Page 3 of 35 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 350

Thread: So Easy To Be An Atheist!

  1. #21
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    444
    Quote 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 to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

  2. #22
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    Catholic XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    662
    Amen (Given)
    1907
    Amen (Received)
    132

    Unhappy

    Quote 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.

  3. #23
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,769
    Amen (Given)
    2726
    Amen (Received)
    1655
    Quote 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.

  4. #24
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    Catholic XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    662
    Amen (Given)
    1907
    Amen (Received)
    132
    Quote 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.

  5. #25
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    Catholic XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    662
    Amen (Given)
    1907
    Amen (Received)
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Is 100% of what you say about atheists projection? Just wondering.
    Quote 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.

  6. #26
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    Catholic XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    662
    Amen (Given)
    1907
    Amen (Received)
    132
    Quote 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 at 08:51 PM.

  7. #27
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,326
    Amen (Given)
    2477
    Amen (Received)
    1794
    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    107
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    17
    Quote 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?

  9. #29
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,801
    Amen (Given)
    1673
    Amen (Received)
    5012
    Quote 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...

  10. #30
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,801
    Amen (Given)
    1673
    Amen (Received)
    5012
    Quote 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...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •