3 things that Atheists give up when they reject God

[IWantGod]

1. A rational explanation for physical existence. Either the world has been changing forever (which means an infinite regress and also no ultimate explanation for why things are changing at all; its just a brute fact), or the world popped out of absolutely nothing.
2. An ontological foundation for “Moral Truth”. In general, most people act for the well-being of others because they feel that it is truly good to do so and that therefore they **ought ** to help. They are not compelled by social contracts.

An atheist can only say “i don’t like being kicked in the head” and hope that somebody else doesn’t like it too. They cannot say that this behavior is wrong or evil and they cannot rely on the moral conscience and the sacrifice of other rational atheists because a truly rational atheist does not believe in right or wrong behavior and therefore do not act on pangs of guilt or a sense of community. One can only hope that there is some kind of reward for the atheist who finds you in that situation.

An atheists cannot say it is wrong to stab me and take my life because if there is no God the value of our existence is zero. An atheist can only negotiate with his attacker in the hope that he can serve the attacker in some way in exchange for his life. Which is quite sad.

Most people don’t attack others or act maliciously toward others because they think its truly wrong and they respect it. They believe life truly has value and isn’t just subjective.

1. The ability to make free choices. If the foundation of all reality is un-directed physical processes then these processes determine everything we say and do throughout our lives. There is no possibility of freewill for the atheist.

 

[joeybaggz]

 

[GEddie]

Why should the valuation of human life require God?

Why couldn’t a physical being experience (at least partial) free-will?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is really more of a greatest hits album of “what’s wrong with atheism” than a single topic. I know the active “Who created God?” topic has been covering item 1. IWantGod, your active topic of “If Everything is Just a Physical Process then what space is there for freewill?” is covering thing 3, so we don’t need another topic. I don’t know if there’s an active topic for item 2, but since it’s a fairly well-worn canard there’s a good chance there is.

It all kind of feels like this.

 

[IWantGod]

Why should the valuation of human life require God?

What do you mean?

Why couldn’t a physical being experience (at least partial) free-will?

ICXC NIKA

Do you understand what is mean’t by the idea of a natural process?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

An atheist can only say “i don’t like being kicked in the head” and hope that somebody else doesn’t like it too.

Yes she can.

They cannot say that this behavior is wrong or evil and they cannot rely on the moral conscience and the sacrifice of other rational atheists because a truly rational atheist does not believe in right or wrong behavior and therefore do not act on pangs of guilt or a sense of community. One can only hope that there is some kind of reward for the atheist who finds you in that situation.

The ability to feel guilt is usually an ability that’s part of a human in a society. A sense of community can come from having shared interest and people that one cares about and care about that person.

An atheists cannot say it is wrong to stab me and take my life because if there is no God the value of our existence is zero. An atheist can only negotiate with his attacker in the hope that he can serve the attacker in some way in exchange for his life. Which is quite sad.

I’d strongly encourage checking out a sociology book and read up on how societies handle those that engage in behaviour that tends to be harmful or otherwise much disliked. I believe that doing so can only help form a stronger argument that is more aligned with how societies operate.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes she can.

The ability to feel guilt is usually an ability that’s part of a human in a society. A sense of community can come from having shared interest and people that one cares about and care about that person.

Guilt is meaningless if nothing wrong has occurred. We only feel guilty when we believe we have done something wrong.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Guilt is meaningless if nothing wrong has occurred. We only feel guilty when we believe we have done something wrong.

I think you meant to refer to the belief of a wrong having occurred in both sentences and not just one. There are some variations in how someone evaluations a course of action as wrong or not wrong. You’ll find variations in what makes a person feel guilty.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you meant to refer to the belief of a wrong having occurred in both sentences and not just one. There are some variations in how someone evaluations a course of action as wrong or not wrong. You’ll find variations in what makes a person feel guilty.

People feel guilty because they think they have done something truly wrong.

