Atheism and sanctity of life

[reggieM]

Funny how all these atheists are going around performing all this rape and murder as much as they want, which is a big fat 0. They’re not psychotic, unlike your assumption to the religious side where you imply that they all want to rape and murder, just their religion is stopping them from doing this.

Perhaps this will help.

Let’s imagine I am the governor of a State.
Currently, the law says, the crime of premeditated murder is life imprisonment.
Now, I say - we have a change. There will no longer be a penalty at all.
The people get outraged. “Getting rid of the penalty is evil!”

Now, me the governor says …

“Hey, why are all of you running around claiming I’m some kind of murderer!
The actual number of people I killed is a big fat 0.
I’m not psychotic. It’s the assumption of all you people that I want to murder people and that just a penalty of the law is stopping everyone.”

Do you get it?

 

[poche]

I don’t believe in gods. Is there reason to believe life is sacred (in a figurative sense)?

Do you believe that human life is sacred?

 

[Russell_SA]

Do you get it?

I understand having a penalty for an action taken. I was reacting to the presentation you presented where you were implying that without objective morality then we would see blowing your nose as morally equivalent as murdering people. So I pointed out that people that do not have your world view of objective morality are not doing that. It is real world evidence that your assumption to morality appears to not need the divine for people to behave correctly.

As to the penalty for the law, secular laws are already in place to remove these people from society that do murder, rape, etc. with the need for a divine law maker to be part of that discussion it seems. So, again, real world example where the deity was not required.

Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that objective morality even is a thing that exists? I look at it like nutrition. From the reference point of, not wanting to die and to live as long as possible, I’ll eat an apple today instead of a pear. Is that objectively good that apples are better than pears? No, no it is not. But if I go drink battery acid, it is objectively bad for my life and health. Same with morality. If, for human flurishment, we create a society that values freedom in the form of economic mobility by being able to work anywhere instead of economic mobility through universal heath-care social support, is either objectively better than the other? But if we enslave people, that is objectively bad for human flurishment. I’ve picked human flurishment as my reference point for morality since it appears to be the largest overlapping common factor across all societies of humanity that is observable in reality. How is your deity’s existence observable in reality as a justified reference point of morality? If it is not, then how can everyone have a discussion about what is “objectively true” if your reference point is not available to the rest of us? Don’t we all have to observe the same reference point first before we decide to use it as a reference point?

 

[Vonsalza]

Just because there may not be a god, it doesn’t mean a person can’t have a soul.

The godless soul creates a problem.

If you make any concession to the metaphysical, you encounter a causal spill-over whereby you have to explain the cause-and-effects of the metaphysical concepts you do concede to.

This god doesn’t have to be any particular one, but metaphysics does ultimately require a god. This would likely be a violation of the paradigm that drove one to atheism in the first place.

 

[reggieM]

I understand having a penalty for an action taken.

Ok, but did you follow how that story played out?
A governor removed the penalty. When a response came back, he claimed that he had never broken that law. That’s what happens when people respond to atheism, which removes all penalties. People react. Then atheists will say “I have never broken the moral laws” – but that response doesn’t follow. The penalties existed for a reason.

I was reacting to the presentation you presented where you were implying that without objective morality then we would see blowing your nose as morally equivalent as murdering people. So I pointed out that people that do not have your world view of objective morality are not doing that.

Exactly, and I think therefore you didn’t understand the little story I presented.
In atheism removes the ultimate penalty for murder. In the same way that a governor could do. When someone objects, you would say “no atheists are going around murdering” - but that response doesn’t follow. If the atheists did murder, there would be no ultimate penalty. This opens the door for someone who wants to murder – in perhaps a murder-suicide. There is no ultimate penalty for that action in atheism.

It is real world evidence that your assumption to morality appears to not need the divine for people to behave correctly.

Atheism cannot assert what it means for people to behave correctly. There can be no right or wrong in the atheistic view. Everything is nothing – and therefore, nothing matters.

But if we enslave people, that is objectively bad for human flurishment.

Yes, but you’ve assumed that humans should flourish for some reason. Atheism does not teach us that. There is no reason for human life at all. In fact, someone could say that human life is bad, or some race is bad - and atheism would have nothing to say about that. Therefore, slavery could be a very good thing for a select group of people. Human beings are not sacred in the atheist view.

How is your deity’s existence observable in reality as a justified reference point of morality? If it is not, then how can everyone have a discussion about what is “objectively true” if your reference point is not available to the rest of us? Don’t we all have to observe the same reference point first before we decide to use it as a reference point?

In this case, we start in the human conscience.
You and I have discussed the embedded presence of true versus false in human nature. From that, we also have true is good and false is bad. That is the root of objective morality. We are all looking at the same reference point. True and good.

A human being is good because it exists. Something caused humans to exist - whatever that is, is also good. Humans did not create themselves- God created them. God is good, we are his creation, so we should do good, and view other humans as good beings, created by God.

 

[Russell_SA]

Ok, but did you follow how that story played out?
A governor removed the penalty. When a response came back, he claimed that he had never broken that law. That’s what happens when people respond to atheism, which removes all penalties. People react. Then atheists will say “I have never broken the moral laws” – but that response doesn’t follow. The penalties existed for a reason.

