Ask the Atheist

[RobNY]

PLP:

First, I can never know for sure that I could get away with doing something that my neighbors violently object to. I always have to factor in at least the risk of getting caught and punished.

I asked, “if you can get away with it.” I’d still like an answer to that specifically, assuming you can get away with it, why not?

I do understand this as far as the do unto others rule works, but the problem is that it breaks down when you’re so powerful that others can’t do unto you. For the dictators of the world, the question becomes, why not treat others like ****? Why not violently oppress them?

Second, I don’t want to steal or kill.

But you said that you wanted to be happy, and that that was what was good. You want to do what is good. Is it not conceivable that stealing or killing aren’t, in some circumstances, ‘good’ for you to do? And I don’t mean stealing bread to eat or killing in self defense, I mean, stealing purely because it gives you an advantage, and killing likewise. After all, there are certainly many possible situations where stealing and killing are ‘what’s best for me.’ If you deny that you should steal or kill in those situations, then you deny your own premise about following what is ethically ‘good,’ which you define as ‘what’s best for me.’

Third, people who do want to steal and kill, and believe the benefits outweigh the risks do in fact steal and kill; our prisons are full of such people.

I doubt that most of these people think that what they’ve done is right. They may think that it was advantageous for them at the moment, but I doubt that they have the exact definition of good as you. It is very much true that in some morality that what is ‘best for me,’ is not necessarily good. I don’t deny that people who want to steal and kill do so, I deny that most of them actually believe these things to be right.

There are, of course, things I do which other people in fact consider objectively wrong (e.g. not believing in a God). The argument that they consider these activities objectively wrong is entirely unpersuasive. The only way you’re going to get me to actually believe that I should do something is to convince me that doing so is in my own interest, either in the short or long term.

Well, most of us would tell you that it is in your best interest, long term, to share in the grace of God for all of eternity. And, conversely, that it is not in your best interest to burn in hell for all of eternity. So the question about believing in God being in your best interest reduces completely to whether or not God exists…

And the only way you can get me to comply if I don’t agree is to force me to do so. This is what we do with murderers and thieves: They do not agree that refraining from killing and stealing is in their own interest, so we hire police to capture them and jailers to imprison them. We don’t wait for God to take care of them.

To the contrary. They believe that killing and stealing are wrong, but they see themselves as exceptions to the rule. If they didn’t agree with the rule, then they’d have to agree that whatever they stole, it would be perfectly right for others to steal from them, and if they killed, that it would be perfectly right for others to kill them. They may believe that a particular act was in their best interest, but they don’t repudiate the moral nature of the act.

You say, ‘they don’t agree that refraining from killing and stealing is in their own interest.’ Why would they have to agree? After all, your concept of morality is that everyone has their own idea of what is their best interest, and that someone who follows what is their best interest is ethically good. Why do you support locking these people up, PHP? After all, they are being ethically good, according to your definition. Why do you support the incarceration of people who are ethically good?

Or are you implying that your personal notion of ethical goodness (which has to do with *your *well being) trumps someone else’s personal notion of ethical goodness? How could your personal version trump anyone else’s?

I think it is ethically abhorrent to incarcerate someone who you consider to be ethically good.

 

[Mijoy2]

I second the suggestion to read Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis.

Is the term “cease to exist” non-sensical?

i.e when John Doe dies the atheist believes John Doe ceases to exist (I assume), I can’t make sense of the term. Maybe you can explian it to me (if you follow this belief of course).

 

[Zachary]

You said that there is no soul, that we are defined by the arrangement of neurons, quote " I do agree that “I” am not my physical neurons; “I” am the arrangement of those neurons.
". So, you are saying that if the arrangement changes, we become a different person. Every time you sneeze, learn, bang your head, drink a beer, eat fish, dream or forget, you become a different person?

Your debating skills are as poor as mine. You’ve come hear saying that you’ll answer any question, really though, that you will attempt to debunk our beliefs. But you only give a top level insight, no evidence. You do try to dance around an answer, though.

So, try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zachary
What defines right and wrong?

We humans do. What made us do it? What is the ultimate purpose of right and wrong?

Quote:

What is the purpose of existence.

In terms of final or teleological causes, I don’t think there is an external teleological cause for the existence of humans.** I don’t care about your theological belief. Why do atheists think humans exist? Why is there one human race though there have been puddles of gloop around for 6 billion years?**

Quote:
Time is not the same something that could have originated anything, it is not something physical. Time is only a definition of a state of things not being still ie moving and changing. So, bogus. Try again.

I honestly don’t understand your objection. Whether time is physical or not, it is still something, and not nothing. Even that is a stretch. It implies creation, not evolution.

 

[contemplative]

PLP:

You may ask me anything without fear of giving offense.

Have you ever considered Pascal’s wager?

“If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost
nothing – but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an
atheist.”

 

[mikew262]

contemplative:

Have you ever considered Pascal’s wager?

“If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost
nothing – but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an
atheist.”

Something every atheist really needs to consider. IMO, this is the bottom line, if considering atheism as a way of life.

 

[Vanny]

Hi, PLP

I haven’t had time to read all the replies so please forgive me if I’m repeating something.
By your logic, then, there is no TRANCENDENT morality or right and wrong- only what we humans define as right and wrong.
So by that logic then genocide, racisim, torture, ect ect are not wrong if an entire society were to say they are not wrong and approve of it.
Hitler, then, by that logic would not be wrong because the people put him in power most approved of his persecution and slaughter of the Jews.
Let’s say the whole world went along with HItler and no one opposed him, then by your logic, his slaughter of the Jews and other was not wrong. It’s only wrong because we decide it’s wrong. If we all thought it was great, by that logic it would be great.
Or slavery, same thing. If everyone decides it’s OK, then it’s not wrong. For awhile that mostly happened. But these things were not OK with God., no matter what people thought.
I believe there is a Trancendent standard of right and wrong written into the fabric of the universe. There are things that are wrong no matter whether the majority think they are right or not at any given time.
I think the 10 commandments cover them pretty well.
The new testament(Romans 1 &2) speaks about the law being written on peoples hearts, which would be a concience.
Someone suggested Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis, an excellent book.

 

[PLP]

carol marie:

Have you ever prayed to God & asked Him to give you faith - even though you don’t believe… just sort of thrown it up there just in case?

I would have to already believe in a god to sincerely pray to one. If I already believe, I don’t need to pray for belief.

Aren’t you the least bit worried that you might be wrong & when you die you’ll spend eternity in hell? Not even a teeny tiny bit?

Ah, Pascal’s wager. First, which god? No matter what I believe, there are a billion people wo tell me I’m going to hell for not believing the other god. Second, I don’t find it sensible to think that even if there were a being who created the universe, it would even care what I believed, any more than I care about what an ant believes.

So I figure that I’ll just be myself, and if a god has some sort of an issue with how I live my life, it’s welcome to communicate its displeasure with me directly.

 

[PLP]

mikew262:

Is your wife an atheist?

Yes she is.

 

[PLP]

carol marie:

What do you think of atheists who fight to get any mention of God removed from the public - like the Pledge for example. Would you ever take up a cause such as that?

The First Amendment seems very clear to me: The government has no business establishing a religion, any religion. The government also has no business prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I’m all for religion in “public” life. Individuals, churches, private businesses are perfectly free to exercise their religion in public, and I think that freedom is tremendously positive. I’m against only the government promoting religion.

When the government pressures children in public school to recite “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, I think that’s an un-Constitutional establishment of religion. If children want to pray on their own initiative, I think their freedom to do so should be protected.

Our government is supposed to be for everyone. Not just the Christians, not just the monotheists, not just the theists–and not just for the atheists, agnostics and other nontheists. It’s for everyone.

 

[PLP]

JPMaximilian:

Why should I do what is good?

Well, since I believe that what is “good” is what you want to do, all things considered, it’s a tautology that you have to want to do what is good.

You mention prison and police, but what if I am in a position where I know for sure that I can do something and get away with it? What if I don’t care if someone else feels pain or displeasure? If morality is subjective I think that puts us in a dangerous place.

We are in a dangerous place. Crime exists, wars exist; people do things that I personally (and probably you as well) think are abominable, abhorrent and atrocious.

So if it is probable that I will probably get away with something, why not do it to get more pleasure? I mean, I really like lolly pops, and that kid isn’t going to miss it.

Well, people who actually do believe that actually would steal the lollipop, and such people do in fact exist. I suspect if you told them that you believed it was morally wrong, they’d simply laugh at you.

All we can do is try to raise the probability of getting caught and make the consequences of getting caught severe enough.

 

[PLP]

JPMaximilian:

I don’t know one way or the other, but there very well could be plenty of people not in the jails that have gotten away with things. Our prisons could just be full of the criminals who are bad at not getting caught.

No argument there. All I can do is say that it is indeed a fact that such people exist. I don’t think any of them would be persuaded by you saying that morality was objective.

Also, how can you be sure of anything without assuming that your reason and senses correspond to some reality and that they can lead to truth.

I’m not sure of anything. I dislike certainty. I prefer to keep an open mind.

 

[Mijoy2]

PLP:

I would have to already believe in a god to sincerely pray to one. If I already believe, I don’t need to pray for belief.

Ah, Pascal’s wager. First, which god? No matter what I believe, there are a billion people wo tell me I’m going to hell for not believing the other god. .

Chestertons’ Everlasting Man addresses this issue convincingly, in the chapter Comparative Religions.

I sometimes struggle with this too. There are 1 billion Muslims who claim I am going to hell because I believe in the trinity. Allah would show mercy for any other sin, yet because I chose to believe in the Christian God I am doomed for believing in multiple Gods (according to Islam).

PLP, does this force the choice you propose? That because there are contradictory faiths in the world they all must be hogwash. I am not sure there is integrity in this line of thinking. Isn’t there more integrity to stand for something based on the evidence then to disassociate yourself on all stands because of contradiction?

Chesterton address this brilliantly in Everlasting Man.

You said we could ask any questions. I’ll try this one. Have you read any of the books Christians have suggested you read? It would appear you are seeking truth or you would not be here (presumption on my part). I find athiests expend much energy in convincing others of thier view. Yet the atheist has nothing to gain by convincing the Christian he is right. Therefore why try? The Christian has something to gain in convincing the atheist he is right. A brother in the everlasting life he hopes to enjoy.

 

[PLP]

MarkR:

Do you notice how you close the system based on the fact that God is not physically, scientifically observable, quantifiable, qualifiable or measurable and then immediately have to throw those concepts out the window?

I don’t throw those concepts out the window.

Religion is critisized for being “speculative”…

I don’t criticize religion for being speculative. Speculation is great. There’s nothing wrong with speculating. I just don’t think you should stop there. To move speculation to truth, you have to have evidence.

…while atheists speculate all over the place in order to prove there’s no God.

I don’t think you can prove, in the mathematical sense, that there’s no God. The best I can say is that I’ve seen no evidence of the existence of a God.

You say above that every human action is the effect of a physical or environmental “cause” (thus denying Free Will and personal responsibility) and then eliminate this ironclad principle when it applys to the entire system and as it begins to close in on, to hint at God.

Well, I don’t think the principle is quite so “ironclad”. Causality is a relationship, and it’s logically impossible for everything to have a relationship with anything else. This principle does not at all deny the existence of a god (if a god exists, then it is part of everything); it just point out a logical contradiction in a particular argument.

Also, causality does not deny personal responsibility (although it does deny some interpretations of “free will”). Even if my thoughts are somehow caused, that doesn’t mean that if my mind is somehow “broken” that it should not be somehow “repaired”.

Anything subject to change is subject to time (now, then). Time happens because Change happens and has nothing to do with “traversing”.

Indeed. Time and change are relationships. In order to change, there must be something before and something after. There’s nothing, however, for everything to have a relationship with.

Only that which cannot possibly change (God) because he is absolutely self contained/self sufficient and therefore absolutely necessary and non-contingent provides the concept of Infinity with any coherant basis.

I obviously disagree. Why would an eternal, unchangable, self-contained, self-sufficient being create a temporally finite, changable, non-self-contained, non-self-sufficient universe? That doesn’t seem all that coherent to me.

You’re right! The Multiverse hypothesis is definitely speculative, in fact St. Augustine speculated about it in the late 4th century, but he had the logical capacity (freedom) to speculate. With all due respect, you don’t. You can deny that atheists are across the board positivists but as soon as you do your entire worldview and all reasons for denying God vanish.

I of course disagree.

It’s kind of a pick and choose, ideological positivism. Mention God and there’s an instant Big Bang of “scientific,acrobatic speculation” that says no God Lol.

Well, I need a little more detail to work with.

The first and greatest atheist who tried to overcome this dilema was Nietzsche with his Superman. He died insane and the only Superman I know of is a long in the tooth comic book character. Even he’s had his day.

That’s an ad hominem argument (in the technical sense, not in the “insult” sense). That Nietzsche was crazy does not affect the truth or falsity of atheism.

I think that the currency for atheism is high today because most people have been sold a bill of goods that there have been recent scientific observations and breakthroughs that have raised “new questions”. There haven’t been (quite the contrary). In fact everything we’ve been discussing is as old as the hills. There’s also a massive effort through academia, pop culture, mass media, etc. to codify it so as to establish and enshrine the religion of the Autonomous Self. It’s become quintessential group think.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

I have a feeling that you suspect, or begin to suspect the same which is why you’re posting “Methinks he doth protest too much”. You’ll find the answers and you’re in my prayers

All I can do is repeat that I’m very comfortable with my atheism, and I believe it to be philosophically sound.

 

[PLP]

RobNY:

I asked, “if you can get away with it.” I’d still like an answer to that specifically, assuming you can get away with it, why not?

All I can say is that the people who do in fact believe they can get away with things that you and I would object to, do in fact do such things. Even if these things are in fact objectively wrong, they’re still doing them.

For the dictators of the world, the question becomes, why not treat others like ****? Why not violently oppress them?

Again, all I can say is that this is precisely what the dictators of the world do in fact do.

But you said that you wanted to be happy, and that that was what was good. You want to do what is good. Is it not conceivable that stealing or killing aren’t, in some circumstances, ‘good’ for you to do?

It’s logically possible. It is not, in fact, the case, as far as I personally am concerned.

And I don’t mean stealing bread to eat or killing in self defense, I mean, stealing purely because it gives you an advantage, and killing likewise. After all, there are certainly many possible situations where stealing and killing are ‘what’s best for me.’

But the two cases you explicitly mention and appear to disclaim are precisely the cases in which I might in fact steal or kill, precisely because they would be good for me, and the alternative very bad. As for the other cases, I simply do not believe they would be good for me; since I believe it, it is a subjective fact.

If you deny that you should steal or kill in those situations, then you deny your own premise about following what is ethically ‘good,’ which you define as ‘what’s best for me.’

That I find something to be personally good does not make it objectively good. And just because I personally believe something to be good doesn’t mean that you have to agree. Or vice versa.

I doubt that most of these people think that what they’ve done is right…

I’m not skilled at reading minds. I can only infer from the fact that someone actually does do something that they, all things considered, thought that it was the best thing to do.

Well, most of us would tell you that it is in your best interest, long term, to share in the grace of God for all of eternity… So the question about believing in God being in your best interest reduces completely to whether or not God exists…

It does indeed.

To the contrary. They believe that killing and stealing are wrong, but they see themselves as exceptions to the rule…

Not necessarily. There’s no requirement for subjective morality to be universal or even logically consistent. People hold inconsistent beliefs all the time.

They may believe that a particular act was in their best interest, but they don’t repudiate the moral nature of the act.

Like I said, I can’t read minds.

You say, ‘they don’t agree that refraining from killing and stealing is in their own interest.’ Why would they have to agree? After all, your concept of morality is that everyone has their own idea of what is their best interest, and that someone who follows what is their best interest is ethically good.

I don’t think that subjective belief establishes objective truth. I think it’s a fact that people do in fact do what they think is in their best interest. They can, of course, be mistaken.

Why do you support locking these people up, PHP? After all, they are being ethically good, according to your definition. Why do you support the incarceration of people who are ethically good?

I support locking them up because I personally disapprove of their actions. Just as my beliefs don’t entail objective truth, neither do theirs.

How could your personal version trump anyone else’s?

Nothing “trumps” anything. It’s a matter of negotiation and, fundamentally, power. Things that most people agree on will be more strongly enforced than things that few people agree on. I myself will support the things I personally agree with.

I think it is ethically abhorrent to incarcerate someone who you consider to be ethically good.

It would, of course, be not only ethically bad but seriously dumb to incarcerate someone if I approved of their behavior!

(sorry, I had to trim a bit to fit)

 

[PLP]

Mijoy2:

Is the term “cease to exist” non-sensical?

i.e when John Doe dies the atheist believes John Doe ceases to exist (I assume), I can’t make sense of the term. Maybe you can explian it to me (if you follow this belief of course).

Well, when he dies, we know the the extension in the time dimension of John Doe’s existence.

 

[contemplative]

TEACHER: Billy do you see the tree outside?

BILLY: Yes.

TEACHER: BILLY, do you see the grass outside?

BILLY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

BILLY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see God?

BILLY: No.

TEACHER: That’s my point. We can’t see God because he isn’t there. He doesn’t exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl questioned the boy.

LITTLE GIRL: BILLY, do you see the tree outside?

BILLY: Yes.

LITTLE GIRL: BILLY do you see the grass outside?

BILLY: Yessssss.

LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?

BILLY: Yessssss.

LITTLE GIRL: BILLY, do you see the teacher?

BILLY: Yes

LITTLE GIRL: Do you see the teacher’s mind?

BILLY: No.

LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she must not have one!

 

[PLP]

Zachary:

You said that there is no soul…

I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t know what was meant by the “soul”.

