Problems w/ Atheism

[gearhead]

The foundation for this argument, I think, has not been laid. If God could have chosen a better option for the atonement, this presupposes that there is such a thing as good and bad. I think you must first establish that there is a good and bad, outside of societal construct. For if it results only from societal construct, then its pretty silly to suggest that an all-powerful, infinite being is in any way bound by a particular society’s view of good or bad.

Hang on one minute: if we’re considering atonement theology, we’ve already taken as given (at least for the purposes of this discussion) the other underlying parts of Christian doctrine.

Christian atonement theology is presented in a certain context. That context includes the premise that objective morality exists, and also that human beings do have a functioning moral sense that works fairly well (well enough to justify the idea of “sin”, anyhow).

If you want, we can debate the morality of atonement in some context where good and evil don’t really exist. But if we do that, we wouldn’t be debating the Christian view of atonement.

And outside the Christian view, there’s no conflict in atonement theology, because we don’t have to assume that God is morally good. An amoral, immoral or apathetic God would have no obligation to act in a moral manner.

 

[AntiTheist]

The foundation for this argument, I think, has not been laid. If God could have chosen a better option for the atonement, this presupposes that there is such a thing as good and bad. I think you must first establish that there is a good and bad, outside of societal construct.

No. You probably missed my statement that I do not think that “good” and “evil” exist objectively. I am judging the god character the same way that I judge all other characters, both fictional and real: according to my values.

In other words, you claim that bloodshed is bad, but also claim that the whole of existence is a bunch of atoms knocking around. How can certain atoms bouncing in certain ways be any better or worse than others?

Because the collection of atoms that I call “me” has values, and these include not valuing certain other configurations of atoms.

Look, if you want to say that your values lead you to think that bloodshed is “good” or that torture is “good” or that passing on the guilt to the descendents of a criminal is “just” or that vicarious atonement is “just” or that you think the Christian story is not monstrous or that you value blindly obeying the dictates of some being – hey, knock yourself out. You essentially did just say those things in your post. That tells the rest of us quite a bit about your values…

Now, of course, I don’t really think your values are as corrupt as you are indicating. I think that you have never really sat down and thought about the story and really evaluated the actions of this god character. The reasons for this are obvious: you’ve been told again and again that the god character is “good” and that therefore his actions are beyond question. But how do you know that the god character is “good”? As I’ve been arguing, “good” is necessarily a value judgment – you need to analyze the actions of this character on the basis of your values to come to that conclusion.

I am convinced that most people, if they really think about the story, will be led by their values to condemn the “god” depicted in the story. There are, of course, some people who have monstrous values, and I imagine that they would not care that a god character is monstrous. These are the people I want to stay far away from in real life.

 

[josie_L]

No. You probably missed my statement that I do not think that “good” and “evil” exist objectively. I am judging the god character the same way that I judge all other characters, both fictional and real: according to my values.

Because the collection of atoms that I call “me” has values, and these include not valuing certain other configurations of atoms.

Look, if you want to say that your values lead you to think that bloodshed is “good” or that torture is “good” or that passing on the guilt to the descendents of a criminal is “just” or that vicarious atonement is “just” or that you think the Christian story is not monstrous or that you value blindly obeying the dictates of some being – hey, knock yourself out. You essentially did just say those things in your post. That tells the rest of us quite a bit about your values…

Now, of course, I don’t really think your values are as corrupt as you are indicating. I think that you have never really sat down and thought about the story and really evaluated the actions of this god character. The reasons for this are obvious: you’ve been told again and again that the god character is “good” and that therefore his actions are beyond question. But how do you know that the god character is “good”? As I’ve been arguing, “good” is necessarily a value judgment – you need to analyze the actions of this character on the basis of your values to come to that conclusion.

I am convinced that most people, if they really think about the story, will be led by their values to condemn the “god” depicted in the story. There are, of course, some people who have monstrous values, and I imagine that they would not care that a god character is monstrous. These are the people I want to stay far away from in real life.

What right do you have to judge others if as you say an objective right or wrong does not exist?

p.s. How rational are you being when you say you wish to stay far away from these people by engaging them here at CAF? I don’t think it says much about your capacity to reason well.

p.p.s. You can always isolate yourself on an Island.

 

[AntiTheist]

What right do you have to judge others if as you say an objective right or wrong does not exist?

As a thinking person, I make value judgments all the time. It’s irrelevant whether I have the “right” to do this or not – when I’m confronted with a character, I automatically form judgments about him.

How rational are you being when you say you wish to stay far away from these people by engaging them here at CAF?