I have yet to come across a society where they thought that was a good thing to do. Yes you can have people killing people, but not to the extent where they thought it was a good thing to do at the expense of the flurishment of their tribe. The ones that didn’t understand this died off. So we are the results of directed natural and social evolution towards valuing human flurishment. You can start with an individual that thinks that fire=hot=bad, life is preferable over death and other basics of just the human experience and come up with guidelines to mitigate those events from happening. Once you bring in more people interacting with each other, then we are intelligent enough to understand altruism, that it takes less energy to worry about you as a threat than the tiger. So I can use my other energy towards hunting the tiger than fighting you off and the tiger. Is this a moral absolute? I would say no, because what does it mean for a volcano on Jupiter’s moon Io to erupt as a bad thing, but the volcano at Pompeii is bad. The need for good and bad, requires sentient creatures to be affected by it. Treating my pet rock bad is not a moral point to take, it is a-moral. But treating my pet dog badly is bad because it is a sentient creature. Or am I missing the point here?

Exactly, and I think therefore you didn’t understand the little story I presented.
In atheism removes the ultimate penalty for murder. In the same way that a governor could do. When someone objects, you would say “no atheists are going around murdering” - but that response doesn’t follow. If the atheists did murder, there would be no ultimate penalty. This opens the door for someone who wants to murder – in perhaps a murder-suicide. There is no ultimate penalty for that action in atheism.

How is a removal of “ultimate penalty” any different than an argument for, “I don’t like the universe being this way, so I’ll present a universe I am more comfortable with.” How we prefer the universe to be has no bearing on how the universe actually is. Or did I not read this right?

Also, atheism is not a world view or political view or any other moral or social guide. It is a single response to a single issue, that is all. Ex: Person A presents the argument for 2’s existence by the presentation: 3+1=2. Person B does not believe 2 exists based on that bad reasoned presentation. Now if Person A presented 2’s existence as: 3-1=2, then Person B would believe 2 exists based on that argument. Did Person B make any claims about the actual existence of 2 at all? No, no they did not. 2 still could exist, but based on the bad evidence and arguments for 2’s existence, Person B does not feel justified in believing that 2 exists. So Person B uses other political and social systems for how they run their lives than Person A, but Person B did not make any claim about the existence or non-existence of 2 at all. That is the difference between knowing something and being convinced of something. Person B is just not convinced of 2 existing based on the arguments but Person A is, but Person A and Person B can not “know” that 2 exists yet since we can not investigate the realm of where 2 is supposed to be at this point.

As to world views that tend to have a lot of atheists in them, such as secularism, liberals, etc. (FYI you can also be a nihilist, anarchist, republican, democrat, socialist, etc.) we can discuss those world views in relation to political religious influence.

Atheism cannot assert what it means for people to behave correctly. There can be no right or wrong in the atheistic view. Everything is nothing – and therefore, nothing matters.

I believe we are both talking about the same moral compass, but just where that compass comes from. If god instilled these values on our hearts, how is that different from biological and socially directed evolution instilling these values on our hearts? Either way, we still get the same social applications correct?

Yes, but you’ve assumed that humans should flourish for some reason. Atheism does not teach us that. There is no reason for human life at all. In fact, someone could say that human life is bad, or some race is bad - and atheism would have nothing to say about that. Therefore, slavery could be a very good thing for a select group of people. Human beings are not sacred in the atheist view.

Humans should flourish is a drive that has been socially and biologically reinforced over generations, it’s soo ingrained in the identity of humanity, that people who do not exhibit this trait are removed from the gene pool of reproduction. It’s still not, absolute morality though, but I look at it as no different than having an absolute value of pi. Pi to the 15th or 23rd decimal place will still give the same result that is good enough for the answer, but using 3 or 4 is objectively bad to the answer. Back to my nutrition example: apples or pears? but battery acid is objectively bad since the goal is nutrition. The goal for humanity, universally, appears to be human flurishment. It is subjective to pick this point, just as it is subjective to reference a deity. But once you pick your point, then you can have objective good and bad. Is picking a deity not beneficial for human flurishment? If it is, then isn’t flurishment the point? IE: is god good or is good the point with or without god?

 

[reggieM]

I have yet to come across a society where they thought that was a good thing to do.

If you want to go with that way of thinking “I have yet to come across it therefore it does not exist” - then you just cited a universal moral norm.

So we are the results of directed natural and social evolution towards valuing human flurishment.

Evolution gave us rape and torture also so we would need to say those are necessary for human society.

You can start with an individual that thinks that fire=hot=bad, life is preferable over death and other basics of just the human experience and come up with guidelines to mitigate those events from happening. Once you bring in more people interacting with each other, then we are intelligent enough to understand altruism, that it takes less energy to worry about you as a threat than the tiger. So I can use my other energy towards hunting the tiger than fighting you off and the tiger. Is this a moral absolute? I would say no, because what does it mean for a volcano on Jupiter’s moon Io to erupt as a bad thing, but the volcano at Pompeii is bad. The need for good and bad, requires sentient creatures to be affected by it. Treating my pet rock bad is not a moral point to take, it is a-moral. But treating my pet dog badly is bad because it is a sentient creature. Or am I missing the point here?

I didn’t follow where you’re going with this, so you could be right or wrong - I don’t know. But if you have to come up with a vast number of speculative stories about why we do things, to my way of thinking that is not convincing against the idea that God exists.

How is a removal of “ultimate penalty” any different than an argument for, “I don’t like the universe being this way, so I’ll present a universe I am more comfortable with.” How we prefer the universe to be has no bearing on how the universe actually is. Or did I not read this right?

Again, I’m sorry Russell I don’t follow your line of questioning here. I thought the example I provided was clear, but it doesn’t seem you’re addressing it so we’ll have to look at other options.

Also, atheism is not a world view or political view or any other moral or social guide.

Atheism holds that there is no ultimate purpose to human life. For me, that is a profound worldview that affects everything.

I believe we are both talking about the same moral compass, but just where that compass comes from. If god instilled these values on our hearts, how is that different from biological and socially directed evolution instilling these values on our hearts? Either way, we still get the same social applications correct?

