The Atheist Purpose?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by exsto_human, May 31, 2003.

  1. Jade Squirrel Impassioned Atheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    394
    Re: 3,000 words, more or less

    For those who choose to find alternative ways (as opposed to obeying the dogma of religion) to obtain their ethical values, the process is uniquely different for each person (based on their different experiences and what's important to them).

    As I indicated earlier, I personally find the application of the ethic of reciprocity to be useful, noting also that there can be exceptions where this may not be appropriate and personal judgment is required.

    P.S. I'm very glad that you use bold when referring to sciforums users. Given the size of your posts, it makes it a lot easier to find things that you are addressing specifically to me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jade Squirrel Impassioned Atheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    394
    When this comes up in conversation, I never fail to note the fact that I am very happy and content with my life, despite not having an imaginary friend and the hope of everlasting life. I agree with you that leading by example is one of the best ways to "sell" atheism.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jade Squirrel Impassioned Atheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    394
    It depends on your definition of structure. If you see structure as things arranged in a definite pattern of organization, then you are correct.

    If, however, the structure being referred to is simply the collection of different elements and how they relate to each other, then the question is indeed valid because even adaptive ethics (which you have indicated that you maintain) can be broken down into different elements that are very complex. I suspect you would agree with this complexity since you seem to apply no "hard and fast" rule to your ethical behavior.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kazakhan Registered Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    Somewhat, I think of it more as chaos.
    Why? Atheism is the lack of belief in god or whatever term you want to use, it is not and should not be a crusade at least for me.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Wesmorris ... something about dots

    Well, as I see you describing your own thought revolution, of course it's subjective. RIght now everything is subjective. It's not a matter of people rising up in the name of atheism per se, but rather a revolution that makes people rise up in the name of being human. I noted in there somewhere, What if subjective identity issues weren't such a stake? In the long run, this goes beyond mere theistic religion. Subjective identity issues include gender roles, patriotism and nationalism, socioeconomic stratification, and other ideas that lead to an Us and a Them - eventually, it's all at stake. And while one can't go about asserting that "atheism says this," or "atheism says that," what stops atheists from making positive assertions about possible solutions to human issues? There are some days when, in the presence of self-affirming atheists, I feel like I have to justify the reasons for seeking good. This brand of stodginess does nothing for anyone, and while nihilism doesn't bother me except for its fundamental dysfunctionality, blind, insensate nihilism is downright frightening.

    It's not about forming a Church of Atheism, or Atheist University, but about the diverse notions of the world which should result from the liberation of thought brought about by the smashing of religious fetters.

    I've been dwelling some on a topic of Cris' about religion and intelligence, and while I don't argue the fundamental point, a number of peculiar ironies strike me. It has something to do with a minority of the population rejecting a popular standard while applying popular-conventional measurements. I think about many brilliant people I've come across in experience and in historical study who would reject such popular-conventional methods, though the poster-boy seems to be a sparkle-eyed white post-rastafarian historical philosopher, and also a couple of guys who I think were homeless simply because they couldn't tolerate being part of the daily grind. In the end, I simply feel it is impossible to ... well, at this point it becomes somewhat metaphysical in the sense that one of the brightest people I know actually has "merely" a Bachelor's and believes in imperial notions of America that many find repugnant; another of the brightest people I know has a theology degree that many, if not most, would say is wasted. And yet despite their degrees, their intelligence is a separate aspect, indeed. One thinks, one justifies. The known atheist is not the smartest of the pair.

    The crossover point being that while I believe in the intelligence and, sufficiently enough even the standard of measurement, I feel as if I'm standing in a room full of intelligent people and saying, "Well? Show me. Show the world." And there's a tumbleweed silence, a clearing of throats, and then someone pipes up: I don't think anyone sees a reason why anyone should show anything.

    Well, here's where I slam into a wall of presumption. To me, one of the fundamental duties of a species is to protect and perpetuate the species. It's inherent in the living processes. So in a crowd of intelligent people who are bitching about this or that problem, I'm suddenly stuck with trying to justify why anyone should do anything about the very problems people bitch about. To me it's an easy call: if the so-called best and brightest put their minds to something important (aside from their own amusement at whatever expense to others who are, objectively, irrelevant to them) the human condition in general improves.

    So I'm trying to find at least the countervailing presumption. Why wouldn't people want to put their talents toward a brighter future? Has that future become objectively not profitable as such? Is the present far too tempting? Do we mean to say that the intelligent people are human too? Of course they are. But I would hope they would be smart enough to contribute to finding the solution every once in a while. Objective hopelessness is far too easy.
    And? Shall we presume this condition a priori to be a fixed and permanent way, or shall we put our minds to defeating such a malicious ideology?

    Of course, maybe principles are for sacrificing. Can't say for sure. Maybe principles are utter fiction and you're just blowing smoke up your own ass (cracks and shards! you're flexible, man!) when you speak of principles.

    And all I'm after with that silly paragraph is that we must, at some point, ask the obvious questions about what is good, why good, and what makes it good. Principles? They rely on a comparative moral idea. What objective basis have we for such a comparative moral idea?

    Myself, it has something to do with what life is and what it does. It's going to be a lifetime formulation, I'm sure. But if you stop and think of all the dolts out there who need a picture drawn for them, who need the dots sequenced one, two, three, four ... well, what can people do to help their less-(fill-in-the-blank) neighbors connect the dots? Remember that these neighbors vote for the politicians who screw you, drive the cars that run you down, and raise the kids who steal your bike.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Tiassa,

    So isn’t this the best path? Forget religion and atheism, the issue is the species and where we go from here. We are right at the beginning -

    http://www.transhumanism.org/
    http://www.transhumanism.com/

    Wouldn’t you agree?
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    I tend to agree outright

    I'll not argue a whit over that.

    And I have no argument against Transhumanism; they have as much a right as anyone else. In fact, Point 6 of the Declaration is something I would like to see athiests in general say among themselves. It doesn't require any ideological subscription. There won't be any additional "atheist dogma". But before we can put ideas into action, people need a place to put forth their ideas.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    cut'n'paste ... okay I cheated

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Atheistic morailty... or something like it.

    Atheism - Ethics without Gods
    "The principle of "enlightened self-interest" is an excellent first approximation to an ethical principle which is both consistent with what we know of human nature and is relevant to the problems of life in a complex society."

    Secular Humanism
    "We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences."
    http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html

    "Secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct. They rely instead upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life. Secular humanists look to the methodology of science as the most reliable source of information about what is factual or true about the universe we all share, acknowledging that new discoveries will always alter and expand our understanding of it and perhaps change our approach to ethical issues as well."
    http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

    Humanism
    http://www.corliss-lamont.org/philos8.htm

    Unitarian Universalism
    "We believe that personal experience, conscience, and reason should be the final authorities in religion. In the end religious authority lies not in a book, person, or institution, but in ourselves. We put religious insights to the test of our hearts and minds."
    http://www.uua.org/pamphlet/3081.html

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    " Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"
    http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

    ~Raithere
     
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    From that silly movie 'Bedazzled': "Don't you think secular humanism is yummy?".

    Oddly, I looked it up based on that comment and found that my "belief system" is mostly aligned with secular humanism, though I haven't pursued it because uh.. I just don't care about some label. I like to explore philosophy well, here. Little dab of this, little dab of that.. it's nice eh? I'm so vain as to think that for the most part identifying with a particular group is dangerous to my attempts to really understand anything. *shrug* Thus I explore via sciforums and other virtual places.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Good links

    Raithere

    Cheating's okay in this one. We do need a foundation for a structure to examine.

    But there are matters of interpretation to consider: the interpretation, for instance, of the Secular Humanism affirmations, makes a huge difference. Consider this Free Inquiry article from the website:
    The author has done a good bit of framing in the first two paragraphs, leaving a few a priori notions standing.

