Why do Atheists Bother?

[Dan_473]

Continuing to reduce this to abstract discussion on semantics, like a mathematical formulation, is not truly representative of the real world circumstances wherein morality is applied. As I've said before, compartmentalizing facets of the argument (making it abstract) detracts from its applicability in real, non-abstract circumstanes (which is of course where the application of morality has genuine function). Motivation, for instance, plays a pivotal role. If my motivation is to save a life, and I must cause suffering, then that would be an exception to ''Do not cause unconsensual suffering to others''. The motive is however, taking into account the intrinstic desire of human beings (and other organisms) to survive.

Isn't that what you do when you say the world'd be better id everyone was Christian?



Well, an inanimate object's blueness has little to do with emotion, psychology, sociology, nor the cause, effects, cirumstances or implications of morality lol. Seems a very daft, uncontextual question.

Tell me this, what moral dilemma can you possibly concieve where having empathy regarding others uconsensual suffering and being willing to follow the implication of that empathy to its deductive conslusion would not motivate a person to do what you consider the normatively ''right thing''?

I mean let's look at this in hypothetical real world circumstances.I want to murder someone. I ask myself would that either cause them unconsensual suffering, go against their natural desire to survive, or be something I would not like done to me? Yes, it would, thus I shouldn't murder someone. I want to steal from someone. Would that either cause them unconsensual suffering, go against their natural desire to survive, or be something I would not like done to me? Yes, it would, thus I shouldn't steal. I want to rape someone. Would that either cause them unconsensual suffering, go against their natural desire to survive, or be something I would not like done to me? Yes, it would, thus I shouldn't rape.

Empathy is not an emotional impulse, it is a cognitive ability.

This system doesn't begin with deontology or the assumption that one is interpreting a book containing apparently objective moral teachings at face value; it begins with subjective personal desire to not suffer unconsensually applied with empathy and ends with a moral conclusion in any circumstance whose means of derivation are consistenly coherent; it has solidarity. The premise is unchanging, continous; do not cause unconsensual suffering or go against another's will to survive, nor do anything I would not like done on me.

"Continuing to reduce this to abstract discussion on semantics, like a mathematical formulation, is not truly representative of the real world circumstances wherein morality is applied."
I understand your frustration... we're talking on a forum... how else are we going to compare and contrast each other's views if we can't take apart the sentences?

 

[Dan_473]

Tell me this, what moral dilemma can you possibly concieve where having empathy regarding others uconsensual suffering and being willing to follow the implication of that empathy to its deductive conslusion would not motivate a person to do what you consider the normatively ''right thing''?

For me, I think the Israelites being told to kill all the Canaanites would be an example.

 

[Dan_473]

Except that I don't see this feeling as coming from beyond myself. It is something I am imposing based upon my cultural upbringing.


I don't think there is. It is a cultural belief on my part that we should apply the Golden Rule, and permit empathy for others to guide our actions. Look at the motto of the Western medical practitioner: do no harm. This is not the motto of radical Islamists who are being guided by their interpretation of the Koran. Morality is imposed by culture, but at the base primate level we see that it even functions among apes, for in their actions we can see much of ourselves.


That would be true if you are Genghis Khan, but in the West we impose legal systems that have been established to protect the rule of law. So obviously that answers your latter comment.

"I don't think there is (a 'right' that is beyond each person's opinion).

Ok, now... when we were talking about Hitler, I had the impression that you thought he was wrong, and that it went beyond just you having one opinion and he having another.




"...in the West we impose legal systems that have been established to protect the rule of law."

No rule of law can change the fact that the more of a gene strand that's spread, the more there is of it... making it more likely to be spread again. If it's the spreading of genes that makes something right, then it's right if the genes are spread.

 

[Dan_473]

Context. Unconsensual suffering in a moral context requires that there be human beings who either inflict or suffer said suffering. Stoves are not humans. My assertion was that suffering is bad when iflicted unconsensually by humans, and it is bad because it is unpleasant and to inflict said suffering maliciously is hypocritical in that one inflicting unconsensual suffering would not like to be inflicted with it.



