Atheism

Originally posted by The MISTER
Atheism does have one command. It does command that all theists be viewed as deluded.

Jesus Christ. Of course this is wrong. You're veering toward outright bigotry here. Considering someone to be incorrect and being "deluded" in the very negative sense you used it in, are VERY different things.

Also, not believing in a god doesn't necessarily imply your statement at all. Plenty of people have valid reasons for believing in God. I don't think they're right, but it doesn't mean I think them unintelligent, deluded, or similarly scathing adjectives.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Other than that it commands nothing of a person. They are free to do anything except believe a theist is correct about there being rules that were not made by us.

Did you miss the whole discussion about how most atheism is considered a belief, not an absolute stance? Just like theists, we believe there's no God. It's not an "I'm right and you're wrong" sort of thing. Or rather, if it is, it leaves a caveat of "here's what I believe, but we can't know for sure." By your logic here, any time there's a disagreement about anything, we think the opposition is deluded. In reality, there are far less severe grades of discourse and opinion.

So. Theists aren't deluded. You, however, may be.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Positive? I still have a hard time seeing what's positive about a stance based upon viewing people who feel that good things are planned for us, are all wrong, inherently.

For atheism to be positive does not require that you see it as such. 'tis fortunate too, else we'd all be nihilists AND atheists.

And anyway, we've been over this. Atheism's neutral. Positive/negative is a reaction to it, not an inherent trait...more dependent on the person than the belief. Coincidentally, I'm happier as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. Doesn't make sense to you? Good. Also of note, I hope I'm wrong and hope there is an afterlife (religious or otherwise, since the variables of such a realm are infinite). Just because it's what I believe doesn't mean it's the ideal. But neither does that make it negative.

It's like, you have some yogurt in your hand. You think it's ice cream, I think it's yogurt. It would be cool if it were ice cream (ice cream > yogurt in this analogy btw), but it doesn't suck that it's just yogurt. So I set it down, maybe eat it, maybe not, and go on with my life. Because, believe it or not, my positivity/negativity as a person has never been wrapped up much in my religion, but just in how I approach life. This was true as a Catholic and atheist. It's a belief, not a decree on how to feel. I enjoy or hate life because I choose to, not because of what I feel is or isn't guiding life.

Also, we don't believe in a Christian afterlife, but we also don't believe in an afterlife of unending, pointless torture for all...which, in our view, is just as likely as the arbitrary man-made afterlives. You're assuming that "something" is better than "nothing" because you believe your something is good. There's an infinite number of afterlives worse than nonexistence, just as an infinite better. We don't believe in either. So your view of atheism is limited, and it shades your opinion.

I don't know how else to put it to you. You seem unable to grasp that happiness/depression/joy/negativity/etc. are internal phenomenon, and can be triggered by beliefs but aren't inherent in beliefs, religious or otherwise. Until you understand that, I'm not sure this discussion has further merit.

Originally posted by inimalist
you don't see the importance of distinguishing between objective and absolute morals?

The way objective is used, as I have heard it, is the same thing. Absolute. I think that's how most people understood it. The fact that this is technically an incorrect definition is beside the point.

At any rate, I did not change, nor make up my own definition. I use a definition that is commonly used with the word. Even if it is technically incorrect, that's how most people know it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There are a lot of options. You could try to follow principles of the universe (Daoism, etc), utilitarianism, "natural rights", or any number of other principles.

Seriously, this is a problem many philosophers have tried to answer throughout history. If you really want to know you should look beyond discussion forums...

I know there are Atheists that hold to their being Objective meaning to life. My argument is that these views are impossible from an Atheistic standpoint, as Objective meaning suggests a higher intelligence. Which Atheism denies.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I know there are Atheists that hold to their being Objective meaning to life. My argument is that these views are impossible from an Atheistic standpoint, as Objective meaning suggests a higher intelligence. Which Atheism denies.