 

[GLam8833]

1. An ontological foundation for “Moral Truth”. In general, most people act for the well-being of others because they feel that it is truly good to do so and that therefore they **ought ** to help. They are not compelled by social contracts.

An atheist can only say “i don’t like being kicked in the head” and hope that somebody else doesn’t like it too. They cannot say that this behavior is wrong or evil and they cannot rely on the moral conscience and the sacrifice of other rational atheists because a truly rational atheist does not believe in right or wrong behavior and therefore do not act on pangs of guilt or a sense of community. One can only hope that there is some kind of reward for the atheist who finds you in that situation.

An atheists cannot say it is wrong to stab me and take my life because if there is no God the value of our existence is zero. An atheist can only negotiate with his attacker in the hope that he can serve the attacker in some way in exchange for his life. Which is quite sad.

Most people don’t attack others or act maliciously toward others because they think its truly wrong and they respect it. They believe life truly has value and isn’t just subjective.

1. The ability to make free choices. If the foundation of all reality is un-directed physical processes then these processes determine everything we say and do throughout our lives. There is no possibility of freewill for the atheist.

Even those who don’t believe in God has a conscience but also
concupiscence and need to find the right BALANCE to live a
truly moral life. St. Paul says:“For the Spirit strives against the
flesh and the flesh strives against the Spirit and these are in
disagreement, so that you do not do what you want to do.
But is you walk in the spirit, you are not UNDER LAW”
See Romans 6:12-14

 

[ThinkingSapien]

People feel guilty because they think they have done something truly wrong.

If “truly” here is synonymous with “very” or “intensly” then I would disagree. Someone can have guilt because of something they see as a small wrong.

If “truly” here is meant to denote something being real then it looks like an unnecessary modifier as I don’t think anyone either one of us were entertaining a concept of a fake wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

If “truly” here is synonymous with “very” or “intensly” then I would disagree. Someone can have guilt because of something they see as a small wrong.

No. They feel they have done something wrong and they think its true.

If “truly” here is meant to denote something being real then it looks like an unnecessary modifier as I don’t think anyone either one of us were entertaining a concept of a fake wrong.

Wrong is fake if there is no such thing as right and wrong. There are only behaviors that people like or dislike based upon their preferences.

 

[Rosebud77]

Re your wording

You cannot reject what you do not believe in.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No. They feel they have done something wrong and they think its true.

Sounds like a bit of a tautology unless there is a case in which someone thinks they have done something wrong and thinks it is not true.

There are only behaviors that people like or dislike based upon their preferences.

That’s a rather unique view that you have there.

 

[IWantGod]

Re your wording

You cannot reject what you do not believe in.

Real Man: Hello dear would you like a cup of tea?

Atheist: Why yes! That’s an absolutely pleasant idea

Real Man: I have a secret, would you like to know?

Atheist: Yes, what is it?

Real Man: God exists

Atheist:: i reject the idea that God exists. Its ridiculous and don’t call me anymore you nutcase.

 

[tony12356]

1. A rational explanation for physical existence. Either the world has been changing forever (which means an infinite regress and also no ultimate explanation for why things are changing at all; its just a brute fact), or the world popped out of absolutely nothing.

The other options are: the universe existed forever in some form, something other than a god created the universe, or a god created the universe and currently we don’t have evidence.

1. An ontological foundation for “Moral Truth”. In general, most people act for the well-being of others because they feel that it is truly good to do so and that therefore they **ought ** to help. They are not compelled by social contracts.

An atheist can only say “i don’t like being kicked in the head” and hope that somebody else doesn’t like it too. They cannot say that this behavior is wrong or evil and they cannot rely on the moral conscience and the sacrifice of other rational atheists because a truly rational atheist does not believe in right or wrong behavior and therefore do not act on pangs of guilt or a sense of community. One can only hope that there is some kind of reward for the atheist who finds you in that situation.