Okay.



It was bad in that it was unpleasant, not in that it warned you away from burning yourself further. But this is a discussion about moral ethics based on the human infliction of unconsensual suffering. Again, stoves aren't human.



Which is precisely why I've talked about not abstracting things from the context in which I proposed them. This is a discussion about morality. Morality cannot apply to inanimate objects. A moral system based on my ideas of not inflicting unconsensual suffering must by its definition as a form of human morality be a system contextualized by human interaction with other humans.

"Morality cannot apply to inanimate objects."

Exactly... and I hope Percepi responds to my 'fault' question... what is it that makes something 'inanimate'? The root word
is 'soul'... if there are no souls, everything is inanimate... humans as well as car batteries (my example to Percepi)

 

[Dan_473]

I know what you mean. A lot of atheists get up in arms if anyone says they have faith in anything, or use the phrase "converted to atheism" like the TC did in the initial post. I don't get worked up over such things. Belief and faith were important values in my Christian life, and I think they still have a place in my life. And besides, anyone who isn't agnostic is making some kind of faith statement one way or another.



Oh, I agree with you. The realization that the Bible was not infallible was one of the many concessions I made along the way to try to hold onto my Christian faith. I told myself that even if there are errors and inaccuracies, even if certain books were authored by different people altogether, it doesn't change that Jesus Christ came down to this earth 2,000 years ago to die for our sins. In my mind, that event happening was not dependent on whether the English translation of the Bible was infallible or not. And I held onto that notion for quite a while. But it's a slippery slope you can go down when you start conceding things, and I found that I was making so many concessions in so many different areas that my faith ended up unraveling altogether.



I need to go to bed so I won't get too much into it, but basically geology is what crushed my beliefs in a young earth. I live in the Midwest, and the soil topography all around us points to the fact that giant glaciers existed here during the ice age, not just once but over several ice ages. This is just one of the many visible scientific realities that point to the earth being old. Real old. Biology didn't help either. And the problem is that the story of Adam and Eve is crucial to Christianity, not just for the doctrine of original sin but also because Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve as if they really existed when he was talking about marriage. So the Genesis account carries more weight than Christians think, and it really just falls flat under any sort of scrutiny.



Hmm, what do you mean by that?

And can I ask you a question. Do you believe that ex-Christians exist? I only ask because most Christians don't. They think anyone who claims to be a former Christian must have not been a genuine Christian in the first place.

"But it's a slippery slope you can go down when you start conceding things, and I found that I was making so many concessions in so many different areas that my faith ended up unraveling altogether."
I had a different experience... I found that letting go of things that I didn't need to defend, or that didn't make sense to me, strengthened my faith.






"... crushed my beliefs in a young earth."
I can understand that... though, really, is belief in a young earth required? I know some folks will say yes, but I don't think so.





"...Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve..."
This implies that the gospel accounts of Jesus doing that are accurate... I remember talking to a Jewish person who said that Jesus couln't be the Messiah because of the geneologies in the gospels... I asked him if those gospels were accurate, and he said 'no'... he didn't seem able to grasp the oddness of his position...





"Hmm, what do you mean by that?"
Similar to what you said above, "Belief and faith were important values in my Christian life, and I think they still have a place in my life. And besides, anyone who isn't agnostic is making some kind of faith statement one way or another." I took from that that you have beliefs and faith, just different ones than you had before...





"Do you believe that ex-Christians exist?"
I'm going to say 'yes'... going with the definition of 'Christian' as 'one who believes Jesus is the Christ (Messiah)... or C.S. Lewis' approach of 'a person is a Christian if they claim to be.'

 

[Dan_473]

Morality isn't maths. Maths is an abstract scientifically objective means of deduction of number problems via formulaic principles. Morality is a human phenomena ultimately derived from personal psychological rumination influenced by emotion and personal perspective, motivated by a want or perceived need to act in, or enforce, certain behavioural standards. They are worlds apart.

Just because you consider some form of God's morality objective (like maths), doesn't mean it is - it's interpretive and subjective (aka subject to personal feelings, emotions, perspective, want, need).

As for your question on whether there can be a 'correct' interpretation to the bible's moral ethics among the myriad of interpretations that exist, yes, there could well be. But can you or anybody else on planet Earth tell me beyond reasonable doubt, what that singularly correct interpretation is? You can't. So in the real world, applicably, you have absolutely no idea what the exact objectively correct interpretation of biblical morality is, which makes applying any standard you believe is derived from God just as wooly and uncertain and dangerous as you might consider any atheist's moral standards, perhaps even moreso, since you consider your interpretation of biblical moral ethics to be incontrovertible commandments from a supreme creator God with ultimate power and authority throughout the entire universe -- were you to believe, like some interpreters of the bible, that God commanded you to vilify and hate gays and that if the legal system allowed it you should stone them all to death, what in your mentality would stop you from doing that?

The only thing that could possibly stop you would be your own sense of offence at the idea of killing another human being, which is by its definition a personal feeling -- you'd be following a subjective feeling not to stone them to death -- the same subjective feeling of offence that I allow to work in me when confronted with the idea of harming another person.

"Morality is a human phenomena..."

I think this is an opinion.






"...it's interpretive and subjective..."
You can choose to believe that... but it is a belief.





"As for your question on whether there can be a 'correct' interpretation to the bible's moral ethics..."
Did I ask that question? Maybe, but I'm not sure where you're looking...




"...absolutely no idea what the exact objectively correct interpretation..."
This assumes the non-existence of a god capable of communicating with us. You can assume this if you want, of course. I have more joy when I don't assume it.





"...dangerous..."
By whose standard?





"...you consider your interpretation of biblical moral ethics to be incontrovertible commandments..."
I don't think I said that.






"... a supreme creator God..."
Well, if there is one, it would make sense to follow his/her principles, I think.






"...were you to believe... ...what in your mentality would stop you from doing that?
Nothing... but this simply means that people act according to their beliefs.






"...your own sense of offence... ...which is by its definition a personal feeling..."
Yes, ...that's starting to sound like a belief, to me.

 

[Hizikyah]

a variable moral compass is the seed of all kabbalaisim.

aka the law of thelema

the standard of the masonic order....


lol

a weak, pitiful, squirmy, wormy, doctrine

self justification for destroying others life, minds, souls, and bodies all for ones personal gratification....

it real cute when your on top, but as soon as you realize you are heir puppets and they are destroying you along with everyone else.... it not so funny any longer, unless one lives in complete denial....

(the following sentence is a joke)

that is why I propose the the religion of the nwo should be people doing the "wave" in front of a 66.6 ft tall solid gold ostrich statue sticking its head in the sand, you know a "god" many can relate to....

(the previous sentence is a joke)

"some truthers want to scream the bankseters

but they will never tell you who's supreme with gangsters....

jewish papers brag as far back as 100 years ago that without judaisim (talmud/kabbala)

there would be no freemasonry so.....

all you apple pie bakin mason silly guys

you better come clean

all your perks gonna be worth

whats going to happen when they break down the machine?

your smirkin like a cheshire cat

just forget all that

they can not serve 2 masters


thats where the problem occurs-ur-urs

they praise god on the surface but they really worship lucifer-er"

“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."

Malakyah 4:1-4,"For, behold, the day comes that will burn like an oven; and all the proud, yes, and all who do wickedly, will be stubble--the day that comes will burn them up, says Yahweh of hosts; and it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who reverence My Name, the light of righteousness will arise with healing in its wings; and you will go out, leaping like calves released from the stall. And you will tread down the wicked; for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I will do this, says Yahweh of hosts. Remember the Law of Mosheh My servant, which I commanded through him in Horeb for all Israyl, with the statutes and judgments."

