atheism is nothing more than an absence of belief in god(s), before you stop tap-ancing around it?
It does not make moral, ethical, or philosophical claims, except to express a lack of belief in god or gods.
You can't read more into it than that, because there is nothing more to read.
If you want to continue your ego-masturbation against a moral ideal, try ranting against Humanism. Unlike atheism, humanism is a way to view ethics and morality.


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.

So, in short, you may be atheists but fortunately you have the good sense to live as theists.

So you don't make up your morality?
You beleive it's not something laid out by mere humanity?
Can I buy your daughter?
 
Last edited:
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.

As usual, Plumjam refuses to get it. Wrapped up in his own narcissistic realm, he bleats on about how the Atheist is either a waste of time and flesh, or how there is no further meaning for the Atheist's "pathetic" excuse for a life. It's condescending, and it's offensive.

Last night, I had dinner with two people from this board whom I enjoy reading and for whom I have nothing but deep respect. Normal Dude is a student at UC Davis, entering into the field of molecular biology, with an emphasis on neurological biochemistry, (hope I got that right!), while Hokulele works as a trainer in computers and computer science, particularly with the software her company produces. We're talking of people of accomplishment and courage, something which is increasingly rare in a society which seems to be leaning more and more towards slackers and egotists, people who try to use Fate as an excuse for everything from their own cowardice to their well entrenched bigotry.

As we talked, one thing kept coming up: There was so much that we did not know. At one point, Normal Dude mentioned that in one particular field, there was so much unknown to deal with, it was actually exciting. Hokulele answered that saying that in her astronomy classes, they'd point to something and say, "We don't know that that is." Her answer: "Cool!"

See, this is part of what it means to be not just an Atheist, but a Skeptic. You don't flee the unknown; you go towards it, hoping not only to learn from the familiar, but from the unexplained. Your goal isn't just to take pleasure in the unusual, but to ultimately find out if the Great and Terrible Oz is just some dude hiding behind the curtains in the throne room.

It's simply another way of saying that some of us take greater and greater pleasure in admitting what we do not know than in our insistence that we know more than we do. We have matured in our lives, and take joy in recognizing that there's so much more to do, and equally, so much more we have to offer as our lives progress. Frankly, I find there's greater joy and meaning in that than I ever did as a "saved, sanctified, and justified" Christian, secure in my "knowledge" that I would endure in Heaven once I died. In fact, I find that latter element sad, because ultimately, I would only find "meaning" in my life once I had died and could offer nothing more to society.

I find I can do great things in this current stage of my life. If there's an "Atheist Value" to be found, it's the knowledge that my time here is short, and that what benefit I can offer to society needs to be given today, and not set aside for later when I'm nothing more than a memory. While I am well aware of scores of Christian/religious charities, I'm also well aware of the vast number of them who suck down voluminous amounts of cash for "administrative expenses." (I should note that the Randi Foundation seems to operate pretty much on the cheap, but seems to deliver far more bang for the buck. And Randi's pretty open about how it's done.) There are a number of "atheist" and "humanist" entities engaged in the charitable, but they generally don't advertise themselves that way, and they aren't overly picky about who they bring in to help, demanding that they be competent rather than dogmatic.

Part of this also requires me to show the truth of religion, that for the most part, it's a lie. I won't accomplish much by assaulting people with facts and figures, much as I was when I was being "witnessed" to by believers years ago, prior to becoming a Christian. (I'm pretty certain that many people become believers if for no other reason than to get the proselytizers to just shut up, recognizing that once you say "Yes," they'll leave you alone and never talk to you again.) Instead, I have to live my life in a manner that's gracious, honest, and courageous. That's not easy; our society rewards the boor, the liar, the coward.

But there's value in doing this. I think of Metullus, of Girl6, of Terry, of Doubting Stephen, of JJ, of Zep, of other people on this board (and a number who have unfortunately left), who demonstrate there is a greater value, a greater reward for stepping out in boldness and declaring the realities of life, of living within those realities, and ultimately in reaching beyond them with our compassion, our intellect, our passion. The whole idea is to reach Beyond, and bring it into focus, to make it new, to make it real. That speaks of greater integrity than this continued bleat that we cannot do this, because this is God's territory.

If I remember the story of Adam and Eve correctly, they weren't evicted from Eden because they merely ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but because they chose knowing Good and Evil over Life. Had they chosen to eat from the Tree of Life instead, which they had never been forbidden to do, they would have been rewarded rather than damned. I look at Normal Dude's actions, I look at Lost Angeles's actions, I look at the actions of so many here, I see a quest not for knowing right and wrong, (which is ultimately meaningless), and I see Life.

It's Hokulele's declaration: "We don't know what it is? COOL!"

What's next for me? Finishing my own education, and becoming a Marine Engineer. I'll probably be in my 60's, but I'm pretty sure if I can still draw breath, I can contribute to bettering people's lives. And rather than doing so because it gives some mystical deity a nice warm feeling about me, I can do so because it's based wholly on the facts, that the effects of my efforts can be measured, can be replicated, can be seen, and that ultimately, will outlast all the memory of me from centuries on. My service to the world ought to be seen from its evidence and benefits, and not from the chance memory of people bowing before an altar whose significance fades from the cruelty and misery it has inspired for centuries.

That's the difference between you and me, Plumjam. I want to serve. You want to be serviced. It's the difference between love and sex, between creation and masturbation.
 
Forget about soul, god and the afterlife, how can a snake speak? That's what I wanna know.
 
Last edited:
Obviously you think you have the "Truth", which is kind of arrogant don't you think?

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.
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.
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.
 
Aw.. Roadtoad, you spoilt the lovely restaurant ambience by descending into ad hominem.
 
I believe the truly arrogant statement is one which denies the possibility of objective truth in areas such as morality and meaning.

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.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom