3 things that Atheists give up when they reject God

[inocente]

Well, without an objective standard of moral truth, all ethical arguments are just about what we want or what we think is best for us in relation to whatever agenda we have life.

And each of those systems provides an objective standard.

IWG thought that without God, it was the equivalent of helping a little old lady across the street.

Agreed, one of the surgeon’s objectives in removing the little old lady’s cataracts was probably to help her cross the street.

 

[IWantGod]

And each of those systems provides an objective standard.l:

No they do not in the same respect that i am talking about. Yeah i can say i want to stay alive, and so there are things in objective reality that i need to consider when making decisions, this is goal orientated decision making. But this does not give life itself an objective moral value. It only means that i value it. This does not mean there is a way life ought to be…The ethical systems you present are goal orientated in the sense that i ought to take medicine if i want to live. It’s based on what i want. There is no value beyond my subjective point of view if God does not exist.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[setarcos]

Greetings kind soul,
I haven’t read everyone’s posts on here so my answers may have already been covered but give my take on your Premises just in case there might be something new for you to address.
I believe you’ve swallowed before completely finishing chewing your thoughts.
Let me say for the record that I do believe in the existence of God. I have no choice. Whether this is because of the area of my brain which gives rise to “religious” feelings overriding other contradictive processes or because God simply exists and has impressed upon my “heart” the feeling of his existence I cannot say.

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.

On the contrary, Atheists attempt to explain physical existence strictly through rationalization via empirical evidence and the scientific method. Stephen Hawking among others believe they have recently achieved at least a working model of how this might be achieved. Conversely, miracles are inherently irrational. You cannot rationalize all the way to God. There will always be an unbridgeable gap between the understood and the ineffable nature of God. This may be reflected to some extent in St. Anselm’s phrase…”Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam”, (“I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but rather, I believe in order that I may understand”).

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.

The fallacy your making here is in assuming that a beings compulsion to moral action cannot itself arise from “social contracts” arising through “natural” processes other than Gods impressions upon the soul. This has not been proven. Your statement is still merely a case of the Christian said/the Atheist said. One claims feelings originate from God the other claims they originate from nature without God. The only proved assumption is that both the Christian and the Atheist can have similar feelings.

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.

Like the above statement the problem with this statement is in assuming that any impulse to altruistic action must arise from God and not through natural processes. There are selfish Atheists and there are selfless Atheists, as are there Christians. Assuming that moral conviction cannot arise “naturally”, that is without God, in an Atheist is contingent upon other arguments for the ontological origins of moral truth. There is no argument against a truly rational atheist still feeling an action to be right or wrong based on natural processes arising within the brain. In this case the reward for the Atheist may be in satisfying the compulsion to act altruistically.

 

[setarcos]

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.

On the contrary, you deny the atheist the ability to place any value on his fellow human being because he is not God. This implies that without God , even though an Atheist may value human life, a humans value remains worthless. Thus a value a human being can place freely on something is worthless and what then is our value of God worth?

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.

I would venture to guess that equal proportions of Atheists and Christians treat others rightly or wrongly in accord with their subjective dispositions despite the titles they may hold.

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.

It has yet to be proven that the epiphenomenon of the self-awareness of free will cannot arise from undirected physical processes. Nor has it been demonstrated how free will can exist despite the directed processes of God which permeates all of creation determining the nature of all of existence. Indeed modern scientific technology has recently advanced enough to give us the resources to test many of these assertions and so far having actual free will is strongly open to debate and far from settled.
I don’t mean to say you’re wrong in your assertions here. Simply that your statements are not affirmative as they stand.

 

[Bradski]

There is no value beyond my subjective point of view if God does not exist.

What you mean is that you believe there is a value beyond your subjective point of view because you believe in God.

You live your life based on any number of assumptions. The main one for you, the one that probably defines all the others, is that God exists.

Therefore you believe that there are objective values. Whether God exists or not, as long as you continue to accept that He does, you will continue to believe that there are objective values.

Whether He DOES exist or not becomes irrelevant.

 

[IWantGod]

What you mean is that you believe there is a value beyond your subjective point of view because you believe in God.

You live your life based on any number of assumptions. The main one for you, the one that probably defines all the others, is that God exists.

Therefore you believe that there are objective values. Whether God exists or not, as long as you continue to accept that He does, you will continue to believe that there are objective values.

Whether He DOES exist or not becomes irrelevant.

It is relevant, because if God does not exist then i’m delusional for believing in objective moral values. I can accept that. Can you?

 

[Bradski]

It is relevant, because if God does not exist then i’m delusional for believing in objective moral values. I can accept that. Can you?

For sure. We both live our lives based on what we believe. As far as you and I are concerend, one of us IS delusional. Obviously I think it’s you. But to be honest, it doesn’t matter in the slightest to me. That is, unless your beliefs directly affect how I think I should live my life.

If you live your life the way that you think God wants you to, then it is obviously, as far as you are concerned, the best way. If it turned out that you realised that God doesn’t exist, then why would you change the way you live? You have already decided it’s the best possible way.

