3 things that Atheists give up when they reject God

[IWantGod]

If you agree with a social contract, you accept that it represents a moral truth. .

This idea that we can’t agree to the rules of a group without believing those rules are moral truths is just ridiculous.

In any case If there is no God and only physical processes exist then there is no such thing as moral truth. There are only physical interactions. It is irrational to feel guilt if you’ve done nothing wrong. A rational atheist knows that. There is no such thing as good people and bad people. There is no such thing as good behavior and bad behavior.

 

[Bradski]

I might add that it is worth considering the coincidence that pertains if you are correct.

I would suggest that every single moral act that you claim is ‘truly’ right or wrong aligns EXACTLY with what you personally consider to be right or wrong. Amazing, isn’t it?

Unless, of course, you know so ething that is ‘truly’ wrong but that you personally believe is right.

If that is not the case, then you are the go-to guy when it comes to moral problems. You have the solution to all of them.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There may be a social contact saying don’t wear red. You might then decide to wear red thinking there is nothing wrong with that and thus you won’t feel guilty when your caught. Social contracts have little relevance to how we feel morally unless they happen to relate to what we think is wrong or good.

That is where shame and embarrassment come into play. These emotional responses are part of the community driven factors that contribute to behaviour shaping. There also may be overlap for what causes guilt and what causes shame; some behaviour that is considered a moral infraction can also bring about shame and embarrassment.

Even if a person doesn’t feel shame or embarrassment from certain responses from a community a person might still conform to the norms if one wants to protect or improve their standing within their community.

All of this plays a role in the lives of people of many different religious classifications.

 

[Bradski]

This idea that we can’t agree to the rules of a group without believing those rules are moral truths is just ridiculous.

In any case If there is no God and only physical processes exist then there is no such thing as moral truth. There are only physical interactions. It is irrational to feel guilt if you’ve done nothing wrong. A rational atheist knows that. There is no such thing as good people and bad people. There is no such thing as good behavior and bad behavior.

There is a social contract that says we should not steal from each other. You accept this contract because not to do so would place you outside the social community (which you actually might want to do). You have a natural need to be part of the group. To be trusted. To be well thought of.

You then associate the conditions of the contract with what you describe as moral acts. And good behaviour and bad behaviour are just acts that do not comply with the social contracts which you align.

Again, if this were not the case, and moral acts were independent of social contracts and the situations that they define, then there must be good moral acts that you think are bad and bad ones you believe to be good. Because what are the chances of you agreeing with every single moral act?

 

[Vonsalza]

This looks like it’s turned into a rendition of the age-old conflict between egoism and pre-Marx communism.

When do I act on behalf of self to the detriment of my group? When do I act on behalf of my group to the detriment to myself?

Warning :bluelite: Warning

Segue into the relativity of morality incoming…

Invariably, you’re going to start talking about why rape and genocide are absolute wrongs within a relativistic moral schema. Which, yes, is a contradiction.

 

[inocente]

3 things that Atheists give up when they reject God.

I’m against this trend of inventing a stereotype to throw rocks at. In truth the only things you can say about atheists are (a) they are persons, and (b) they disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of gods. There’s no basis for claiming what you think they might all believe. It’s the fallacy known as strawman.

The 3 problems in your OP are all difficult, with philosophers offering lots of differing views. Just saying ‘God dun it’ explains nothing. It’s the fallacy known as appeal to ignorance.

You claim some atheists give up something by believing the world “popped out of absolutely nothing”, but your choice of words is strange given most theists also believe in creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

Your claim “if there is no God the value of our existence is zero” is not biblical. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and Levite both believe in God but to them the value of the victim’s existence is zero, and they walk on by. Whereas the Samaritan (he probably believes in God too but Jesus leaves it to us) never stops to think about God or the value of existence or moral truth or whatnot. He feels (irrational) compassion and shows mercy, and he’s the hero of the day.

You claim we don’t have free-will if “the foundation of all reality is un-directed physical processes” but what’s your alternative? Directed non-physical processes? What are they, and how’s that give us free-will?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m against this trend of inventing a stereotype to throw rocks at.

The stereotype was not invented here by any of us.

"Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

 

[STT]

The stereotype was not invented here by any of us.

"Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

Thanks.

 

[Vonsalza]

There’s no basis for claiming what you think they might all believe. It’s the fallacy known as strawman.

Well, maybe more “hasty generalization”.

You claim some atheists give up something by believing the world “popped out of absolutely nothing”, but your choice of words is strange given most theists also believe in creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

The theist makes the implicit concession to irrationality by professing “faith”. Ergo, a theist has a different standard of evidence than the pure-rationalist. Because of this, a theist may and will eventually fall back onto “because of God” as the ultimate source for all ontology. A dyed-in-the-wool rationalist does not have this luxury. The effect must always have a cause.