All objective means is that the meaning is not in the eye of the individual. There are tons of meaning that can be objective, without having anything to do with God. You could draw it from natural law, from mutually agreed principles, from society itself... all of these things are both objective, and meaningful.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I know there are Atheists that hold to their being Objective meaning to life. My argument is that these views are impossible from an Atheistic standpoint, as Objective meaning suggests a higher intelligence. Which Atheism denies.

That's a very limited view of objective meaning then.

You also have to clarify, though you may have already and I missed it. Are you talking about objective meaning or objective morality or objective reality? Three very different things.

Because I partially agree, "meaning" in a universal sense is impossible without a defined creator (God or otherwise), but "morality" and "reality" are not impossible from an atheistic viewpoint. Objective "Meaning" is also not impossible for an individual, just as a standardized universality.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why an objective meaning denies a higher intelligence (which, btw, atheism does NOT deny, unless that higher intelligence is a god).

All objective means is that the meaning is not in the eye of the individual. There are tons of meaning that can be objective, without having anything to do with God. You could draw it from natural law, from mutually agreed principles, from society itself... all of these things are both objective, and meaningful.

Let's take it one at a time. What is "Natural Law?"

Originally posted by Digi
That's a very limited view of objective meaning then.

You also have to clarify, though you may have already and I missed it. Are you talking about objective meaning or objective morality or objective reality? Three very different things.

Because I partially agree, "meaning" in a universal sense is impossible without a defined creator (God or otherwise), but "morality" and "reality" are not impossible from an atheistic viewpoint. Objective "Meaning" is also not impossible for an individual, just as a standardized universality.

I mean "Meaning". A reason for existing.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Let's take it one at a time. What is "Natural Law?"

Originally posted by King Kandy
Laws discovered in nature, i.e. law of gravity, electromagnetism, etc, or laws of social dynamics derived from understanding of brain structure, basically, just the patterns inherent in nature.

And these laws are suppose to lay out an objective purpose for the existence of man? These laws tell us how the universe functions. They don't create or place meaning to anything.

EDIT: You could almost think of meaning as a need or want being fulfulled. Like, again, with the watch. The want was that ability to know the time, and the watch was created to fill that need. Thus, it has meaning in it's creation.

But Laws of Nature don't NEED humans to exist, and laws cannot WANT humans to exist, as they would need to be intelligent to want anything. Human's do not fulfill any need or want for the universe. Their existance has no meaning.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The way objective is used, as I have heard it, is the same thing. Absolute. I think that's how most people understood it. The fact that this is technically an incorrect definition is beside the point.

At any rate, I did not change, nor make up my own definition. I use a definition that is commonly used with the word. Even if it is technically incorrect, that's how most people know it.

you can try to deflect this all you want, but you still refuse to correct your usage, and it is plainly obvious why.

If you only allow for moral systems to be subjective or objective, the latter meaning both objective AND absolute, then of course few, if any atheists won't fall into that category, because you are defining it by something that is nearly anti-thetical to the concept of atheism.

However, if you allow for absolute, subjective and objective systems, you get that same conflict between subjective and absolute, but find objective actually bridges some of the inherent flaws with both of the systems. True, it certainly isn't an absolute measure of what it means to be human in a metaphysical sense, but then, it is still objective in that it is rooted in some form of identifiable moral axioms. This is clearly not "subjective morality" in the sense that "anything can be moral".

So then, my challange to you is, what am I then? I believe in identifiable human suffering and voluntary association as the basis of morality, items that can be shown objectively, yet I don't think these are absolute in any way or constant throughout the universe, time or social context. I would agree that murder is wrong no matter how many people say it is correct, yet accept that this is something humans have discovered for themselves through thousands of years of interaction and philosophy. The reason I take such issue with how you are framing the debate is that you are literally refusing to acknowledge that people like me exist, simply through definition

Originally posted by inimalist
you can try to deflect this all you want, but you still refuse to correct your usage, and it is plainly obvious why.

If you only allow for moral systems to be subjective or objective, the latter meaning both objective AND absolute, then of course few, if any atheists won't fall into that category, because you are defining it by something that is nearly anti-thetical to the concept of atheism.

However, if you allow for absolute, subjective and objective systems, you get that same conflict between subjective and absolute, but find objective actually bridges some of the inherent flaws with both of the systems. True, it certainly isn't an absolute measure of what it means to be human in a metaphysical sense, but then, it is still objective in that it is rooted in some form of identifiable moral axioms. This is clearly not "subjective morality" in the sense that "anything can be moral".

So then, my challange to you is, what am I then? I believe in identifiable human suffering and voluntary association as the basis of morality, items that can be shown [b]objectively, yet I don't think these are absolute in any way or constant throughout the universe, time or social context. I would agree that murder is wrong no matter how many people say it is correct, yet accept that this is something humans have discovered for themselves through thousands of years of interaction and philosophy. The reason I take such issue with how you are framing the debate is that you are literally refusing to acknowledge that people like me exist, simply through definition [/B]

Humans have discovered or invented?

If humans have DISCOVERED the fact that murdering someone is wrong even if everyone says it isn't, then that means that was a set moral law that humans didn't create, we found. An absolute law, if you will. We have no control over it, we are just figuring it out.

If humans CREATED the fact that murdering someone is wrong no matter how many people say it's right... Well... That simply contradicts itself. If humans created the law, then we can easily change it. If everyone thought murdering someone was okay, then it would be.

So then. Which one do you hold to?

Originally posted by Digi
Jesus Christ. Of course this is wrong. You're veering toward outright bigotry here. Considering someone to be incorrect and being "deluded" in the very negative sense you used it in, are VERY different things.

Also, not believing in a god doesn't necessarily imply your statement at all. Plenty of people have valid reasons for believing in God. I don't think they're right, but it doesn't mean I think them unintelligent, deluded, or similarly scathing adjectives.

Did you miss the whole discussion about how most atheism is considered a belief, not an absolute stance? Just like theists, we believe there's no God. It's not an "I'm right and you're wrong" sort of thing. Or rather, if it is, it leaves a caveat of "here's what I believe, but we can't know for sure." By your logic here, any time there's a disagreement about anything, we think the opposition is deluded. In reality, there are far less severe grades of discourse and opinion.

So. Theists aren't deluded. You, however, may be.

For atheism to be positive does not require that you see it as such. 'tis fortunate too, else we'd all be nihilists AND atheists.

And anyway, we've been over this. Atheism's neutral. Positive/negative is a reaction to it, not an inherent trait...more dependent on the person than the belief. Coincidentally, I'm happier as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. Doesn't make sense to you? Good. Also of note, I hope I'm wrong and hope there is an afterlife (religious or otherwise, since the variables of such a realm are infinite). Just because it's what I believe doesn't mean it's the ideal. But neither does that make it negative.

It's like, you have some yogurt in your hand. You think it's ice cream, I think it's yogurt. It would be cool if it were ice cream (ice cream > yogurt in this analogy btw), but it doesn't suck that it's just yogurt. So I set it down, maybe eat it, maybe not, and go on with my life. Because, believe it or not, my positivity/negativity as a person has never been wrapped up much in my religion, but just in how I approach life. This was true as a Catholic and atheist. It's a belief, not a decree on how to feel. I enjoy or hate life because I choose to, not because of what I feel is or isn't guiding life.

Also, we don't believe in a Christian afterlife, but we also don't believe in an afterlife of unending, pointless torture for all...which, in our view, is just as likely as the arbitrary man-made afterlives. You're assuming that "something" is better than "nothing" because you believe your something is good. There's an infinite number of afterlives worse than nonexistence, just as an infinite better. We don't believe in either. So your view of atheism is limited, and it shades your opinion.

I don't know how else to put it to you. You seem unable to grasp that happiness/depression/joy/negativity/etc. are internal phenomenon, and can be triggered by beliefs but aren't inherent in beliefs, religious or otherwise. Until you understand that, I'm not sure this discussion has further merit.