    - There are American states in which Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists who kill their children by denying them lifesaving blood transfusions or other medical procedures can escape the consequences of their crime by pleading "freedom of religion."

    This is not entirely an objective or provable statement. We might even invoke Obi Wan Kenobi: it depends on your point of view. To illustrate, another weak premise of an article that I'm reading as I go .. these are merely the first critical flags that pop up, that I need to follow up on throughout and after the article itself, as such.

    - Even in those states where homicidal child neglect is prosecuted, defendants are allowed to offer the jury a defense based on sectarian beliefs not held by other religions.

    And here I turn to a trusty reference:

    - The Dictionary.com definition for homicidal points back to the definition for homicide, which in turn points back to the word kill, and here is where we start to see a problem.

    In order for child neglect to be "homicidal", it has to be undertaken with the intent to result in death. This would be the equivalent to Sparta, leaving a child on the mountainside to die.

    However, what we see with the "homicidal" child neglect of religiously-persuaded parents is a different issue. The parents aren't setting out to intentionally kill the child.

    And, while I pass no judgment on the article in general, I digress now to explore certain ideas related to the larger point I've dragged this topic through.

    Now, first off, though such disclaimers should be unnecessary, I do find the withholding of medical care from a child for religious reasons to be somewhere well-ensconced in the "wrong" end of the spectrum. But for reasons that should be obvious in my increasingly-nihilistic arguments, what I actually think of such parents and the results of their actions is irrelevant to reality.

    I question the use of "homicidal" and "kill" by the article author one the grounds that they are politically-charged summary words, words offered in lieu of a dispassionate recital of the facts. People in general have a gray zone about the difference between active killing and allowing someone to die; the broad ethical and moral implications of prohibiting one from "allowing someone to die" include tackling world hunger and all manner of social ills that many people have already surrendered to the "necessity" of. And people in general, observably, aren't as anxious to do this as I would hope.

    It is a strange gray zone, I admit. Superficially, it seems like an easy call, but for some reason it's not.

    But consider, as vague juxtapositions, abortion and "rights". As it is, society places tremendous trust in parents, and also tremendous responsibilities. But the child has no "rights". The decision to terminate a pregnancy seemingly must come down to the woman's choice unless we want to rewrite America; nowhere in the Constitution does it say that children come first; rather, it says in the Declaration that all people are created equal, and the evidence suggests strongly that people find this idea highly impractical. Children have no Miranda rights; children haven't the right to defend themselves against forced psychiatric adjustment; children's rights are invested in the parents. The best children can hope for is equality; there is no guarantee of security for a species' most important resource.

    So as cold as it seems, the factual status is simple: the author is slanting the article with insupportable terminology to color the point.

    However, the question for me becomes, Can the author, or secular humanism, or free thought, or (whatever) show me the progression from A to B in such a manner as to establish a fundamentally-objective case supporting the interpretation of such acts as "homicide" or "kill(ing)"?

    And yes, in the literary and poetic, I would use words like homicide and kill to describe the choice of the parents to withhold medical care; I would even go so far as to use the word torture, but in terms of Secular Humanism, I wonder how the literary and poetic reflects against the affirmation:

    - We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

    I, for one, see at least the appearance of a conflict.

    And you know, I'm not actually out to hold it against the article, the author, or Secular Humanism.

    But there is no difference between the author's use of the words homicidal or kill and the religious anti-abortion protester's use of the word murder--it's all in how you look at it.

    I understand that Secular Humanism wishes to "nourish reason and compassion" (see "Affirmations"), but I find the early leap to "homicidal" and "kill" anything but. It is, to me, as pretentious as any other, so at the superficial consideration, I'm left wondering how Secular Humanism will achieve any better a result if it's prone to this brand of consideration.

    But it's not as if this constitutes a rejection of Secular Humanism. Over time, perhaps, I will build from such ideas the chain of logic that moves from A to B, and perhaps I will find an objective truth somewhere in it. While the former possibility is considerable, the latter would be a great surprise.