The un-caused cause does not contradict theism. It does appear to contradict rational materialism.

Your claim “if there is no God the value of our existence is zero” is not biblical. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and Levite…

Respectfully, I think you’ve missed the point of the parable. A scholar asked Christ “Who is my neighbor?” in reply to Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Jesus replied with the parable with the purpose of answering the man’s question.

The answer? Everyone. Not just your immediate tribesmen - as the traveler’s fellow Jews in the story are conveyed to have behaved poorly.

As parables are deliberately woven to convey specific truths, any other “truths” derived from fanciful interpretations are just more proof of the inherent problem of proxy.

Overall, I couldn’t see how someone could use the bible to prove that our special value in creation is somehow not dependent upon the creator. :nope:

Quite the opposite, actually. :yup:

You claim we don’t have free-will if “the foundation of all reality is un-directed physical processes” but what’s your alternative? Directed non-physical processes? What are they, and how’s that give us free-will?

In this case, “free will” is about as “free” as thermal variations are good proxies for “random” in random number generators. They’re not actually free nor random at all; just so minutely and precisely complex and ever-changing as to be unable to determine them in a predictive way with current technology. But there absolutely are deterministic systems present in both. They’re just not systemically measurable yet. But we’re getting there. Consider how weather was predicted in 1000AD vs 2000AD.

 

[Bradski]

When do I act on behalf of self to the detriment of my group? When do I act on behalf of my group to the detriment to myself?

Check out the Prisoners Dilemma.

Invariably, you’re going to start talking about why rape and genocide are absolute wrongs within a relativistic moral schema. Which, yes, is a contradiction.

I’m going to have to go back over my posts, because I thought I was making myself reasonably clear. But obviously not.

The terms rape and genocide contain within them a certain set of circumstances that define what we mean by each term. This is not a minor matter of semantics, but central to the question of what is absolute and what is relative. So let’s look at whether killing is morally acceptable.

V: Killing is wrong.
B: Hang on, we need some further information. Who or what are we killing?
V: People.
B: One or many?
V: A relatively large group.
B: Is this a war situation?
V: It could be.
B: Well, is the killing justified?
V: The perpetrators would say yes.
B: Well, is it a legally sanctioned act?
V: No.
B: Then why are they being killed.
V: Because one ethnic group has decided that for a variety of reasons another ethnic group must be eliminated.
B: Do you mean genocide?
V: Yes.
B: Then why didn’t you just say genocide? The term contains all the conditions that we just discussed and all the conditions that we need to consider in deciding whether killing in the manner you have specified is morally acceptable or not.

Needless to say, after all the conditions have been investigated, all reasonable people would say that yes, genocide is morally unacceptable. But then, despite having listed all the conditions relative to the act and having considered all the conditions relative to the act, we still get people saying: ‘No, it’s absolutely wrong’.

Now whether they literally don’t understand the meaning of absolute in this context (no conditions) and are using it in the day to day sense of ‘really, really wrong’ (or ‘truly wrong’ as we have seen), I’m not sure.

So I’m not going ‘to start talking about why rape and genocide are absolute wrongs’ because of the obvious fact that they are not ‘absolute’ wrongs.

 

[Vonsalza]

V: Killing is wrong.
B: Hang on, we need some further information. Who or what are we killing?

Oh lord, another one of your monologues-posing-as-dialogues…

And assuming I’m “V”, you immediately start out by putting words in my mouth - moreover starting me out with a position I don’t hold absolutely.

-I think I’ll pass. We get plenty of this from Vera…

So I’m not going ‘to start talking about why rape and genocide are absolute wrongs’ because of the obvious fact that they are not ‘absolute’ wrongs.

This was sufficient.

Behold moral relativism, all ye who gaze here.

 

[Bradski]

This was sufficient.

Would that it were. But stating it baldly (that terms such as ‘genocide’ are not and cannot be described as absolute acts), despite it being obvious to anyone who gives it even the most cursory investigation, doesn’t seem to cut it with most people. Unfortunately, it does need to be explained step by step. One really does need to take it back to the very basics.

But I cast iron guarantee that some will still class it as such. Colour me bemused.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m against this trend of inventing a stereotype to throw rocks at. In truth the only things you can say about atheists are (a) they are persons, and (b) they disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of gods. l?

This thread has got nothing to do with what they believe. Its about what they give up when they disbelieve.

 

[IWantGod]

Check out the Prisoners Dilemma.

I’m going to have to go back over my posts, because I thought I was making myself reasonably clear. But obviously not.

The terms rape and genocide contain within them a certain set of circumstances that define what we mean by each term. This is not a minor matter of semantics, but central to the question of what is absolute and what is relative. So let’s look at whether killing is morally acceptable.

