Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

So Easy To Be An Atheist!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    In addition, atheists and agnostics have consciences, and senses of right and wrong.
    Universal with humanity taking into consideration we all our fallible humans.

    Not all bother with the Humanist Manifesto - whatever that may be - but just get on with life, like anyone else.
    Of course, not all bother with the Humanist Manifesto, but you understate its relevance. It does not determine anybodies morals and ethics, but it does reflect the evolution of morals and ethics from the humanist perspective.

    Which would you prefer; the Humanist Manifesto, the Ten Commandments, or the full book of laws the Ten Commandments came from?

    It is because they are often highly moral people that many of them are not favourably impressed by those who have a religion.
    Depends on how you define religion.

    Note: The statues and facia of the Supreme Court reflects the influence of many cultures and religions, and their morals and ethics contributing to the legal system and Laws of the United States
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-17-2018, 08:24 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      The working premise need only be that there is no god.
      Seems like a reasonable "working premise" to me.

      Unfortunately for most, if not all, atheists have a fundamental problem with absolute truths.
      What "absolute truths" are these?

      And those who actually know God could not honestly make that premise.
      Delusions are like that.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by whag View Post
        That’s what David, and notice he was a theist. Murders and extramarital affairs almost always end badly, so there’s plenty of legit reasons not to commit adultery and murder besides the rules that say not to. Same with lying, but that’s more relative. We all lie, sometimes to deceive sometimes to not hurt others’ feelings, but mostly we try to avoid it.
        Whag, I'm not saying that believers are more moral than non-believers, I saying that non-believers do have the luxury of changing their moral code as it suits them. And why not, if morals are relative it logically follows that these personal changes are rational.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Whag, I'm not saying that believers are more moral than non-believers, I saying that non-believers do have the luxury of changing their moral code as it suits them. And why not, if morals are relative it logically follows that these personal changes are rational.

          Yes. The standard for believers is laid out in God's word, and shown to us as well in the person of Christ. According to that standard, we are not to be swayed by the changing cultural "values" that a godless society presents as moral behaviour. Because God does not change His standard for our behaviour, neither can we.


          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
            Yes. The standard for believers is laid out in God's word, and shown to us as well in the person of Christ. According to that standard, we are not to be swayed by the changing cultural "values" that a godless society presents as moral behaviour. Because God does not change His standard for our behaviour, neither can we.
            Exactly, but the moral relativist is under no such restriction. It would be perfectly rational for her to change her moral standard if she has set it too high (therefore too difficult), or if it interferes with a presently strong desire. The same with any associated guilt that might be generated since that too is merely the result of personal or cultural relative norms.
            Last edited by seer; 08-18-2018, 01:39 PM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Seems like a reasonable "working premise" to me.
              Of course it is only valid there not being any kind of god.


              What "absolute truths" are these?
              All truth.


              Delusions are like that.
              No. There is a difference which you fail to acknowledge. On the premise that there is no god, and one is merely asserting knowing a non existent god, then yes, delusional. But the argument to which you stated this was against someone who is "actually" knowing God, in which case the premise of there being "no god" is the delusion.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Universal with humanity taking into consideration we all our fallible humans.
                The point needed making, because a surprising number of Christians (well, it surprised me) seems to think that if reverence for God is ignored, atheists could behave only in base ways. I think this idea is greatly mistaken. I don’t think atheists are any more likely to act basely than Christians are, & I find the contention of Pierre Bayle (d. 1705) very plausible: that atheists are likely to behave better than Christians. He was not an atheist, but he was much impressed by the bad behaviour of Christians, and not in a good way. I wonder whether the sheer numerousness of professing Christians does not perhaps encourage a low tone of Christian behaviour. Less entanglement with the world might help too; Christians and the exercise of power are awkward friends at best.
                Of course, not all bother with the Humanist Manifesto, but you understate its relevance. It does not determine anybodies morals and ethics, but it does reflect the evolution of morals and ethics from the humanist perspective.
                OTOH, atheists - a word as ambiguous as “religion”, admittedly - have managed for thousands of years without it. Only those with no knowledge of any culture but highly Americanised modernity are likely to think there is no other way of being atheist. Nor is the iconoclasm & philistinism of the “new atheism” the only alternative. Atheism is a world-view that unlike several is not a religion, and it should not be treated as a religion.
                Which would you prefer; the Humanist Manifesto, the Ten Commandments, or the full book of laws the Ten Commandments came from?
                As I’m not an atheist, that is not a question I can answer, because I can’t speak for atheists on such things.
                Depends on how you define religion.

                Note: The statues and facia of the Supreme Court reflects the influence of many cultures and religions, and their morals and ethics contributing to the legal system and Laws of the United States
                That is the US. Not all atheism is found there.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  So Easy To Be An Atheist! I mean what is not to like, you get to make up your own moral code, live by it, then claim to be virtuous.
                  Is 100% of what you say about atheists projection? Just wondering.