…that we are defined by the arrangement of neurons, quote " I do agree that “I” am not my physical neurons; “I” am the arrangement of those neurons.
". So, you are saying that if the arrangement changes, we become a different person. Every time you sneeze, learn, bang your head, drink a beer, eat fish, dream or forget, you become a different person?

The notion of personal identity is very complicated. I’m sure I don’t have it all figured out. On the one hand, I don’t think all the properties of my neurons define me. On the other hand, I don’t know precisely what properties do define me. On the gripping hand, I’m unwilling to dress up my ignorance in mysticism.

Your debating skills are as poor as mine.

Well, I’m not trying to debate anything. I’m mostly just explaining my point of view. If you’d like to debate a topic, I would be more than happy to oblige. I don’t know what structure this board has for supporting the focus and clarity necessary for a good debate, but whatever it is, I’d be happy to work within that structure.

You’ve come hear saying that you’ll answer any question, really though, that you will attempt to debunk our beliefs.

I’m not here to “debunk” anything. I just want to discuss my ideas, like any other person who enjoys intellectual pursuits.

But you only give a top level insight, no evidence. You do try to dance around an answer, though.

Yes, I’m giving a top-level overview of my beliefs and positions. I don’t expect to solve in a few posts on a message board all the philosophical problems which people smarter than you and me put together have been discussing for two or three millennia. But I’m doing my best to be sincere and respectful, and have polite conversations which I hope will be informative.

So, try again.

I’ll try as many times as necessary.

What made us do it [define right and wrong]? What is the ultimate purpose of right and wrong?

The desire to cooperate for our mutual benefit.

Why do atheists think humans exist? Why is there one human race though there have been puddles of gloop around for 6 billion years?

I don’t know why atheists in general believe anything. I myself believe that here and now is how and where and when we happened to evolve. No matter when and how we actually did happen to evolve, we would wonder why not otherwise? Why not somewhere else? Why not at another time?

Whether time is physical or not, it is still something, and not nothing. Even that is a stretch. It implies creation, not evolution.

How so?

 

[contemplative]

The LITTLE GIRL has plenty of questions .

TEACHER: Billy do you see the tree outside?

BILLY: Yes.

TEACHER: BILLY, do you see the grass outside?

BILLY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

BILLY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see God?

BILLY: No.

TEACHER: That’s my point. We can’t see God because he isn’t there. He doesn’t exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl questioned the boy.

LITTLE GIRL: BILLY, do you see the tree outside?

BILLY: Yes.

LITTLE GIRL: BILLY do you see the grass outside?

BILLY: Yessssss.

LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?

BILLY: Yessssss.

LITTLE GIRL: BILLY, do you see the teacher?

BILLY: Yes

LITTLE GIRL: Do you see the teacher’s mind?

BILLY: No.

LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she must not have one!

 

[PLP]

contemplative:

Have you ever considered Pascal’s wager?

But of course. It’s actually a specialty of mine over at Infidels.

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing

This is Pascal’s most disingenuous premise. Belief is usually not all that is necessary; you usually have to buy into a whole set of rules and restrictions as well. Belief does cost something, and I don’t think any honest Christian would say that his belief really does cost him nothing, not even the slightest inconvenience.

but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you will go to hell.

This premise is dodgy. A god might be a universalist: Everyone goes to heaven (this is the most ethical position I can think of for a god). A god might send only really terrible people (in the human sense); even unbelievers who have led “good” lives might escape hell. It is also just as plausible that a god might reward skepticism and punish credulity as is the opposite.

 

[contemplative]

PLP:

You may ask me anything without fear of giving offense. I do not believe that contradicting or challenging my beliefs is in any way disrespectful. If the question is too personal, I might not answer, but I won’t feel offended for having been asked.

Another question…do you mind if I share this joke with you?

A young woman teacher with obvious liberal tendencies explains to her class of small children that she is an atheist. She asks her class if they are atheists too. Not really knowing what atheism is but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands explode into the air like fleshy fireworks.

There is, however, one exception. A beautiful girl named Mary has not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. “Because I’m not an atheist.”

Then, asks the teacher, what are you?

“I’m a Christian.” says Mary.

The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Mary why she is a Christian. “Well, I was brought up knowing and loving Jesus. My mom is a Christian, and my dad is a Christian, so I am a Christian.”

The teacher is now agitated. “That’s no reason,” she says forcefully. “What if your mom was a liberal fool, and your dad was a liberal fool. What would you be then?”

A pause, and a smile. “Then,” says Mary, “I’d be an atheist.”