As mentioned above, evolution preserves features in the population for the benefit of of the species. Rape, torture, murder, dictators, world wars – all have been preserved by evolution for the benefit of the species and therefore such things are good, from an evolutionary standpoint.
That is not the same with a God-oriented view where those things are evil and the result of sin which we must overcome. Evolution demands no such thing. That’s a huge difference.

Humans should flourish is a drive that has been socially and biologically reinforced over generations, it’s soo ingrained in the identity of humanity, that people who do not exhibit this trait are removed from the gene pool of reproduction.

As above, we can see a range of human behaviors that have not been removed from the population - therefore, all of those behaviors must be necessary in the evolutionary view.

he goal for humanity, universally, appears to be human flurishment. It is subjective to pick this point, just as it is subjective to reference a deity.

This goes against materialism and evolutionary theory and atheism. There is no goal. If humanity went extinct, that is not a problem even for humans. The universe does not care about such things. Evolution does not care either. Some species live others die. Humans are not better than bacteria in the eyes of evolution.

But once you pick your point, then you can have objective good and bad. Is picking a deity not beneficial for human flurishment? If it is, then isn’t flurishment the point? IE: is god good or is good the point with or without god?

In my view, you’re searching across all aspects of this argument which tells me you take it seriously, you know what the problem posed really is, and you’re not just trying to ignore (outright) or run away from it the way many atheists (that I have encountered) will do. All of that is to your credit, as I see it.

But in my view, a belief in God as law maker and giver is a more reasonable argument when we look at moral norms in human society.

 

[Russell_SA]

If you want to go with that way of thinking “I have yet to come across it therefore it does not exist” - then you just cited a universal moral norm.

This does appear to be a universal norm for the human experience. Referenced to all the factors that describe a higher intelligent social creatures as well. Elephants, dolphins, dogs, primates, etc all exhibit some form of shame, fairness, etc. as well.

Evolution gave us rape and torture also so we would need to say those are necessary for human society.

Evolution also gave us all the great benefits of society as well. The good and the bad. Don’t dismiss the good in our society too. Are you implying that religion does not have this within itself as well? I really doubt that women, children, LGBT, blacks, other religious communities not of the one in power, literacy, scientific community enjoyed the hand religion has dealt them.

I didn’t follow where you’re going with this, so you could be right or wrong - I don’t know. But if you have to come up with a vast number of speculative stories about why we do things, to my way of thinking that is not convincing against the idea that God exists.

Since I was able to present an argument that produces the same things you argue that a deity provides, how do we tell the difference between either presentations? Mine is based in the natural world that we all experience as evidence, can your deity be presented in the same way as it’s existence?

Again, I’m sorry Russell I don’t follow your line of questioning here. I thought the example I provided was clear, but it doesn’t seem you’re addressing it so we’ll have to look at other options.

You’re addressing the idea that “ultimate penalty” is something to be valued as a deterrent. But since you don’t provide an argument for why there actually is an “ultimate penalty” that exists in this reality, that’s why I responded that way. The point came across as I presented: that because there may not be an ultimate penalty seems upsetting, there must be an ultimate penalty. Otherwise we wouldn’t want this universe to be this way. Well how we want the universe to be has no bearing on how the universe actually is.

Atheism holds that there is no ultimate purpose to human life. For me, that is a profound worldview that affects everything.

Purpose is not part of the definition of what atheism is though. It’s just not believing someone’s reasons for why they believe there is a deity. There still may actually be a deity, just that someone’s bad reasoned arguments for why they believe there is a deity does not work on this audience member. “Ultimate human purpose” does not go into the definition here. It seems like this is a classification error you are making here or something like that. Trying to ascribe a descriptor to something that does not belong with that thing.

You have to ask each atheist what their individual meaning in life is. Their world view will help describe that. Again though, atheism is not a world view. It’s just being unconvinced of someone’s argument for something that person experienced about reality.

Ex: Jury members at a trial. By default they are atheistic about the prosecution’s claim about what the defendant did, the jury members start out unconvinced. After the prosecution’s presentation on why they believe the defendant participated in the activity, the jury is still unconvinced. Now can you make any assumptions about each jury member’s world view? political view? etc. No, no you can not.

What makes you think there is an “ultimate” universal purpose for humanity anyways? It’s been my experience that we find purpose for ourselves as individuals, regardless if that purpose lasts beyond our lives. Or do you not agree with this?

 

[Russell_SA]

As mentioned above, evolution preserves features in the population for the benefit of of the species. Rape, torture, murder, dictators, world wars – all have been preserved by evolution for the benefit of the species and therefore such things are good, from an evolutionary standpoint.
That is not the same with a God-oriented view where those things are evil and the result of sin which we must overcome. Evolution demands no such thing. That’s a huge difference.

Seems like the type of community you would expect to come out of the plains through natural means and when our tribes come into conflict over limited resources of food, land, and women. Seems like you are dismissing the social advancements we have made through regulation of those resources though. Why are you dismissing all our advancements as a species to get to where we are now?

As to a comparison to religion, religion is, by definition, tribal oriented. Promotion of “us vs them” regardless of the common overlap of the good things about humanity. Just look at the LGBT debate we are having still in the US as an example. Here is an entire community that wants to be socially accepted and to love their partners openly and freely. Also, religion is still 100% part of the genital mutilation community as well. This permanent branding of children before they have a choice on what is done to their body to promote tribal community is pretty bad. It’s the equivalent of a group, you’ve never met or heard about, pulling you out of bed, holding you down, and branding your body with their mark. Pretty sure that’s a violation to any adult, but since its a child that can not say the phrase, “No, please stop. I don’t want this done to me.” it’s okay.