    I know who I get along with; but I can't say for sure that I, or they, or we are right.

    Elsewhere we would call them presuppositions or even accretions, and that's what they are: what criteria makes it "homicidal"? I'm quite sure that, no matter how much I might agree with those points, they will be subjective.

    Since further reading might address some of these points, I should really be about that part of it. But the issues were strikingly apparent at first glance ... maybe I just caught a crappy article from a decent author on a bad day. I don't know. More data is required ... but in the meantime, I hope to illustrate that there is a degree of presumption that must be considered before certain degrees of progress can be achieved.

    And the cheap-shot would be to say that at the outset, it appears that Secular Humanism is no more effective than anything else at suppressing the anti-progressive portions of the human psyche, but given the early stage of these considerations, it would be a very cheap shot. Probably cheaper than Dumb and Dumberer.

    To the other, if the cheap shot turns out to be true, what can really be said to criticize? That these are human beings, and they're not perfect? Oh, heavens ... how dare they! But that also becomes part of the point: we're humans, and we screw up in certain ways, and if we can get enough people to acknowledge such simple "realities" we might be able to have a progressive societal debate over what to do about our human foibles. And that wonderful Universal Declaration of Human Rights gets in the way of obvious "solution" ....

    Or something like that.

    But is it fair--in the abstract--to stake such opposition as the article author does on presuppositions? Isn't that what religious folk with their religious delusions do? And isn't that part of what many people object to about the religious folk?

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Congruency

    Actually, if you follow the footnotes to http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/ specific cases are given of parents who denied medical treatment and were acquitted on religious grounds. Whether these are statistical anomalies or trends is not evinced but even as anomalies they deserve strict consideration in light of the role of judicial precedent in our legal system.

    Politics

    I concur, the charges listed in the examples were manslaughter and felony abuse, not homicide or murder. Although to be picky, there are cases where parents have actively refused or removed medical treatment which brings up an interesting question; How far does ignorance or lack of intent absolve one of responsibility? "After all, your honor, I didn't know that smacking him in the forehead with a hammer would kill him, I was only trying to wake him up." Assuming the claim of ignorance is honest; does this absolve the individual of responsibility?

    Still you bring up the main reason why I tend to avoid such sites and organizations; they are largely political rather than philosophical in nature. In an attempt to evoke a response they tend towards emotionally loaded (and sometimes misleading or erroneous) wording.

    I think that the difference in responsibility between action and inaction is obvious. Still, I agree that a policy of inaction is problematic.

    Personally, my resolution to the problem invokes a method of valuating responsibility and risk: A relative valuation of the probable outcomes of my inaction vs. action. Weight is then given correlating to my area of influence; as my influence wanes so does my responsibility, as is waxes so does my responsibility. I then add a multiplier (if you will) regarding my personal valuation of the subjects involved. Finally, the valuation is weighed relative to other considered actions within my available time and means.

    At least, this is a dry approximation; an attempt to enumerate how I go about such a consideration, the actual process is far messier, but I believe that if I could give a realistic prediction from this.

    Of course, the statement is political. It's a mission statement, nothing more. But while I see the problem, I don't know what the solution is. I have no idea how to reduce issues as complex as epistemology and ethics or even the scientific process to a handy-little, reference sized, pamphlet. The best I seem to be able to come up with is to challenge accepted notions and propose alternatives.

    Nihilistic Reduction

    The first thing I think we need to answer here is the scope of issue. I would argue that the issue is ethical rather than epistemic. While I understand that strict objectivity quickly turns to nihilism I find that nihilism (while an epistemic concern) must be rejected within ethics simply based upon expediency. Nihilism gives one no basis for valuation, action, or even thought. So at some point we all rely on presumptions in order to think or act at all.

    Indeed, the most important step seems to be the acknowledgement and consideration of our presumptions. Are all presumptions equal? Where do we start? Well, what presumptions are truly universal and/or necessary? I'll hit on my first four:

    1. The existence of Self. Actually, I don't find this to be much of a presumption, otherwise who is posing the question in the first place. But I'll list it as one since there are nihilistic arguments against it.