Two points here. One, I was specifically talking about people whose values are monstrous, and I indicated that I don’t think that most believers actually have monstrous values – rather, they’ve simply not thought enough about the stories. And two, I specifically mentioned that I wish to stay away from such people “in real life” (as opposed to virtual interactions online). I fully expect that I’ll encounter people online that I wouldn’t want to spend time with in real life and that I’ll encounter values that I don’t like. But, as it turns out, I value being exposed to many different points of view.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I never denied that he killed many rural peasants, however, the Church was an enemy to Communist-atheists and so they did everything in their power to crush it (and its followers).

the inference of theists is the evil actions of men like Stalin was informed by their atheism. If this isn’t the implication then why would theists continually raise this same old argument in debates with atheists?

No one denies the church helped defeat Soviet communism, but that’s not what you were referring to in your past remarks (be honest and don’t ask me to dig up your old posts … like every other theist you were saying: 1) Staling and Pol Pot were atheists, 2) Stalin and Pol Pot were bad, therefore 3) atheism must be bad).

I said since the enlightenment many (atheist and/or agnostic) philosophies have enabled a down grading of morality in that moral absolutes were denied.

yes you said that … but you haven’t offered any evidence to support this idea?

Then please give examples of how secular philosophy has expressed morality better than Christianity (especially in light of the fact that they were not working on a blank slate)?

glad to. Take the categorical imperative of Kant; and his associated philosophy on morality. Kant (as becomes evident when you study him) did not believe in the supernatural elements of any religion, but he believed in morality and explained how to define good and evil better than perhaps anyone in history (this includes the bible).

From Kant we derive ideas like universal good (and how to define it), the importance of duty, and so on. His philosophy gives us a utilitarian framework through which we can examine our own behavior and the behavior of others (whether other people, states, companies, or whatever).

There are countless things (potential wrongs) the bible didn’t foresee. It didn’t provide a sufficiently flexible framework that can be applied in every case. Sometimes rules like love your neighbor or prohibitions against theft and murder are too simplistic to guide us through complex problems.

The bible provides a good basic set of fundamental rules, but governance, economics, and so on … need a more robust moral framework to operate properly.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Several atheist posters have objected that atonement theology is illogical (or worse) because it involves unnecessary suffering, violence, gore, etc., and an all-powerful God could chose an option less unpleasant.

The foundation for this argument, I think, has not been laid. If God could have chosen a better option for the atonement, this presupposes that there is such a thing as good and bad. I think you must first establish that there is a good and bad, outside of societal construct. For if it results only from societal construct, then its pretty silly to suggest that an all-powerful, infinite being is in any way bound by a particular society’s view of good or bad. This is necessary before we can start talking about whether a blood sacrifice is really bad or good. In other words, you claim that bloodshed is bad, but also claim that the whole of existence is a bunch of atoms knocking around. How can certain atoms bouncing in certain ways be any better or worse than others?

Please forgive me if I have failed to read an important part of this argument, this thread is many pages long and I have only read the last few.

You can’t just create an imaginary character and then bar us from using human experience and practical reality to disprove its existence … that’s ridiculous?

 

[AntiTheist]

You can’t just create an imaginary character and then bar us from using human experience and practical reality to disprove its existence … that’s ridiculous?

To be fair, no one is “disproving its existence” – at the very best, we’re just pointing out what a monster the character is. You never know – he might always exist.

1. Staling and Pol Pot were atheists, 2) Stalin and Pol Pot were bad, therefore 3) atheism must be bad).

My other favorite syllogism: 1) Stalin and Hitler both had mustaches, 2) Stalin and Hitler were bad, therefore 3) mustaches must be bad.

I always knew it!

Take the categorical imperative of Kant

Meh, I’ve always disliked Kant. Nietzsche called him a “sneaky Christian.” Kant’s morality – like all systems of morality – rests on shaky premises.

 

[josie_L]

As a thinking person, I make value judgments all the time. It’s irrelevant whether I have the “right” to do this or not – when I’m confronted with a character, I automatically form judgments about him.

But those value judgments are meaningless if there is no objective wrong and right, that is, your statements have no more validity than mine according to your worldview. We are our own moral makers which is why I state that since the “enlightenment” morals have been downgraded to the subjective.

Two points here. One, I was specifically talking about people whose values are monstrous, and I indicated that I don’t think that most believers actually have monstrous values – rather, they’ve simply not thought enough about the stories. And two, I specifically mentioned that I wish to stay away from such people “in real life” (as opposed to virtual interactions online). I fully expect that I’ll encounter people online that I wouldn’t want to spend time with in real life and that I’ll encounter values that I don’t like. But, as it turns out, I value being exposed to many different points of view.