Atheism isn't neutral even though atheists may be. Your analogy with the yogurt was a good way to show that. In your analogy you say it sucks that it's definitely NOT ice cream. I said it definitely IS. You go on knowing you have yogurt and I go on knowing I have ice cream. A neutral stance would be, "could be ice cream, could be yogurt, could be steak, but I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. Atheism and theism ARE absolute stances against each other as they are not alive. Atheists and theists are NOT in absolute stances against each other and have room for a neutral ground in that we KNOW that we can't know 100% of everything.

After all is said and done though, after counting theists wrong,(as per your analogy) ATHEISM (not atheists) is completely neutral. It is the doctrine of an existence in limbo.

You should realize that when you attach positivity or negativity to the facts about atheism, you are actually proving that atheists are far more positive than atheism which is what it is.

humans are neutral sometimes, But these terms are locked as opposites in their beliefs.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Humans have discovered or invented?

If humans have DISCOVERED the fact that murdering someone is wrong even if everyone says it isn't, then that means that was a set moral law that humans didn't create, we found. An absolute law, if you will. We have no control over it, we are just figuring it out.

If humans CREATED the fact that murdering someone is wrong no matter how many people say it's right... Well... That simply contradicts itself. If humans created the law, then we can easily change it. If everyone thought murdering someone was okay, then it would be.

So then. Which one do you hold to?

neither, I don't feel either total subjectivism or total absolutism work at all... that was my point, with only 2 options, you don't have enough choices to describe how some people see morality

Originally posted by inimalist
neither, I don't feel either total subjectivism or total absolutism work at all... that was my point, with only 2 options, you don't have enough choices to describe how some people see morality

kill one to save many..mentality

Originally posted by inimalist
neither, I don't feel either total subjectivism or total absolutism work at all... that was my point, with only 2 options, you don't have enough choices to describe how some people see morality

There is only two options, though. There is no third option. Either we can change morality or we can't. It's one or the other.

Now, tell me. Do you think we can alter morality or not?

being able to alter something doesn't make it subjective, it just makes it non-absolute...

Originally posted by inimalist
being able to alter something doesn't make it subjective, it just makes it non-absolute...

blowup

You're having fun, aren't you?

Is morality sculpted by the people or not? Do we create what we consider moral values, or are moral values something outside of a persons ability to command? I really don't think this is a complex question.

You already admitted that killing someone is always wrong, no matter how many people believe it's right. This means that you hold that people have no control over what makes something moral or immoral. Right?

And how did we get on the subject of Objective Moral values anyway? We were talking about the meaning of life a little bit ago... 🤨

no, I mean morals are objective and based on identifiable phenomenon. people may have some disagreement about what constitutes these axioms, but the axioms themselves are objective and not based on some subjective whim that is subject to popular will

and just to throw it out there, with all the pessimistic allusions to nihilism, let us remember that Nietzsche was not really that much of a pessimist, nor did he see nihilism in that way. For instance, one of my favorite quotes from him:

"We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh."

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I mean morals are objective and based on identifiable phenomenon. people may have some disagreement about what constitutes these axioms, but the axioms themselves are objective and not based on some subjective whim that is subject to popular will

I dunno, I don't think you can make a logical argument for that...I do kinda agree with you though.

Originally posted by inimalist
and just to throw it out there, with all the pessimistic allusions to nihilism, let us remember that Nietzsche was not really that much of a pessimist, nor did he see nihilism in that way. For instance, one of my favorite quotes from him:

"We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh."

I don't know the athiest world though is still depressing.

Originally posted by Deadline
I dunno, I don't think you can make a logical argument for that...I do kinda agree with you though.

what part is illogical?

its the same way any empirical or objective fact works...

Originally posted by inimalist
what part is illogical?

its the same way any empirical or objective fact works...

Saying morals are objective?