Under atheism, whose opinion decides right and wrong, and why does it?

Any philosophy at all can function as something from which objective moral truth can be derived as long as one chooses to embrace it as such. This is evidenced by the existence of many different philosophies from which objective moral truth has been claimed to have been derived once it has been embraced.

For example, if in your view the universe itself is the most ontologically primary reality, then objective morality would derive from the fundamental nature of any entities that have emerged (according to the universe's own fundamental nature) which are capable of such considerations. In other words, we have evolved into the beings that we are because the universe is what it is, and a basic objective morality is easily derived with that in mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No there isn't. There is Catholic and there are those who do not believe the original teachings of Jesus or in the supreme divinity of the pope.

We associate the "truth" with the people who tell the best lies. There is no absolute truth in nature, much less religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that which improves the survival and future of Humankind

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One of the problems faced by atheism is, even if we work under the assumption that atheism is rational, most people in the world are not fully rational, not is anyone rational 100% of the time. Rather, we also live in the subjective realities created by the free market, advertisers, media, culture, fads, fashion, gangs, philosophies, human nature, instincts, etc.

For example, the hype around a new product, when the old one has not wore out, is not rational, but is based on emotional appeal. Sitting in line for a week to get tickets to a concert is fun at emotional level but is anything but rational. What becomes of the irrational atheists who will appears, who will be the majority of the people and the majority of the time. How does atheism bring this to the future, with so many external and internal forces neutralizing reason, for fun, profit, power and impulse? Religion is geared to this aspect of humans, just as atheism is geared to science and reason. Does atheism have its own agenda in terms of control over the subjectivities of the majority so it can reach the atheist ideal of reason?

Atheism can currently cherry pick birds of a feather, but what happens if it inherits all those majority of humans that are not quite as rational, including those who like to manipulate the irrational, as well as those who enjoy impulse?

Would atheism teach people the art of media manipulation to they can avoid it and not become an irrational atheist? Or would it simply take advantage of this tool to do its own manipulation? Just voiding the concept of God does not equal rational. That conclusion is irrational. Would human nature, in conjunction with atheism, simply take advantage of this opportunity for control? What would that world look like; Stalin, which needs to censor competition, like it already tries to do, or could it still allow for the paradox of majority irrationality?

A good analogy is the chess club. All the students like chess and all have this in common. They might lament how it would be nice if all the students played chess, since it would strengthen the mind. They finally come into power and try to teach the joy of chess, only to have the jocks give them a wedgie. The party hounds are too buzzed to learn. But being in power, do they allow for these differences or do they form a police state to re-educate? The pressure and frustration can cause even the rational to act on irrational impulse; irrational atheism.

 

Given that both theists AND atheists are at the mercy of exactly the same things at the moment, I can't see what this argument is trying to say.

All atheism is is a lack of a single specific belief that theists have.
It is still possible for people to use whatever book, whatever writings they want as their moral guide, in exactly the same way as they are now.

No.

Not all atheists are rational. Do you have any stats that indicate that theists and atheists act in different ways with regard the free market? Are they manipulated differently?

I don't know - but would be interesting to find out.

 

So that's no guide to morality or anything else. You can't follow all religions at once because they all teach something different, including teachings that say there are multiple Gods.

 

The global corperations backed by the armies and police of the states they own the politicians in............ In other words, exactly the same as under christianity.

 

Presumably the benefit of atheism was a liberation from what otherwise would have been, presumably, a perpetual gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the predictable inference that God arbitrarily rewards His believers by sending them murderous overlords for reasons only known to His Divine Providence.

 

the philosophy of atheism is essentially:
that everything in the universe is matter, without any true spiritual or intellectual existence.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/materialism.htm

doesn't surprise me in the least.
what kind of moron outright rejects a notion without solid evidence to do so?

 

You reference truth but you mean belief.

All of the elements of your statement are properly assigned the word "belief". To assert "truth" is to twist the English meaning of the term to the point of fallacy.

Outside of the highly problematic Bible narrative, can you identify one single historical source from the First Century to support this claim?

I will answer in advance, no, because no such evidence exists.

You will have equal difficulty in tracing the historical evolution of the movement that arose in the first few centuries, which you are calling the "church" and any of the extant remnants that come with millenia of historical baggage attached.

 

The philosophy of philosophy is to deny superstition and undisciplined and irrational belief and move on with the actual evidence and rational inferences available.

The philosopher would also reserve the term "moron" for ad hominen use off the board, but sparingly applied only to idiots.


Atheism: atheos: "without god".
"God" does not imply intellect.
(Or: show that it does.)

Spirit: spiritus <- spirare: "to breathe"-> "breath"
The "breath" of life is a biological process evolved from prokaryotic respiration, a fairly simple chemical reaction, and does not depend on the god of theism.
(Or: show that it does.)

Atheism is not concerned with the matter in the universe, or whether a universe even exists. Cosmology may be what you meant. The cosmologist is not concerned with the correlation between stellar objects and the human intellect, since none exists.
(Or: show that it does.)

Atheism does not address/deny the causes of human intellect
(Or: show that it does).

Please be mindful not to resort to fallacy if you do choose to reply.

 

are you going to tell the evolutionist the same thing when they interpret the fossil record in terms of evolution, then point to that interpretation as proof?

where are the lab results that demonstrate this hypothesis?
i hope you realize that the "breath of life" in the biblical sense is synonymous with abiogenesis.

abiogenesis has been proven false so many times that science formulated the scientific law of biogenesis.
to this very day this law still stands, it has not been shown to be false.

if you want to discuss this any further then start a thread for it instead of derailing this one.

 

Everything is matter, including the intellect.

 

That would be incorrect. Atheism isn't a philosophy. What you are describing is a philosophy of materialists. Many atheists also happen to posess a lot of scientific knowledge and know that aside from matter, many entities exist in reality that are not matter... such as length, width, height, time, scalar fields, schrodinger waves, etc. To be honest, I am not even sure if anyone adheres to the materialist philosophy as it requires ignoring quite a bit of scientific knowledge gained over the past 100 years.

 

What kind of moron completely accepts a notion without any evidence to do so?

 

First of all, this thread is a f*cking joke.

Secondly, it's posted in the wrong d*mn subforum!

I was honestly considering putting my two cents in on OP's question, but I can't for the life of me stop laughing at the absurdity of this posts in this thread.

 

Saying one is an Atheist carries exactly the same moral weight as saying one is a non-stamp collector. It tells you nothing about whatever philosophy that person has. For example, I am an Atheist, but I am also a Christian in that I try to follow the teachings(not the myths)of Jesus. He was a wise man. There are other wise men who's teachings I revere(Ghandhi, Budda, Isaac Asimov)but not one of them are convincing as gods, just moral men. As far as learning to be moral, we all learned that in Kindergarden long before we understood the concept of god. The Golden Rule pretty well covers the important things.

 

You're given two idential apples, one is real, the other made of wax, how can you tell the difference?


jan.

 

The one with the worm in it is the real one.

 

My own, because that's the only one I have.

Exactly the same as with religious people.