As above, we can see a range of human behaviors that have not been removed from the population - therefore, all of those behaviors must be necessary in the evolutionary view.

Yes they are, but we have also reached a point to understand just how terrible they are for our social well-being and are always attempting to remove people that promote those behaviors and to change social pressures that bring out that side of ourselves.

This goes against materialism and evolutionary theory and atheism. There is no goal. If humanity went extinct, that is not a problem even for humans. The universe does not care about such things. Evolution does not care either. Some species live others die. Humans are not better than bacteria in the eyes of evolution.

From the point of view of humans, we are better than bacteria. But from the point of view of the universe, we don’t matter. But why does the universe owe you a position on your relevance? The people around me I care about are who matter to me in relevance, not the universe.
Again, there is no necessary connection between materialism and evolutionary theory and atheism. Atheism is a single position on a single question. Because I am not convinced of your argument for a deity does not mean by default I accept a different theory. I am just unconvinced of your reasons for believing in a deity. I am unconvinced that your application of logic to explain reality is valid. That is all.

Ex: Jar of marbles on the desk. There can be either even or odd marbles but no one can investigate the jar. There are three possible answers when asked about the number of marbles: Even, Odd, I don’t know. The theist is claiming there is an even number of marbles. The atheist is stating, I don’t believe you are justified in believing that and so I can not be justified in believing there is an even number of marbles based on the theist’s presentation. Does that mean the atheist believes there is an odd number of marbles? No, please get this, no it does not. The atheist is just unconvinced that someone claiming there is an even number of marbles based on reasoning that does not require actual investigation of the jar is justified in concluding even, OR odd. So they are just responding with, “I don’t know.”

 

[holyrood]

I don’t believe in gods. Is there reason to believe life is sacred (in a figurative sense)?

I personally believe that God’s ways naturally translate to what is good for us personally and as a society.

Therefore, yes, there are reasons to believe life is sacred.

Take the Golden Rule. If life is not sacred…then your life is not sacred. If others can be declared ‘non-human,’ then you can be declared non-human. Or your children. Or those of whatever ‘groups’ you might be part of. If the lives of Republican congressmen playing softball are not sacred…then the lives of Democratic congressmen playing softball are not sacred.

‘Life is sacred’ may be thought of as a ‘religious’ concept, but it’s also one that serves each individual well.

If we all accept that life is sacred…regardless of our personal belief in a deity…then we will ALL have more peaceful lives. I suppose some could dismiss it as self interest–if we all promote the idea that life is sacred, we are all more likely to live peaceful lives. I guess if self interest leads to societal peace, I don’t have a problem with that.

 

[reggieM]

Evolution also gave us all the great benefits of society as well. The good and the bad. Don’t dismiss the good in our society too. Are you implying that religion does not have this within itself as well? I really doubt that women, children, LGBT, blacks, other religious communities not of the one in power, literacy, scientific community enjoyed the hand religion has dealt them.

Ok, there is something essential missing in this though.
Here is my comment on that:

RM: Evolution gave us rape and torture also so we would need to say those are necessary for human society. … Rape, torture, murder, dictators, world wars – all have been preserved by evolution for the benefit of the species and therefore such things are good, from an evolutionary standpoint.
That is not the same with a God-oriented view where those things are evil and the result of sin which we must overcome. Evolution demands no such thing. That’s a huge difference.

First, you addressed this head-on, did not back away, admitted the truth of it and calmly offered your view. That is truly wonderful and I mean that sincerely. I can only admire your willingness to look at the facts and accept them. There are at least two other atheists, who saw the exact point I made there (rape, torture, etc) and one condemned me as being shameful even to say such a thing and the other was totally outraged. You, however, are honest about it. You’re a rare atheist, I will say and I wish more were like you in that regard.

Now, the point … Notice I actually said “… preserved by evolution for the benefit of the species and therefore such things are good, from an evolutionary standpoint …”. These acts exist today. Evolution preserves them. This means, they are good and necessary - today. Fighting against rape is fighting against evolution.
You accept these as part of reality, but I’m going farther - there is no reason to call these actions “bad” since evolution preserved them for the benefit of the human species. If I simply said that rape is a good thing to do because evolution preserved it in the human community, then that would be impossible to argue against.

Since I was able to present an argument that produces the same things you argue that a deity provides, how do we tell the difference between either presentations? Mine is based in the natural world that we all experience as evidence, can your deity be presented in the same way as it’s existence?

The conflict comes above in how certain actions are preserved and created by evolution. We could say that opposition to atheism is created by evolution. Or, we could say that the denial of evolution is a benefit to society (since some people deny evolution). Every human action is “good” because evolution preserved it for the benefit of our species. Why would we want to change any human behavior? How do we know what is good for our species or not? Is belief in God better for the human species than atheism is? Is Islam better? Is atheistic dictatorships like North Korea the best thing for the human species? Evolution preserves all of those - so they all have benefits for the species. It would be impossible to say that anything is actually “bad” for the survival of human species at all in that case.

You’re addressing the idea that “ultimate penalty” is something to be valued as a deterrent. But since you don’t provide an argument for why there actually is an “ultimate penalty” that exists in this reality, that’s why I responded that way.

The scenario I provided was modeled on the idea that there is an ultimate penalty. Whether it exists or not is a different thing. I was trying to show that it’s not an attack on a person’s behavior to show how reality changes with the presence of an ultimate penalty (or absence of it). I am certain you understand this, so we don’t have to discuss it further.

Purpose is not part of the definition of what atheism is though.

Atheism is a denial of the existence of God.
If I said, “I deny that the United States exists” - wouldn’t you necessarily have to draw many more conclusions about my belief, more than simply I deny that a country exists? I would be denying many other things. It is the same with God. You have to know what you are denying - and know what belief in God entails.