Unless you decide to go stealin’ and murderin’ because no-one is watching and you might get away with it (in which case it is only faith that prevents you from being a psycopath), then whether God exists or not is irrelevant. Just live your life as if He does.

 

[IWantGod]

For sure. We both live our lives based on what we believe. As far as you and I are concerend, one of us IS delusional. Obviously I think its you.

My belief in God might be delusional, but if you believe metaphysical naturalism is true and at the same time hold the view that there is a way that human behavior ought to be, objectively speaking, then you definitely are.

if you live your life the way that you think God wants you to, then it is obviously, as far as you are concerned, the best way. If it turned out that you realised that God doesn’t exist, then why would you change the way you live? You have already decided it’s the best possible way.

If i follow God it is because it is the moral truth. It is what i ought to do. It is not about what i want. It does not matter whether i like it or not.

That’s what the truth is like. It doesn’t need fans or praise in order to be true.
.

 

[Bradski]

IWantGod:

If i follow God it is because it is the moral truth. It is what i ought to do. It is not about what i want.

Well, yeah. You follow God because you believe He exists. You also believe He represents how things ought to be. Moral absolutes. You live your life accordingly.

I am assuming that you believe that that is the best way to live. As if there is a way that things ought to be. As if there are moral absolutes.

We could bring up a few hundeed children to believe in tbe FSM and tell them that he represents the way that things ought to be. That there are, because of him, moral absolutes.

They would grow up living their lives no different from you. They would use the same argumemts as you. We wouldn’t be able to tell you apart.

 

[IWantGod]

Well, yeah. You follow God because you believe He exists. You also believe He represents how things ought to be. Moral absolutes. You live your life accordingly.

I am assuming that you believe that that is the best way to live.

Its irrelevant what i subjectively think. God is either objectively good for me or he is not. If he is not, then i am delusional for thinking that there is an objective moral good.

God has revealed himself as that which morally fulfills my natures. It is true that i have a desire to be fulfilled morally; i would like to be good as God is good. But i do not always act accordingly. So yes, in my mind i think that God is whats best for me, but only because he has revealed it as such. God is objectively good for me regardless of whether i agree or not or faithful or not.

You believe that a particular way of life is morally good for you. But that is a subjective ideal that you have for life. It does not mean that your life actually has an objective moral value. I of course believe that it does, but that cannot be true if metaphysical naturalism is true.

 

[Bradski]

Its irrelevant what i subjectively think. God is either objectively good for me or he is not. If he is not, then i am delusional for thinking that there is an objective moral good.

God has revealed himself as that which morally fulfills my natures. It is true that i have a desire to be fulfilled morally; i would like to be good as God is good. But i do not always act accordingly. So yes, in my mind i think that God is whats best for me, but only because he has revealed it as such. God is objectively good for me regardless of whether i agree or not or faithful or not.

You believe that a particular way of life is morally good for you. But that is a subjective ideal that you have for life. It does not mean that your life actually has an objective moral value. I of course believe that it does, but that cannot be true if metaphysical naturalism is true.

You are still sliding past the main point. That your belief in God results in you living your life in a particular way and having specific views about morality. It results in you believing that there is an objective value to life. Now those things might give you comfort on a cold night and might actually make you a better person than you would have been without them.

But that’s it.

You can’t prove in any way whatsoever that there are absolute truths. You can only personally act as if there are. You can’t prove in any way that life really has a meaning over and above what we determine it to be. You can only act as if there is.

If you are the guy that won’t throw someone out of the overloaded and sinking lifeboat because you don’t think it’s what God wants, then step aside and I’ll do it. If you tell me that lying is immoral and you’ll tell the SS where my kids are hiding if they ask, then I will shoot you before they turn up.

Then again, if you don’t want to use contraception or refrain from non productive sex, or do whatever it is that you believe God wants you to do, then who am I argue if it has no effect on me?

 

[IWantGod]

You can’t prove in any way whatsoever that there are absolute truths?

I didn’t claim that i could prove there is such a thing as objective Moral absolutes.

Its irrelevant to my argument. An Argument that you have been slipping and sliding over since the beginning of the thread.

You might as well say that you don’t need the existence of moral absolutes to determine what you want and don’t want. But i never argued anything to the contrary. You have just been beating straw-man and clearly enjoying it cause otherwise you wouldn’t have remain on this thread for so long.

The real objective dignity of human beings doesn’t permit me to act in anyway that would bring a person to harm . Acting in my own self interest to the detriment of others is immoral also. But of course that is all meaningless and untrue if metaphysical naturalism is true.

 

[inocente]

No they do not in the same respect that i am talking about. Yeah i can say i want to stay alive, and so there are things in objective reality that i need to consider when making decisions, this is goal orientated decision making. But this does not give life itself an objective moral value. It only means that i value it. This does not mean there is a way life ought to be…The ethical systems you present are goal orientated in the sense that i ought to take medicine if i want to live. It’s based on what i want. There is no value beyond my subjective point of view if God does not exist.