 

[Hizikyah]

“Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."

 

[Cycel]

Ok, now... when we were talking about Hitler, I had the impression that you thought he was wrong, and that it went beyond just you having one opinion and he having another.

I do think he was wrong, but that does not mean I believe the deciding factors that determine right and wrong are carved into the heavens. We make decisions as a society, and as individuals, and we must make such decisions or face anarchy. It is the dominant view of Western society that Hitler was wrong, and I agree with that view.

"...in the West we impose legal systems that have been established to protect the rule of law." – Cycel

No rule of law can change the fact that the more of a gene strand that's spread, the more there is of it... making it more likely to be spread again. If it's the spreading of genes that makes something right, then it's right if the genes are spread.

Where did you get the notion that evolution implies you can determine a best course of action through examining who is spreading more of their own genes? I have never heard anyone make this claim. I think this is the argument of someone who doesn’t like evolution and seeks to denigrate it by associating it with absurd claims.

As I said earlier, “It is a cultural belief on my part that we should apply the Golden Rule, and permit empathy for others to guide our actions.” If you are looking for an evolutionary explanation I could give one, but I would need to write a long essay to explain myself. I don’t have the time and you don’t likely have the patience, but if you truly want an explanation then start with Frans de Waal’s book, Our Inner Ape.

 

[Hizikyah]

Where did you get the notion that evolution implies you can determine a best course of action through examining who is spreading more of their own genes?

Cycel I want to ask you something, not trying to argue I just want to ask because evolution screams this ideal to me....

doesn't evolution fully utilize survival of the fittest?

I mean if we all evolved would it not be whoever is willing to steal, kill, lie, etc would get ahead and be in control?

the ones who evolved into "gazelles" would be eaten by those of evolved in to "lions"? and this would be completely normal, natural and acceptable?

 

[Dan_473]

There are only one of those decisions (kill or not kill) which accomodates interpersonal solidarity for a trait evident in each and every human being who has ever existed -- to feel unwanted physical or psychological suffering and intensely dislike it.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying, here... I would say that killing or being killed doesn't have to involve suffering.

 

[Cycel]

"...for me, it is the [moral code] I've chosen and weighing up the options it seems the best one, to my reasoning." – Human

Very cool! Other people will have other reasoning, assumptions, values... to them, a different moral code will seem to be the best one...

That's right Dan. Obviously different cultures have different moral values. This is as true today as it was in the past. Our history and our cultural background has given us a unique perspective on how we judge right from wrong. However, it should be obvious from the great diversity of codes around the world and throughout history that there is no single moral code that reigns supreme. As a Christian you might wish that the code you stand by is writ in the heavens, but if this were so we would not see the diversity of moral values that we do.

The facts of the case are clear. Humans design their own morality, and some go so far as to compose sacred literature demonstrating that their gods, coincidentally, holds the same moral views they do. This accounts for and explains the sacred dominance of men over women (in a patriarchal society and approved by a patriarchal god), and the approval of slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. It should be no surprise that the God of the Old Testament approved the level of violence that men of that time saw fit to perpetrate on their enemies.

 

[nogard]

"...Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve..."
This implies that the gospel accounts of Jesus doing that are accurate... I remember talking to a Jewish person who said that Jesus couln't be the Messiah because of the geneologies in the gospels... I asked him if those gospels were accurate, and he said 'no'... he didn't seem able to grasp the oddness of his position

Well that points to the main argument Christians have against a fallible Bible. If certain parts are in error, how do you know which parts? How can you trust any of it? It gives someone permission to formfit the Bible to fit what they believe, disregarding things they don't like/agree with as error or inaccuracy, or as figurative and not literal.

"... crushed my beliefs in a young earth."
I can understand that... though, really, is belief in a young earth required? I know some folks will say yes, but I don't think so.