You have to ask each atheist what their individual meaning in life is. Their world view will help describe that. Again though, atheism is not a world view. It’s just being unconvinced of someone’s argument for something that person experienced about reality.

Yes, but I am talking about ultimate meaning. Atheism cannot have that.

What makes you think there is an “ultimate” universal purpose for humanity anyways? It’s been my experience that we find purpose for ourselves as individuals, regardless if that purpose lasts beyond our lives. Or do you not agree with this?

To understand this, you have to accept - for the sake of argument - that God exists. You have to know what I mean by God. After that, I could explain what ultimate meaning and purpose is. But if you want to try to understand that, and at the same time, refuse to accept belief in God, then obviously it won’t make sense.
From an atheistic view, there is no ultimate purpose.
From a Godly view, there is meaning and purpose. It comes from God - and I can explain if you want to imagine that God exists and then seek to understand that point of view.

 

[reggieM]

Seems like you are dismissing the social advancements we have made through regulation of those resources though. Why are you dismissing all our advancements as a species to get to where we are now?

Why do you think we are more advanced now then we were before? People are still being harmed by many things. Additionally, didn’t religion help to shape our society for the better in many ways?

As to a comparison to religion, religion is, by definition, tribal oriented. Promotion of “us vs them” regardless of the common overlap of the good things about humanity. Just look at the LGBT debate we are having still in the US as an example. Here is an entire community that wants to be socially accepted and to love their partners openly and freely.

Yes, there are many negative behaviors that one can find in religion.
But a key point here is:
Religions view some actions as being sinful and that we have to work to avoid.
Evolution views all actions as good (or neutral). We do not need to avoid any.

Yes they are, but we have also reached a point to understand just how terrible they are for our social well-being and are always attempting to remove people that promote those behaviors and to change social pressures that bring out that side of ourselves.

I don’t think you will find agreement on these matters. Evolution has preserved contradictory points of view in the human society. For example, we could look at something called Rape Culture (Rape culture is a sociological concept used to describe a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. - Wikipedia). Now, there is part of society that accepts that behavior.
Didn’t evolution preserve that behavior for the benefit of our species?

From the point of view of humans, we are better than bacteria. But from the point of view of the universe, we don’t matter. But why does the universe owe you a position on your relevance? The people around me I care about are who matter to me in relevance, not the universe.

Yes, but we are looking for the truth about things. I might think that I am stronger than an elephant, but it’s not true. We might think we are better than bacteria, but on what basis could we say that? We are just organisms - not better or worse than any other. You care about some people around you. Are the other people unimportant or less valuable? Should I care about the people you care about? If we base everything on your likes or dislikes, we can’t know anything unless we know each person. But I look at the truth of atheism - and it says there is no ultimate meaning, nothing is necessary and there is no molecule or physical force that is important. It does not need to exist. No human being has any ultimate meaning. They are just an accident of nature, and when they are gone, it means nothing.
We look to the universe because that is where we came from, according to atheism. The universe doesn’t care about us. We can pretend that we are important for some reason, but that is a fantasy - unreal - idea.

Again, there is no necessary connection between materialism and evolutionary theory and atheism. Atheism is a single position on a single question. Because I am not convinced of your argument for a deity does not mean by default I accept a different theory. I am just unconvinced of your reasons for believing in a deity. I am unconvinced that your application of logic to explain reality is valid. That is all.

Yes, you’re right. I just make the assumption that materialism, evolution and atheism are connected because 90% of the atheists I’ve encountered accept all of those. Although, I am happy that over the years, it’s actually fewer atheists who identify with materialism. But this is a problem because evolution is materialistic and probably 99% of atheists accept materialist-evolution.

Ex: Jar of marbles on the desk. There can be either even or odd marbles but no one can investigate the jar. There are three possible answers when asked about the number of marbles: Even, Odd, I don’t know. The theist is claiming there is an even number of marbles. The atheist is stating, I don’t believe you are justified in believing that and so I can not be justified in believing there is an even number of marbles based on the theist’s presentation. Does that mean the atheist believes there is an odd number of marbles? No, please get this, no it does not. The atheist is just unconvinced that someone claiming there is an even number of marbles based on reasoning that does not require actual investigation of the jar is justified in concluding even, OR odd. So they are just responding with, “I don’t know.”

This is challenging and we have discussed this elsewhere on threads on CAF, but perhaps better definitions are needed.
True, the atheist doesn’t know how many marbles. Nobody can investigate the jar. But we are asked how many marbles are in there.
The theist says “even number”, but based on reasons. If the atheist rejects those reasons, then what are the reasons for concluding an odd number? In the end, one answer is better than the other. To say “God exists” requires some faith. We look at the evidence and determine the best answers.
Keeping in mind, this is the existence of God, not marbles. Our choice makes a very big difference. It is important to our life, ultimate purpose and destiny.
Pascal’s Wager is based on this. Either side may say “I don’t know that God exists”, but if so - then it is better to believe in God than not. Because if you are wrong, then you just die and go into nothing. But if you are right, you live for God and gain eternal rewards. And if you choose to not believe, but God does exist - you lose much in the end.

 

[S_A_M]

btw, where’s the Thread Starter?

 

[Russell_SA]

Now, the point … Notice I actually said “… preserved by evolution for the benefit of the species and therefore such things are good, from an evolutionary standpoint …”. These acts exist today. Evolution preserves them. This means, they are good and necessary - today. Fighting against rape is fighting against evolution.
You accept these as part of reality, but I’m going farther - there is no reason to call these actions “bad” since evolution preserved them for the benefit of the human species. If I simply said that rape is a good thing to do because evolution preserved it in the human community, then that would be impossible to argue against.