You can’t have it both ways.

So does your morality say all women ought to be nuns and all men monks? Or does it say there’s more than one way life ought to be, and you decided your goal did/didn’t include being a nun/monk?

Jesus says ‘do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets’. Likewise virtue ethics, utilitarianism, etc. work the same for atheists, Hindus, Catholics, Baptists, the same for everyone, they give the same answers to everyone without subjectivity whatever we believe. Does your morality do that?

 

[Bradski]

The real objective dignity of human beings doesn’t permit me to act in anyway that would bring a person to harm . Acting in my own self interest to the detriment of others is immoral also. But of course that is all meaningless and untrue if metaphysical naturalism is true.

You have your belief in objective dignity and I have empathy and the golden rule. Which means that we treat people the same and try not to act in our our own self interest to the detriment of others.

Just because you believe in the supernatural and I don’t makes zero difference whatsoever. Apart from the fact that you want to insist that my philosophical outlook is meaningless. I would accept any proposal that it does not reflect the truth of the matter (either of us could be wrong), but meaningless?

That would be as nonsensical as me suggesting that your beliefs are meaningless to you.

 

[IWantGod]

You have your belief in objective dignity and I have empathy and the golden rule. Which means that we treat people the same and try not to act in our our own self interest to the detriment of others.

Just because you believe in the supernatural and I don’t makes zero difference whatsoever.

I makes zero difference to how you feel about other human organisms. I never claimed that it did. But i assume you care about the truth.

If metaphysical naturalism is true then there is no such thing as moral truth, and stabbing somebody in the eye just because one feels like it is neither objectively good or evil. It’s just a physical event. An objectively meaningless expression of energy in a long line of physical events that will ultimately come to nothing when we all cease to exist.

 

[IWantGod]

So does your morality say all women ought to be nuns and all men monks?

This is a question what constitutes a moral good? Is it immoral that men and women serve different religious roles? That’s not the question i’m interested in. The question is does objective moral truth exist if metaphysical naturalism exist? Its not a question of our capacity to discern what is pragmatically useful or consistent with our cherished ideologies.

Jesus says ‘do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets’. Likewise virtue ethics, utilitarianism, etc. work the same for atheists, Hindus, Catholics, Baptists, the same for everyone, they give the same answers to everyone without subjectivity whatever we believe. Does your morality do that?

You seem to be ignoring what i’m saying.

Do on to others as you would have them do on to you i suppose is a pragmatically useful idea if your goal in life is consistent with it. You wouldn’t like that to happen to you so don’t do it to others. But just because i wouldn’t like something to happen to me doesn’t mean it is objectively true that i ought not hurt other people. That alone does not mean that there is a way things ought to be.

Also when Jesus said do on to others as you would have them do on to you it meant more than a simple pragmatic gesture. It means that if you recognize the God given dignity in you then you ought to recognize the God given dignity in others and treat them accordingly.

 

[Bradski]

You seem to be ignoring what i’m saying.

Do on to others as you would have them do on to you i suppose is a pragmatically useful idea if your goal in life is consistent with it. You wouldn’t like that to happen to you so don’t do it to others. But just because i wouldn’t like something to happen to me doesn’t mean it is objectively true that i ought not hurt other people.

Yeah, I think we have all got that message. You believe that there is an objective morality which means you ought not to hurt someone. And we get that you seem unable to grasp that there are other systems of morality that work equally as well.

If you want to insist that your beliefs are the only ones that are worth having (and there’s no moral difference between stabbing someone and helping old ladies), then be my guest.

 

[PRmerger]

You have your belief in objective dignity and I have empathy and the golden rule.

It’s inherent dignity.

You have empathy and the golden rule that is contrary to the atheistic world view.

You have it despite being an atheist.

That’s incoherent.

 

[IWantGod]

Yeah, I think we have all got that message. You believe that there is an objective morality which means you ought not to hurt someone. And we get that you seem unable to grasp that there are other systems of morality that work equally as well.

If you want to insist that your beliefs are the only ones that are worth having (and there’s no moral difference between stabbing someone and helping old ladies), then be my guest.

I am not arguing for a system of ethics. I am arguing that there is no such thing as objective moral truth if metaphysical naturalism is true. Human behavior, just like the behavior of all animals or any physical object, is objectively neutral. If you want to say that i don’t like that behavior and therefore it is objectively true that such behavior is wrong then that is entirely up to you, but its not consistent with metaphysical naturalism as a worldview.

Continuously misrepresenting my argument isn’t going to invalidate it.

 

[Bradski]

You have empathy and the golden rule that is contrary to the atheistic world view.

Huh? Empathy is inbuilt. We all have it. You can’t choose it as part of some world view. And the golden rule is simply a handy rule for creating civilisations. It’s utilitarianism by another name. Again, we all obey it to a certain degree. It’s a societal norm.