V: Killing is wrong.
B: Hang on, we need some further information. Who or what are we killing?
V: People.
B: One or many?
V: A relatively large group.
B: Is this a war situation?
V: It could be.
B: Well, is the killing justified?
V: The perpetrators would say yes.
B: Well, is it a legally sanctioned act?
V: No.
B: Then why are they being killed.
V: Because one ethnic group has decided that for a variety of reasons another ethnic group must be eliminated.
B: Do you mean genocide?
V: Yes.
B: Then why didn’t you just say genocide? The term contains all the conditions that we just discussed and all the conditions that we need to consider in deciding whether killing in the manner you have specified is morally acceptable or not.

How does the concept of genocide show us that genocide is morally wrong. Oh i get it, you mean you don’t like cheese and pickle sandwiches, so its wrong. Well guess what some people like cheese and pickle sandwiches.

 

[Rosebud77]

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.

Maybe YOU have conversations like that but we do not. You have either not understood or are evading the question… ah well… proves ,my point

 

[IWantGod]

Maybe YOU have conversations like that but we do not. You have either not understood or are evading the question… ah well… proves ,my point

Atheists are masters of evasion.

Theist: Out of nothing comes nothing do you agree

Atheist: Why yes of course.

Theist: An infinite regress is logically impossible.

Athiest: Why yes, that’s absolutely correct old chap.

Theist: The only two options an atheist has for explaining the existence of physical reality is that it infininetly regresses or it popped out of nothing. Those to options are metaphysically impossible and therefore physical reality cannot explain its own existence. There must be a cause of physical existence that is not physical in nature otherwise the existence of physical processes are ontologically incoherent.

Atheist, We don’t have any scientific evidence.

 

[Bradski]

How does the concept of genocide show us that genocide is morally wrong. Oh i get it, you mean you don’t like cheese and pickle sandwiches, so its wrong. Well guess what some people like cheese and pickle sandwiches.

You mean that you couldn’t come to this conclusion yourself? Seriously? Are you really going to tell me that you need someone to tell you that genocide is wrong? That it has to be ‘written’ somewhere? That only Christians (or maybe just Catholics) understand it’s kind of a bad thing?

Where are you going to get this from anywhere? It certainly isn’t biblical as God was quite fond of wiping out whole swathes of people. So maybe we can extrapolate from ‘Love your neighbour’. As if no-one else might have suggested that over the last few tens of thousands of years and people hadn’t realised it might be a worthwhile ideal to hold a society together. Well, maybe you don’t have to love him, but it might be a really, really good idea not to massacre him and his family because what goes around, comes around.

‘I belong to this religion and you don’t so therefore I know the difference between right and wrong and you don’t so you couldn’t tell it from a cheese sarny’. Brilliant.

Give me a break. You are parroting what you have been told by people who have no idea where our concepts of morality come from in the first place. This doesn’t even reach the intellectual level of ‘my dad is bigger than your dad’.

 

[IWantGod]

You mean that you couldn’t come to this conclusion yourself? Seriously? Are you really going to tell me that you need someone to tell you that genocide is wrong? That it has to be ‘written’ somewhere? That only Christians (or maybe just Catholics) understand it’s kind of a bad thing?

Where are you going to get this from anywhere? It certainly isn’t biblical as God was quite fond of wiping out whole swathes of people. So maybe we can extrapolate from ‘Love your neighbour’. As if no-one else might have suggested that over the last few tens of thousands of years and people hadn’t realised it might be a worthwhile ideal to hold a society together. Well, maybe you don’t have to love him, but it might be a really, really good idea not to massacre him and his family because what goes around, comes around.

‘I belong to this religion and you don’t so therefore I know the difference between right and wrong and you don’t so you couldn’t tell it from a cheese sarny’. Brilliant.

Give me a break. You are parroting what you have been told by people who have no idea where our concepts of morality come from in the first place. This doesn’t even reach the intellectual level of ‘my dad is bigger than your dad’.

If metaphysical Naturalism is correct, then everything is physical and nothing is wrong or good. You are delusional if you think you can point your figure at me and dictate what is right and wrong.

 

[Bradski]

If metaphysical Naturalism is correct, then everything is physical and nothing is wrong or good. You are delusional if you think you can point your figure at me and dictate what is right and wrong.

Then how do you personally tell if something is wrong? Somebody gives you a scenario and asks if you think it’s morally acceptable or not.

What do you do? Scratch your head and tell them you have to wait until you can ask someone? Ask God? Or using the intelligence that God is meant to have given you, are you able to discern it yourself?

Don’t tell me what you think I can’t do. I want to know what you think you can do. Can you give me any reasons at all why genocide is wrong? I sincerely hope so.

 

[IWantGod]

Can you give me any reasons at all why genocide is wrong? I sincerely hope so.

Not if Metaphysical Naturalism is true. No i can’t. I can tell you what i like and dislike.