Ahh I see, you see evolution as only neutral or good, there are bad qualities in evolution too. Those bad qualities, that were directed through natural selection, were successful at the beginning for propagating the species when it was not a very complicated being, intellectually. Those qualities became bad when the environmental conditions changed and those evolutionary behaviors became detrimental to that group’s survival. These qualities do not change instantly from good to bad, but have gradual reductions in their influence. This is why one of the reasons that women make better management of people than men do since they have better social skills and abilities to multitask. Men evolved to be aggressive and to have reduced social skills in comparison to women since they were the ones hunting and guarding access to women. Over time tribes that evolved to be more socially cohesive to both sexes became the dominant gene pool and the others were either absorbed into those tribes or died out. So you will have those bad qualities still there but there is also conflicting values that are just as dominant, like empathy. It takes time to evolve beyond the hunting tribes. We are only half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee after all. Imagine how evolved we will be once we’re half a chromosome away from where we are now. The infants would be as smart as Einstein. But you have to give it time, it takes 100’s of thousands of years for us to evolve, and our evolution is slowing down since we don’t have those same natural selection pressures we did before.

Is belief in God better for the human species than atheism is? Is Islam better? Is atheistic dictatorships like North Korea the best thing for the human species? Evolution preserves all of those - so they all have benefits for the species. It would be impossible to say that anything is actually “bad” for the survival of human species at all in that case.

Sounds like you are discussing, why is this group’s reference point for morality any different than my culture’s reference point? I just look at the over lapping commonality of the human experience to see what are the most basic drivers. From what I’ve seen, it comes down to human well-being. So from that reference point I can say that dictator A is objectively bad for marginalizing one group over another since it creates a cultural comfortable with the idea of tribalism instead of universal humanity. Her group may be the target of the next group that rises to power, but if you guard against that type of politics, it becomes socially abhorrent for people to think that way since they are socially engineered to value that as a cultural identity. Same way our marines will run down a guy flying our flag upside down in protest. Turn that outrage towards fascism and nationalism and all other ideas of tribalism.

Again though about your use of atheism, it’s still not being applied correctly. Describing a dictator as atheist is the same as describing a jury member as not finding the defendant guilty. You can’t go from that to knowing that person’s politics, social agenda, education level of how to apply logical correctly, etc. You have to ask them why they came to that conclusion and see if their world view of democracy, secular humanism, fascism, anarchist, democrat, republican, etc took them to that conclusion. Atheism is not a world view at all. It’s the response to a single question. Do you believe X based on argument Y? No, No I don’t. Could be the argument was bad, could be the conclusion was bad for them. Either way, the person is not making an actual claim about the conclusion, They are only addressing the response to the person’s presentation.

The scenario I provided was modeled on the idea that there is an ultimate penalty. Whether it exists or not is a different thing. I was trying to show that it’s not an attack on a person’s behavior to show how reality changes with the presence of an ultimate penalty (or absence of it). I am certain you understand this, so we don’t have to discuss it further.

Everyone believes in consequences of their actions. Whether or not it lasts beyond their death is a question you’d have to ask them to see if its a factor or not. People that believe that this is the only life they get may be more ethical because they don’t have another chance to experience this reality and do something that makes a difference. But with the loop holes in Christianity, you can still get mass graves as well, so it seems like this is an argument that can’t really go anywhere.

 

[Russell_SA]

Atheism is a denial of the existence of God.
If I said, “I deny that the United States exists” - wouldn’t you necessarily have to draw many more conclusions about my belief, more than simply I deny that a country exists? I would be denying many other things. It is the same with God. You have to know what you are denying - and know what belief in God entails.

Atheists are not in denial of god’s existence, they just have a different level of standards for reaching that conclusion, result, belief than you do. There is no single magic bullet that would change an atheist to a theist and vice versa based on how this deity’s continued game of hide and go seek is being played. If a Damascus road experience is good enough for some people why not for all people. Then the atheists would become deists, but they still may not worship or respect this deity.
If I told you I have a dog, but you’ve never seen my dog, are you denying the existence of my dog if you don’t believe me? The example of a dog is trivial because we all have experienced dogs regardless of your world view. Now if I told you I have an invisible pet dragon in my back yard, are you denying the existence of my dragon if you don’t believe me? I don’t believe you are using the correct verb here with “deny” instead of “believe”. Side note: To me belief is not a choice you make. It is the result of examining your reality, applying your understanding of how reality works, and your use of logic to see where that takes you. The conclusion is that result. It’s not a choice to reach that conclusion. Sit in a chair, then choose to believe that you are not sitting in a chair. You can’t. It’s not possible. You can lie to everyone around you and fake it, like you are a true believer in the chair till they believe you, but you can’t lie to yourself.

Yes, but I am talking about ultimate meaning. Atheism cannot have that.

Ultimate meaning, as I’ve experience people using it, implies a times scale of forever. But people not of the god beliefs have meaning that is just as valuable to them as anyone else. They just don’t need it to last for ever after they have passed on. But since we can’t demonstrate that there is actual ultimate meaning other than our personal wish for it, it seems to be presented, again as, “This is how I wish the universe to be since it would be bad without this ultimate meaning.” Well what we wish for the universe to be has not bearing on how it actually presents itself.

 

[Russell_SA]

Why do you think we are more advanced now then we were before? People are still being harmed by many things. Additionally, didn’t religion help to shape our society for the better in many ways?