    2. The existence of Not-self.

    3. Not-self is largely coherent.

    4. My perception of not-self is similarly coherent within not-self, depending upon certain conditions.

    I presume these purely for reasons of expediency. If any of these is false I have no basis to make sense out of anything. You'll note here that my presumptions set the grounds for objective analysis. Another important thing to note here is the notion of coherency for I have already tossed reductionism (and any realization of absolute truth) out the window. What we have left is less stringent a measure but it allows for solutions to be found.

    Granted, at this point I am certainly quite a long way away from any ethical determinations... and there are definitely other presumptions that I make but I believe they can mostly be made in a similar manner.

    Solution

    If we were to take a body of assertions and state, "This doctrine is Secular Humanism" I would agree. In fact, I find the formation of a broad ranging doctrine part of the problem itself. I can think of no example where an unvarying base of assertions can cover the extreme range of situations that life has to offer.

    Numerous groups have attempted to codify a set of rules but the same problems continually recur. I suggest that the problems are inherent in the method. It's not that theistic ethics are inherently problematic (although arguments based upon unproven authority are extremely anemic) but that the methodology (identification and codification of ethical conclusions into a simple set of absolute assertions) is flawed. As evidence I suggest an examination of the nearly infinite set of exceptions an individual builds as a buffer so that they do not get crushed between the rock of doctrine and the hard place of reality.

    Yet, I would argue against the common notion of relative morality where each individual is entirely isolated in an absolute assessment of values. Perhaps we'll do more on that later.

    Amen.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ~Raithere
     
  15. Tyrell Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    33
    tiassa,

    I cannot claim to speak for all atheists, but the way I have established my moral code is rather simple. Start by saying that this life is ALL there is, then you take whatever steps necessary to prolong it and enjoy it as much as possible, (and here is the kicker) while not infringing or taking away or endangering anyone else's ability to do so. Also, everyone is stuck in the same boat you are in, this is all they get, you should help them to be as happy and have as meaningful an existence as you can, so long as it doesn't cause you to have any less of one. They have as much right to be here and have a long and happy existence as I do. To me this answers the question you kept posing "Why is murder wrong?" Simply because it takes away that other person's chance at a happy existence. This also deals with the whole selfishness stigma associated with atheism in that by determining your actions in this manner, not only do you provide yourself with a good life, you do not inhibit your neighbor from the same.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Raithere, Tyrell

    Raithere

    I'm going to take a short while on a response; something tells me I have communicated poorly.

    Tyrell

    Thank you for your input. By and large, I agree with you; that needs to be said at the outset.

    The following nitpicking is something I put my own standards through, so ....

    - Start by saying that this life is ALL there is .... - I concur. However, it needs to be added: What is this life? Is what we see really all there is? History suggests that no, what we see at any given point is not all there is. This should not be taken as an inherent suggestion of God, especially in the anemic manner God is usually treated at Sciforums. It lends toward a larger point which I hope to get to shortly.

    - then you take whatever steps necessary to prolong it and enjoy it as much as possible, (and here is the kicker) while not infringing or taking away or endangering anyone else's ability to do so - Again, I concur. And again, an issue to present for consideration: What makes any one person happy? Now, add to that the idea that infringement is as subjective as anything else. I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that you, as well, know those people who really do think they're doing you a favor when treating you poorly. And, again, this lends toward a larger point.

    - Also, everyone is stuck in the same boat you are in, this is all they get - True ... you can predict the note that goes here.

    - you should help them to be as happy and have as meaningful an existence as you can, so long as it doesn't cause you to have any less of one - This is a sticky proposition as it is debated at Sciforums. We might look to certain debates in the Religion Forum; Raithere and I hope to have something of an answer before we leave the planet, though our discussion is a splinter of your point. Also, take a look around the WE&P forum and note how many people's first reaction to a conflict is to play Pilate and wash their hands of it. While I agree with you on a personal level, neutral consideration advises that the proposition is unsupportable. This is part of that larger point I'm after. I promise, it's coming.