"Understand that what is morally right is that which promotes well being, happiness, or health of others or diminishes unnecessary suffering or does both. What is morally wrong is that which diminishes well being, happiness, or health or increase unnecessary suffering or does both. " -Scott Clifton youtu.be/dWNW-NXEudk

It should be noted that we can define each term. If death is preferable to life, then diminishing of health is that which brings them closer to death. Since we realize that your actions can have an effect on others, then it’s not hard to realize that you are responsible for your own actions.

An atheists cannot say it is wrong to stab me and take my life because if there is no God the value of our existence is zero. An atheist can only negotiate with his attacker in the hope that he can serve the attacker in some way in exchange for his life. Which is quite sad.

To suggest that without a god the value of our existence is zero is absurd. The fact that I value my existence and other people value their existence means that existence has value. Take money as an example, money has zero value until people agree that it has value. If everyone decided that dollar bills are worthless, then they will become worthless. So we don’t need a god to give life value. All we need is an agreement among the majority of society that life has value.

1. The ability to make free choices. If the foundation of all reality is un-directed physical processes then these processes determine everything we say and do throughout our lives. There is no possibility of freewill for the atheist.

Ok, well that’s the same issue for theism. If god created everything in the universe and if God knows every action that’s going to happen, then any action we take isn’t free will. Since any action that we take was the byproduct of cause and effect, which started with the creation that God made. Since, god can’t be wrong, then any action we take was already determined as soon as the universe was created. Thus, the theist position doesn’t have free will. Even if God somehow granted everyone free will, he would still know what we would do before we do it. Which means that we can’t choose any other option other then that choice.

 

[tony12356]

*If life is preferable to death, then diminishing of health is that which brings them closer to death.

 

[STT]

1. A rational explanation for physical existence. Either the world has been changing forever (which means an infinite regress and also no ultimate explanation for why things are changing at all; its just a brute fact), or the world popped out of absolutely nothing.

The problem of beginning is not easy for an theist either. How did God create? God just did it!

1. An ontological foundation for “Moral Truth”. In general, most people act for the well-being of others because they feel that it is truly good to do so and that therefore they **ought ** to help. They are not compelled by social contracts.

An atheist can only say “i don’t like being kicked in the head” and hope that somebody else doesn’t like it too. They cannot say that this behavior is wrong or evil and they cannot rely on the moral conscience and the sacrifice of other rational atheists because a truly rational atheist does not believe in right or wrong behavior and therefore do not act on pangs of guilt or a sense of community. One can only hope that there is some kind of reward for the atheist who finds you in that situation.

An atheists cannot say it is wrong to stab me and take my life because if there is no God the value of our existence is zero. An atheist can only negotiate with his attacker in the hope that he can serve the attacker in some way in exchange for his life. Which is quite sad.

Most people don’t attack others or act maliciously toward others because they think its truly wrong and they respect it. They believe life truly has value and isn’t just subjective.

There is no moral truth without meaning for theist too.

1. The ability to make free choices. If the foundation of all reality is un-directed physical processes then these processes determine everything we say and do throughout our lives. There is no possibility of freewill for the atheist.

We already discuss this in another thread.

 

[Rhubarb]

1. A rational explanation for physical existence. Either the world has been changing forever (which means an infinite regress and also no ultimate explanation for why things are changing at all; its just a brute fact), or the world popped out of absolutely nothing.
2. An ontological foundation for “Moral Truth”. In general, most people act for the well-being of others because they feel that it is truly good to do so and that therefore they **ought ** to help. They are not compelled by social contracts.

An atheist can only say “i don’t like being kicked in the head” and hope that somebody else doesn’t like it too. They cannot say that this behavior is wrong or evil and they cannot rely on the moral conscience and the sacrifice of other rational atheists because a truly rational atheist does not believe in right or wrong behavior and therefore do not act on pangs of guilt or a sense of community. One can only hope that there is some kind of reward for the atheist who finds you in that situation.