Yes it has, but at no difference than any other group that was inspired without a deity. So since religion, appears to me, as the same thing as any other group that wants to do well by each other, how can the religious justify their deity actually there for this justified belief in doing well by others? We have to be able to tell a difference between the two groups to see if there is any actual channeling of supernatural powers or presence. Other wise it’s no different than having a motivating factor of “In the loving memory of X family member to do well.” Wouldn’t you expect some sort of infallibility if you had access to this deity? With the results being no different, I just don’t see the need for the reference other than, thank you for helping out today.

Yes, there are many negative behaviors that one can find in religion.
But a key point here is:
Religions view some actions as being sinful and that we have to work to avoid.
Evolution views all actions as good (or neutral). We do not need to avoid any.

Good and bad have to be understood and agreed upon though. If you have a “sin” in a religion that no one understands why it is a sin, then those people are acting as a-moral people. Not immoral, but a-moral. They are not assessing the situation to see if they understand why it is a moral issue at all and are only just following commandments. It’s like telling your dog to get off the couch when your dog has no idea why sitting on the couch is a bad thing. This gets to a point about what kind of deity creates it’s worshipers to be too thick to understand the moral issues of its pronouncements? Since all these “sins” are coming from a bible, that was one of the worst ways to pass down the most important information that people would want to not mess up. Languages change, we can’t contact the author, we can’t know if the bible was 100% recorded correctly every time, etc. Not all moral issues were addressed, many applications of the morality of the god’s people was terrible to emulate, etc.

 

[Russell_SA]

We might think we are better than bacteria, but on what basis could we say that? We are just organisms - not better or worse than any other. You care about some people around you. Are the other people unimportant or less valuable? Should I care about the people you care about? If we base everything on your likes or dislikes, we can’t know anything unless we know each person. But I look at the truth of atheism - and it says there is no ultimate meaning, nothing is necessary and there is no molecule or physical force that is important. It does not need to exist. No human being has any ultimate meaning. They are just an accident of nature, and when they are gone, it means nothing.
We look to the universe because that is where we came from, according to atheism. The universe doesn’t care about us. We can pretend that we are important for some reason, but that is a fantasy - unreal - idea.

Sounds like you are talking about meaning in the ever after, after the individual of us passes on. That’s not really a problem for me because I would not operate any differently than I would now. Well if I knew I would live forever after I die, then I could just keep waiting to apologize to people here forever. It’s my limited time here as a being that puts pressure behind me to make a difference now, to make amends now, to make a change for my children’s future now. Same as having a car, it has importance in my life now, regardless that it will eventually rust away to nothing. I can have a better life with it now while it is here. I don’t care that the human race won’t last forever, but I get to be a part of it now while I am here.

I am genetically built to care more for my immediate group of people more than those that don’t have the resources to help my daily life. That’s part of the human identity. We are shifting more towards universal humanism but that will take some time.

Yes, you’re right. I just make the assumption that materialism, evolution and atheism are connected because 90% of the atheists I’ve encountered accept all of those. Although, I am happy that over the years, it’s actually fewer atheists who identify with materialism. But this is a problem because evolution is materialistic and probably 99% of atheists accept materialist-evolution.

Most atheists I run into are methodological naturalists since we can not investigate the realm of the supernatural, we are not allowed to implement it as a solution. Ex: say you see a piece of wood with burn marks on it. You could be justified in concluding that fire caused that because you can investigate how fire interacts in reality on a predictably repeatable way and on what types of matter. We don’t have any of this data on the supernatural, so we can not implement it when describing an odd event since we have no idea how the supernatural actually manifests in this reality.

To say “God exists” requires some faith. We look at the evidence and determine the best answers.

Since we are here looking for what is justified belief about reality, aka truth, is there anything you could not argue for based on “faith”? I have yet to come across any idea that could not be argued as true based on “faith”. So that being the case so far, how is faith ever an accurate way to truth?

Keeping in mind, this is the existence of God, not marbles. Our choice makes a very big difference. It is important to our life, ultimate purpose and destiny.
Pascal’s Wager is based on this. Either side may say “I don’t know that God exists”, but if so - then it is better to believe in God than not. Because if you are wrong, then you just die and go into nothing. But if you are right, you live for God and gain eternal rewards. And if you choose to not believe, but God does exist - you lose much in the end.

Oh I understand it’s significance if it is true, but if it is, what does it say about a god that is grand master of the greatest hide and go seek game ever. Since this is implied as the most important truth about our existence, what kind of deity would use the methods this one has about ensuring it’s truths are most accurately represented since it also is picking and choosing who to have a Damascus road experience with. I’ll just live as honestly as I can and take my chances. Because this deity should know what it would take to change my mind and has yet to do so. So it’s either not there or choosing to not let itself be known to me. Either way, not my problem. If I get punished for living life as honestly as it was presented to me, then nothing I can do about that either, but I will know that I am morally superior than that deity.

 

[reggieM]

Sounds like you are talking about meaning in the ever after, after the individual of us passes on. That’s not really a problem for me because I would not operate any differently than I would now.

Well, I think you would act a lot differently. If there was purpose in the ever-after for you, and that purpose came from God, it would mean you would live with God after your life, and that your life came from God.
The first huge difference would be for you to show gratitude. You would thank God for the opportunity to live forever.
Secondly, you would wonder and seek what it is that God wants for you.
To do this, you would use time to communicate with God.
Thirdly, you would make much different choices about what you do because you would realize that God wants some things that are different than what you would want on your own.

Well if I knew I would live forever after I die, then I could just keep waiting to apologize to people here forever. It’s my limited time here as a being that puts pressure behind me to make a difference now, to make amends now, to make a change for my children’s future now.