    - They have as much right to be here and have a long and happy existence as I do. - Yes they do. But ....

    - To me this answers the question you kept posing "Why is murder wrong?" Simply because it takes away that other person's chance at a happy existence. - This is as good an answer as any I've praised along the way; you won't find me contesting it with my conscience. However ....

    The larger point I'm after is basically that, while I agree with you pretty much across the board, there is no more objective a foundation to "prove" your position than there is for God's will. Admittedly, the presuppositions are more subtle than any religion, and the atheist carries greater potential for the presuppositions to be functionally useful.

    But, like God, while you can convince me (not that you'd need to) that murder is wrong, it seems rather difficult, if not impossible, to prove that murder is wrong. One can convince another to believe in God, but one cannot prove that God exists; that is, of course, why it's called faith.

    So if you'll forgive a little exploratory probing ... er .. heh-heh ... heh ... heh-heh-heh ... (he said "probing") ... anyway ....

    By what criteria do you establish that the happiness of any one person ... er ... how to phrase it?

    - Rights (no matter how much I love them) are a myth.
    - Murder may have some undiscovered benefit for the strength of the human species (though I doubt it).
    - Happiness ... at some level I think happiness is a fundamental part of life. But because of the amount of subjectivity dominating the human experience, it seems that even happiness is subjective. As one who has escaped various psychological and psychiatric diagnoses apparently by the skin of his teeth, I can assure you that sadness can bring a certain sense of inner redemption. As strange as it sounds, some people find happiness in their despair. Does money buy happiness? All manner of cute saying, though I admit that I think happiness is fundamental and objective at its deepest human level.

    - This also deals with the whole selfishness stigma associated with atheism in that by determining your actions in this manner, not only do you provide yourself with a good life, you do not inhibit your neighbor from the same. - A wonderful principle that I do not contest. Functionally it seems perhaps the ideal, but faces some challenges in a group dynamic. At the root, though, the criteria determining behavior have no objective foundation.

    A neutral idea: we tend to think disease a bad thing and try to control it, though this is a sentimental notion. Bacteria, for instance, have become stronger and stronger in relation to humans since the start of the Antibiotic Wars. I happened across an article the other day ... I can dig it up, I think, if necessary ... about something called a "ramp" antibiotic, and some scientists fear that whatever survives these may be strong enough to pose serious health threats. While I'm not about to suggest allowing such a degree of natural selection as to let disease run rampant throughout humanity, I will suggest that despite our best efforts, our evolutionary capacity to defend against disease is becoming limited, and humans must depend more and more on their ability to manipulate substance (e.g. manufacture drugs). Are we really winning, or do our microbial opponents merely grow stronger in relation to us?

    All I'm after is that there's often a layer of ideas we're not considering. Again, I don't actually disagree with the principles and ideas you've noted, but in relation to the idea of atheism and religion, part of my point in this topic is to point out that atheism, though more subtle, still leaves its adherents to cling to presuppositions.

    Presupposition is a natural condition in human thought; it's a matter of focus.

    In the end, the reason I hijacked this topic is simply because I think that atheists in general may need to sit down individually and consider how important atheism is to them, and if it really is so important that they must act in its advocacy, I propose that there needs to be some sense of contiguity or consistency between the rejection of God on logical or rational grounds (effectively the rejection of what many consider the anchor of morality, discovery, and progress) and the morality (or ethics) and criteria or methods of discovery and progress according to the rejection of God. For me, the quest for objective integrity proved frustrating beyond my capacities; rejecting God for reasons of logic, I sought to ensure that I did not replace the subjective notions of God with some equally-subjective notion of Truth. Thus far, the goal has proven elusive to the point that I've found that many atheists reject the notion of objective integrity; while it is well enough for them to reject what they don't like on "logical" grounds, they have no obligation to objective logic as regards those things they accept or advocate.