                  I mean you worship "Christ crucified", and your sig is "Atheism is the cult of death".

                  And then, when Christians are famous for twisting the bible to suit their own moral desires, and when they believe they can claim christ for free forgiveness anytime they fail, you say it's atheists who have it morally easy?

                  Generally the most widely held atheist ethical view is utilitarianism, and one of the critiques of it among philosophers is that it's too hard:
                  [Utiliarianism has] the demandingness problem (Donner 2011). This is the problem that holds that if we ought to maximize utility, if that is the right thing to do, then doing right requires enormous sacrifices (under actual conditions), and that requiring such sacrifices is too demanding.

                  This is in contrast to deontological ethics (which your divine-command view falls under) which isn't so demanding, because it's a list of things to not do as opposed to demands that we do things. So in deontological views you can generally be moral by doing nothing (i.e. refraining from committing any wrongs) and in utilitarian views you absolutely cannot be moral by doing nothing - failure to act is judged as immoral.

                  Consider it this way: Imagine a monk who has achieved the acetic ideal of simply meditating on God's glory all day in his small room and he lives out his live in this way. He doesn't transgress any "thou shalt not" commandments. He doesn't kill or even think of doing so, etc. According to deontological moral views he's "perfect" because he hasn't transgressed a single command - by avoiding doing anything he's moral because he's broken no "do not do X" rules. But according to any utilitarian view he's very immoral: He's making no effort at all to maximize the well-being of others. He's not helping people, he's not improving people's lives, he's not bringing happiness to people (other than perhaps himself). Utilitarianism demands that rather than sit on his butt all day doing nothing useful, that he actually be thinking about how he can best help others and be doing it.

                  This level of high demand - that we always seek out and do the absolute best thing we can to maximize freedom/happiness/well-being is often considered by philosophers to be so difficult to fulfill and so demanding as to constitute an argument against utilitarianism because it's too hard, as compared to standard historical Christian views where being good was about not doing things like stealing or killing etc.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Seems like a reasonable "working premise" to me.



                    What "absolute truths" are these?
                    That Sparko likes bacon ?
                    Delusions are like that.
                    Many delusions can be passed off as knowledge of God, but if one has it, this knowledge is very unlike the fakes that are passed off as it. The relation of the fakes and the real thing is asymmetrical - it illuminates them, and shows them up; but they do not illuminate it. What they can do, is act like will-o’-the-wisps. And this knowledge is not a dead, static thing: it is meant to grow and increase and deepen and broaden and strengthen, like a plant. And like a plant, it is meant to be a living and fruitful thing. And the more abundant and healthy and purified it is, the more certain it becomes. And none of this is possible without the grace of God, which has been called the sunlight of the soul.

                    God is known “experimentally” - a favourite Puritan word. IOW, God is known, by being known. Turning from knowing God, is not a good method for knowing God more deeply. If we want to be swimming, we have to be swimming. There is no other way to swim. Getting out of the water, or avoiding entering it, won’t help us to swim.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      Is 100% of what you say about atheists projection? Just wondering.
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post


                      I mean you worship "Christ crucified", and your sig is "Atheism is the cult of death".



                      And then, when Christians are famous for twisting the bible to suit their own moral desires,
                      That is too vague to mean much. Clarify, please ?
                      and when they believe they can claim christ for free forgiveness anytime they fail, you say it's atheists who have it morally easy?
                      I wonder what that refers to ? All sin is against God, so whom else are we to ask ?


                      Generally the most widely held atheist ethical view is utilitarianism, and one of the critiques of it among philosophers is that it's too hard:
                      [Utiliarianism has] the demandingness problem (Donner 2011). This is the problem that holds that if we ought to maximize utility, if that is the right thing to do, then doing right requires enormous sacrifices (under actual conditions), and that requiring such sacrifices is too demanding.

                      This is in contrast to deontological ethics (which your divine-command view falls under) which isn't so demanding, because it's a list of things to not do as opposed to demands that we do things. So in deontological views you can generally be moral by doing nothing (i.e. refraining from committing any wrongs) and in utilitarian views you absolutely cannot be moral by doing nothing - failure to act is judged as immoral.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Generally the most widely held atheist ethical view is utilitarianism, and one of the critiques of it among philosophers is that it's too hard:
                        [Utiliarianism has] the demandingness problem (Donner 2011). This is the problem that holds that if we ought to maximize utility, if that is the right thing to do, then doing right requires enormous sacrifices (under actual conditions), and that requiring such sacrifices is too demanding.

                        This is in contrast to deontological ethics (which your divine-command view falls under) which isn't so demanding, because it's a list of things to not do as opposed to demands that we do things. So in deontological views you can generally be moral by doing nothing (i.e. refraining from committing any wrongs) and in utilitarian views you absolutely cannot be moral by doing nothing - failure to act is judged as immoral.