An atheists cannot say it is wrong to stab me and take my life because if there is no God the value of our existence is zero. An atheist can only negotiate with his attacker in the hope that he can serve the attacker in some way in exchange for his life. Which is quite sad.

Most people don’t attack others or act maliciously toward others because they think its truly wrong and they respect it. They believe life truly has value and isn’t just subjective.

1. The ability to make free choices. If the foundation of all reality is un-directed physical processes then these processes determine everything we say and do throughout our lives. There is no possibility of freewill for the atheist.

1. No they don’t. Unless by ‘rational’ you mean “one I can agree with”. There are plenty of non-theist theories that have at least as many problems as a theist theory.
2. These aren’t necessary to form a coherent and consistent theory of meta-ethics. That being said there are also books and books and books put out by philosophers who describe without relying on divine command a complete and consistent theory of meta-ethics. T.M. Scanlon and Mark Schroedinger are two prime examples.
3. No they don’t. Free will is a very complex subject and many people would say that the ‘free will’ that Christians believe in isn’t free at all - after all, under the Christian understanding we’re all being coerced into behaviors. (Don’t kiss another man or you’ll go to hell) Coerced behavior isn’t maximally free.

This is the trap people fall into when they don’t read philosophers and traditions they disagree with. One gets caught up in their own point of view, they are failing at the first duty of a philosopher - to critically examine one’s own beliefs. And I would say the second duty of a philosopher - to adhere to the principle of charity when examining opposing beliefs so they can be critically and fairly examined as well. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity ) Spouting slogans and memes against what you believe shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the greater debates in the subject, or, not bothering to give opposing views a fair shake, and thus, fair consideration.

 

[IWantGod]

1. No they don’t. Unless by ‘rational’ you mean “one I can agree with”. There are plenty of non-theist theories that have at least as many problems as a theist theory.

I disagree. An infinite regress is logically impossible and so is the idea that the universe popped out of nothing. That leaves only one possibility. A nature that is not a physical process.

1. These aren’t necessary to form a coherent and consistent theory of meta-ethics. That being said there are also books and books and books put out by philosophers who describe without relying on divine command a complete and consistent theory of meta-ethics. T.M. Scanlon and Mark Schroedinger are two prime examples.

They all essentially amount to saying that if you don’t like cheese and pickle sandwiches then don’t eat it. If you what to avoid what most people consider undesirable consequences lets cooperate. People are not idiots, they already know that. That’s not true morality. That’s simply avoiding what is undesirable.

Strangers save other people lives, sometimes to the loss of they own lives, because they think its truly good, they think there actions have real meaning. Its not because someone suggested that they would like to live in a world where they would be saved. Also, just because somebody likes living does not equate to the idea that life truly has moral value…

1. No they don’t. Free will is a very complex subject and many people would say that the ‘free will’ that Christians believe in isn’t free at all - after all, under the Christian understanding we’re all being coerced into behaviors. (Don’t kiss another man or you’ll go to hell) Coerced behavior isn’t maximally free.

Its only complex if you are a metaphysical naturalist. No-ones being coerced. You ought to make the right choice does not equate to the idea that your choices are being determined for you. If everything is essentially and fundamentally an undirected physical process then clearly that process is what determines what you think and do. There is no freewill at all.

This is the trap people fall into when they don’t read philosophers and traditions they disagree with. One gets caught up in their own point of view, they are failing at the first duty of a philosopher - to critically examine one’s own beliefs. And I would say the second duty of a philosopher - to adhere to the principle of charity when examining opposing beliefs so they can be critically and fairly examined as well. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity ) Spouting slogans and memes against what you believe shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the greater debates in the subject, or, not bothering to give opposing views a fair shake, and thus, fair consideration.

Metaphysical naturalism is incoherent with reality. The continued denial of this fact is not due to rationality but a refusal to acknowledge anything that would give credence to the existence of a deity and especially one that tells us what to do.