    Unfortunately, this position has led me to over a year of haranguing our Sciforums atheists; the more combative parts of this topic are, in truth, about what I've come to expect. And so I thank you again for your response, and reiterate that I tend to agree with you almost across the board. I'm aware, though, that my standards are a delicate arrangement of presuppositions that, in the end, can be clung to as if they were a religion.

    For instance, to revisit your point: Also, everyone is stuck in the same boat you are in, this is all they get, you should help them to be as happy and have as meaningful an existence as you can, so long as it doesn't cause you to have any less of one.

    There are those at Sciforums who, regardless of whether they cheer your expression, will reject it in practice. They may, when brought to application, question the legitimacy of the obligation to others. Frankly, I don't understand them. I want to look at them and say, "Well, it's pretty damn self-eviedent," but then I sound quite religious.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Tyrell Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    33
    With the addition of your last post tiassa, I feel that I have come to see the fullness of your point. It wasn't so much what an atheist may or may not set their morals as, but more you don't think that their methods fit with their claim of logic and proof to be the all-determining factor in their lives. I agree completely that my former post holds no water as far as throwing presuppositions out the window. I am not sure it is ever possible to do so. As for your other major point, the part where I mentioned happiness of others, basically the only time you can really know what would make another person happy is when they flat out tell you, (and I think we both realize how often that happens) so again you are completely correct there. It would be impossible to make all of the people around you happy all the time, because if you acted in a way towards them that would make you happy, you may actually be insulting them on the highest level. That part of my little philosophy may be a bit of a pipe dream at best, but it still stands, because I believe before the human race can progress as a species that the guy next to you must be held in the same esteem you would hold your own existence. Again I have no real objective ground to stand on for that statement, but I will ask you this, Aren't all morals and ethics subjective? Is there any real firm proveable reason to behave in any manner? The only ones I can come up with are applicable laws. (someone else's morals forced on you by the geographic area in which you happen to live)
     
  18. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Re: Raithere, Tyrell

    The fault is likely mine but take all the time you need.

    Meanwhile, a couple of interjections:

    Philosophical debate aside, I find my need to advocate atheism is a response in direct correlation to how much I feel that theism is intruding upon my life. Regarding debate, I reject the objective assertion of God and question the necessity of more transcendental or Gnostic conceptualizations.

    I think you’ve missed part of the point though. Universal Atheism (sorry, I find that term more accurate than weak atheism) is the rejection of the theistic objective assertion not a demand for pure objectivity. Theism rarely confines itself to subjectivity; if it did it is likely that the term atheism would not exist. There is no term, for instance, for those who do not like Jimmy Buffett primarily because Parrot-heads do not insist that their subjective belief is an objective reality. However, if they attempted to legislate parrot-head morality you can bet your ass there would be.

    Generally speaking, there is. For the most part, atheists will similarly reject any objective assertion based upon solely subjective grounds, the claims that they support upon subjective grounds are admittedly so. Atheism is not (or at least I would argue against) a claim to purely objective belief, it is the rejection of the theistic assertion of objective truth.

    ~Raithere
     
  19. kazakhan Registered Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    Amen

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. HonkyDick Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    So is god.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. HonkyDick Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Re: Re: Raithere, Tyrell

    Your ignorance is overwhelming.
    Since when was atheism a belief?
     
  22. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Re: Re: Re: Raithere, Tyrell

    Why can Atheism not be defined as a belief?

    Atheism, by definition, is:
    1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

    According to:
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

    Atheism, in its essence, is:
    A beleief that God does not exist.
    Beleieving that all that exists is what can be observed and measured.
    Beleieving that the Theists are wrong.
    A belief that the supernatural world put forth in Theistic religions ia a farce or is simply incorrect.

    Atehism is a belief system, just as Theism is.
     
  23. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Re: Re: Re: Raithere, Tyrell

    I did not say that atheism was a belief, although it can be. Strong atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

    Come back when you learn how to read and know what it is you're talking about.

    ~Raithere
     

Share This Page