Yet you’ve pretty much alluded to the fact that because I love a “monstrous” God my values are monstrous as well. And since atheists are still in the minority you will continually meet and encounter people who love this “monstrous” God and well all your sniping won’t change that.

p.s. I am under no delusions when I say God is unconditional love and mercy.

 

[josie_L]

As a thinking person, I make value judgments all the time. It’s irrelevant whether I have the “right” to do this or not – when I’m confronted with a character, I automatically form judgments about him.

Two points here. One, I was specifically talking about people whose values are monstrous, and I indicated that I don’t think that most believers actually have monstrous values – rather, they’ve simply not thought enough about the stories. And two, I specifically mentioned that I wish to stay away from such people “in real life” (as opposed to virtual interactions online). I fully expect that I’ll encounter people online that I wouldn’t want to spend time with in real life and that I’ll encounter values that I don’t like. But, as it turns out, I value being exposed to many different points of view.

I forgot to mention another thing which I wanted to add, why do we feel compelled to follow our conscience as human beings? Where did we get conscience from?

 

[AnAtheist]

I forgot to mention another thing which I wanted to add, why do we feel compelled to follow our conscience as human beings? Where did we get conscience from?

Evolution. Humans cannot survive in their own, so there are biological means to “function” properly in a society.

 

[josie_L]

Evolution. Humans cannot survive in their own, so there are biological means to “function” properly in a society.

If conscience is (solely) biological then it is deterministic (and we are no longer free agents).

 

[srferdave]

Evolution. Humans cannot survive in their own, so there are biological means to “function” properly in a society.

Josie said conscience… not instinct.

The biological means to “function” properly in a society is instinct not conscience.

 

[AnAtheist]

Josie said conscience… not instinct.

The part of the conscience that is not an instinct is build up by education. The content of that education was also learned the hard way by our ancestors, it is cultural evolution.

 

[srferdave]

The part of the conscience that is not an instinct is build up by education. The content of that education was also learned the hard way by our ancestors, it is cultural evolution.

That is still not conscience. Conscience is “the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action”. Things learned might help us better form our conscience but, nonetheless, conscience is still an inner sense. This is without full knowledge whether something is right or wrong. The conscience gives one a sense of what is right or wrong.

 

[AnAtheist]

That is still not conscience. Conscience is “the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action”. Things learned might help us better form our conscience but, nonetheless, conscience is still an inner sense. This is without full knowledge whether something is right or wrong. The conscience gives one a sense of what is right or wrong.

I fail to see the difference.

 

[srferdave]

I fail to see the difference.

Well let me help with an example…

You go to the grocery store and buy something that cost, lets say, $30. You pay using a $50 bill. You expect $20 back. But the cashier, unknowingly, hands you $100 bill by mistake. What society has taught you, and what you have learned from past experiences, is that you can easily get away with this and keep the $100 without ever getting reprimanded for keeping it. But ones conscience will tell them that it is wrong and that they should give the $100 back.

 

[josie_L]

I fail to see the difference.

How did our ancestors know or recognize what was right and wrong (without realizing that something from within called a conscience was telling them so) when other animals have not?

p.s. Let me rephrase that, why should our ancestors feel bad about killing one another in a world without moral feedback (unless conscience already existed)?

 

[gearhead]

How did our ancestors know or recognize what was right and wrong (without realizing that something from within called a conscience was telling them so) when other animals have not?

p.s. Let me rephrase that, why should our ancestors feel bad about killing one another in a world without moral feedback (unless conscience already existed)?

I’m not sure what you mean by “moral feedback”.

Individuals who live and work in groups are dependent on the group for their well-being. Therefore, it’s in a social creature’s best interest to care about the well-being of its fellow group members, because the individual’s well-being is tied to the well-being of the group and the other individuals who make it up. Natural selection takes care of the rest.

 

[srferdave]

I’m not sure what you mean by “moral feedback”.

Individuals who live and work in groups are dependent on the group for their well-being. Therefore, it’s in a social creature’s best interest to care about the well-being of its fellow group members, because the individual’s well-being is tied to the well-being of the group and the other individuals who make it up. Natural selection takes care of the rest.

It is not always in an individuals best interest to care about the well-being of its fellow members in a society. What then?? What is it, in us, that is telling us what is right and wrong. That, my friend, is your conscience.

 

[yankee_doodle]

It is not always in an individuals best interest to care about the well-being of its fellow members in a society. What then?? What is it, in us, that is telling us what is right and wrong. That, my friend, is your conscience.

I think that’s an oversimplification. There is no evidence to suggest our conscience is derived from supernatural sources. Even if there’s an indication certain character traits are biological (i.e. survival instinct, fear response, etc.) all the evidence we have suggests it’s evolutionary.