                        Consider it this way: Imagine a monk who has achieved the acetic ideal of simply meditating on God's glory all day in his small room and he lives out his live in this way. He doesn't transgress any "thou shalt not" commandments. He doesn't kill or even think of doing so, etc. According to deontological moral views he's "perfect" because he hasn't transgressed a single command - by avoiding doing anything he's moral because he's broken no "do not do X" rules. But according to any utilitarian view he's very immoral: He's making no effort at all to maximize the well-being of others. He's not helping people, he's not improving people's lives, he's not bringing happiness to people (other than perhaps himself).
                        That is a caricature. Monks, no mattered how cloistered, help people in ways that are real, even when they do not register when tested by those ethics.
                        Utilitarianism demands that rather than sit on his butt all day doing nothing useful, that he actually be thinking about how he can best help others and be doing it.
                        Some people help the world and the Church best by following their God-given calling to be monks or nuns.
                        It calls for as much heroism and self-sacrifice to be a truly good monk or nun, as it does to be a truly good Christian “in the world” - it demands everything of one.
                        European civilisation was preserved or built by monks.
                        This level of high demand - that we always seek out and do the absolute best thing we can to maximize freedom/happiness/well-being is often considered by philosophers to be so difficult to fulfill and so demanding as to constitute an argument against utilitarianism because it's too hard, as compared to standard historical Christian views where being good was about not doing things like stealing or killing etc.
                        Such a monk would be very very very far from Christian perfection. He would have made a beginning, but only a beginning. Christian perfection is not a mere absence of doing external evil actions.

                        From a Christian POV, both deontological & utilitarian ethics are defective, because neither of them requires conversion to God through Christ, neither requires conversion from sin, neither requires detachment of heart & other supernatural virtues, neither requires total conformity to the Will of God in Jesus Christ. Those ethics may create “good men” - but (1) from a Christian POV, God alone is Good; (2) Christians are called to be Saints, not merely “good men”. The Christian ethical example is Christ Himself.
                        Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 08-18-2018, 10:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                          That Sparko likes bacon ?
                          Ah! I stand defeated.

                          Many delusions can be passed off as knowledge of God, but if one has it, this knowledge is very unlike the fakes that are passed off as it. The relation of the fakes and the real thing is asymmetrical - it illuminates them, and shows them up; but they do not illuminate it. What they can do, is act like will-o’-the-wisps. And this knowledge is not a dead, static thing: it is meant to grow and increase and deepen and broaden and strengthen, like a plant. And like a plant, it is meant to be a living and fruitful thing. And the more abundant and healthy and purified it is, the more certain it becomes. And none of this is possible without the grace of God, which has been called the sunlight of the soul.

                          God is known “experimentally” - a favourite Puritan word. IOW, God is known, by being known. Turning from knowing God, is not a good method for knowing God more deeply. If we want to be swimming, we have to be swimming. There is no other way to swim. Getting out of the water, or avoiding entering it, won’t help us to swim.
                          Before God can be known "experimentally" he must be assumed to exist and there is no good reason to make such an assumption.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Exactly, but the moral relativist is under no such restriction. It would be perfectly rational for her to change her moral standard if she has set it too high (therefore too difficult), or if it interferes with a presently strong desire. The same with any associated guilt that might be generated since that too is merely the result of personal or cultural relative norms.
                            Apart from anything else, how’s this different for a moral objectivist? If the objective standard he adheres to proves too difficult, why not choose to believe a different (easier) standard is the objective truth?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
                              Apart from anything else, how’s this different for a moral objectivist? If the objective standard he adheres to proves too difficult, why not choose to believe a different (easier) standard is the objective truth?
                              Well if one is a Christian a number of things follow if we disobey God. One is true guilt and sorrow for disappointing our heavenly Father, second the possibility of chastisement. In any case the believer is not at liberty to lessen the demands of God's law.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Is 100% of what you say about atheists projection? Just wondering.

                                I mean you worship "Christ crucified", and your sig is "Atheism is the cult of death".

                                And then, when Christians are famous for twisting the bible to suit their own moral desires, and when they believe they can claim christ for free forgiveness anytime they fail, you say it's atheists who have it morally easy?
                                That is nonsense Star, either you don't know devout believers or you seek to twist what they think.

                                This level of high demand - that we always seek out and do the absolute best thing we can to maximize freedom/happiness/well-being is often considered by philosophers to be so difficult to fulfill and so demanding as to constitute an argument against utilitarianism because it's too hard, as compared to standard historical Christian views where being good was about not doing things like stealing or killing etc.
                                But there are no actual demands in utilitarianism because utilitarianism has no inherent moral authority - take it or leave it, it is all the same in the end. Where the law of God is universal, exacting and the ruling authority over all mankind.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X