The difference here is that both views have to make changes now and apologize now. For your view, because you don’t have another chance. But for the believer, if we don’t make apologies and then die - our eternity will not be happy. So, we have the same pressure.
However, the believer has additional pressure. If we don’t apologize, we pay a big price. If you don’t apologize, you miss an opportunity but there are no other consequences. When you’re gone there is nothing - you wouldn’t even know what happens to your children.,
One last though, you may think what you’re doing for your children is the best for their future. But do you really know? Sometimes, the best ideas we have can turn out very bad. But what if you asked God and He guided you? That would mean you have Someone who actually knows the future and knows how to take care of your children.
So, if you pray and trust God to care for your family - you have a much higher degree of certainty that you’ve done the very best for the ones you love. Because God will still be there for your children after you are gone (and you actually could be in heaven helping them also).

I am genetically built to care more for my immediate group of people more than those that don’t have the resources to help my daily life. That’s part of the human identity. We are shifting more towards universal humanism but that will take some time.

That does seem to be right about how the evolutionary view works. However, there are a lot of problems.

Since we are here looking for what is justified belief about reality, aka truth, is there anything you could not argue for based on “faith”? I have yet to come across any idea that could not be argued as true based on “faith”. So that being the case so far, how is faith ever an accurate way to truth?

I would say that faith is required even to know the truth about things, to use logic, to argue and use reasoning, to decide what to do, to establish a purpose.
In fact, using methodological naturalism is an act of faith.
To say that the New Testament is not true is an act of faith.
You don’t know if God exists or not. But by faith, you choose to believe that God does not exist. By faith, you trust your own judgement about many things that you cannot know about.

Oh I understand it’s significance if it is true, but if it is, what does it say about a god that is grand master of the greatest hide and go seek game ever.

God made life on earth an adventure. It’s a drama and a search. It is a love story.
It says a lot about God and why He created us. Yes, there is hiding and seeking. As we seek, we grow. We stretch ourselves. We learn virtue. We practice goodness.

Since this is implied as the most important truth about our existence, what kind of deity would use the methods this one has about ensuring it’s truths are most accurately represented since it also is picking and choosing who to have a Damascus road experience with.

In the Catholic view, faith has a higher value than “seeing”. We walk by faith, not by sight. The man who trusts, who walks through darkness without doubting his love - is a greater man than the one who needs constant proofs.
Again, a love story - the couple affirms their love. Now there is a separation. Don’t we admire the couple who stay faithful even through hard times and lack of validation? What would we say about the man who cheats simply because “his wife didn’t prove enough love for him”, maybe just because she didn’t tell him every day that she is madly in love with him or didn’t prove every day that she loves him?
Basically, that is weakness of love.
What we are is proven by testing and hardship. If we stay faithful and loyal, we show what is inside.
So the Damascus experience was not given for Paul’s benefit- but to show that such things can happen if there is the need.
But it is much greater to have faith with the little hints we gain. God is a “still small voice” we have to be quiet and listen.
We have to practice virtue. Patience, trust, loyalty, understanding, faith, humility.

I’ll just live as honestly as I can and take my chances.

Why not take a chance on God?

 

[reggieM]

Because this deity should know what it would take to change my mind and has yet to do so.

Yes, but we also have to ask and that takes humility. We can’t be stand-offish and demand that everything be handed to us on a silver platter.

So it’s either not there or choosing to not let itself be known to me. Either way, not my problem. If I get punished for living life as honestly as it was presented to me, then nothing I can do about that either, but I will know that I am morally superior than that deity.

Most of that seems good, in my view – except the very end which reveals a flaw.
Yes, you’re living honestly, being good to others. Plus, the evidence or proof that would convince you is not there. If that was all there was to the story - sure. You would be totally righteous in a last judgement.

However – if I present to you some necessary conditions that will enable you to have the spiritual vision needed to see the evidence and proof - would you pursue them?
If not, I would be afraid that you’re blocking the path.

To be morally superior to the Deity, you have to really look at yourself and Him.

“Am I really doing everything I can to enter into a relationship with God”?

“Am I really looking at all the evidence fairly?”

 

[Russell_SA]

Yes, but we also have to ask and that takes humility. We can’t be stand-offish and demand that everything be handed to us on a silver platter.

I disagree with this as an argument because when I meet a stranger, was their existence in reality handed to me on a silver platter? Yes it was by your description, but that is the standard of evidence needed for convincing me that they exist in reality as well. Experiencing that level of evidence is irrelevant to my humility level for accepting that person’s existence in reality.

However – if I present to you some necessary conditions that will enable you to have the spiritual vision needed to see the evidence and proof - would you pursue them?
If not, I would be afraid that you’re blocking the path.

So for example, if you present me all the arguments for why there’s something in an empty sack, and I try all the things you are using to see something in that sack, but I keep seeing an empty sack, isn’t that your deity choosing to still not reveal itself? Do you really think atheists have not tried what the theists suggested to discover the deity? Do you really think the entire scientific community hasn’t tried what the theists suggested?

To be morally superior to the Deity, you have to really look at yourself and Him.

“Am I really doing everything I can to enter into a relationship with God”?

“Am I really looking at all the evidence fairly?”

Acknowledging someone’s existence is separate from having a positive relationship with the person. Atheists can become deists if that deity would make itself known to the atheist. If you believe in the devil, the devil had direct experience with the deity and was presented with enough evidence for that devil to know that deity exists. Then it has a standard for what the devil needs for a positive relationship with the deity and concluded that relationship was a bad one and that deity became an enemy to the devil. AKA a bad relationship. Same with atheists, the deity could present evidence enough for the atheist to become a deist, then the deist would then look at the character of the deity to then see if the deity would be a good individual to have a positive relationship with or if the deity becomes an enemy to resist. AKA to have a good or bad relationship with.