I suppose it's possible, but once again, when you start adding concession upon concession it becomes a slippery slope. The farther you stray away from mainstream Christianity, the more you end up with your own personalized version of Christianity that you will find both Christian and atheist alike sharing disbelief in.

Furthermore, all of those things listed so far are not even the main reason why I no longer believe. And that is the problem of evil. The God of Christianity is not good. Even if He did exist, I would not want to worship someone so cruel and arbitrary.

Now, what I am about to say is not directed to you personally, but it is something I have come across time and time again when discussion with Christians about why I no longer believe.

There is not one singular reason why an ex-Christian no longer believes. It was not just because of one specific thing, but rather a collection of things. If asked, they will give some of the main reasons, but they alone aren't all of them. What Christians will often do, and once again, I'm not saying this is you, but what they will do is grab one of those reasons and say something like this: "Oh, you stopped believing because of this one thing? How foolish. Clearly you don't understand how that thing can be resolved." They say it in a manner to suggest that one's deconversion was based on some trifle, shallow reason, and hints at that person's lack of understanding. This is incredibly annoying to deal with because it's never just one reason. It is a collection of reasons and realizations that build off of eachother.

 

[Dan_473]

I do think he was wrong, but that does not mean I believe the deciding factors that determine right and wrong are carved into the heavens. We make decisions as a society, and as individuals, and we must make such decisions or face anarchy. It is the dominant view of Western society that Hitler was wrong, and I agree with that view.

"...in the West we impose legal systems that have been established to protect the rule of law." – Cycel


Where did you get the notion that evolution implies you can determine a best course of action through examining who is spreading more of their own genes? I have never heard anyone make this claim. I think this is the argument of someone who doesn’t like evolution and seeks to denigrate it by associating it with absurd claims.

As I said earlier, “It is a cultural belief on my part that we should apply the Golden Rule, and permit empathy for others to guide our actions.” If you are looking for an evolutionary explanation I could give one, but I would need to write a long essay to explain myself. I don’t have the time and you don’t likely have the patience, but if you truly want an explanation then start with Frans de Waal’s book, Our Inner Ape.

"It is the dominant view of Western society..."
So, the answer to the question 'Who's to say Hitler was wrong', the answer, if I understand you, is 'Western society.' Myself, I'm not really into the 'most people think this, so it must be right' approach, if that's what you're endorsing...






"Where did you get the notion that evolution implies you can determine a best course of action through examining who is spreading more of their own genes?"

That's what I understood from your post 1068,

"He who demonstrates empathy contributes to the survival of the group and passes on more genes. That is what Darwin called survival of the fittest."

 

[Human]

Cycel I want to ask you something, not trying to argue I just want to ask because evolution screams this ideal to me....

doesn't evolution fully utilize survival of the fittest?

I mean if we all evolved would it not be whoever is willing to steal, kill, lie, etc would get ahead and be in control?

the ones who evolved into "gazelles" would be eaten by those of evolved in to "lions"? and this would be completely normal, natural and acceptable?

Just because the idea that the physically fittest specimen in a given emvironment survives offends you in that you automatically equate it with a sociopolitical-moral ideology that places value on killing, stealing and lying, doesn't mean that evolution (a scientific theory regarding physical characteristics with no moral implication in and of itself) leads people to kill, steal and lie and not give a hoot about it.

Incase you don't remember, Christians are several times more likely, throughout the developed and undeveloped world, to commit a prison-worthy offence than atheists. In America, Christians are 103 times more likely.

A person can have beliefs about the method by which humanity came to be that do not have to define their moral ideologies. I can believe you and I are physically, at the most fundamental level, the exchange of electrons, because it's true. That doesn't mean I place absolutely no value on your life. Quite the opposite actually. The complexity that those energetic exchanges give rise to makes me appreciate just how undeniably astounding this Earth and the things in it are. They gain value.

 

[Human]

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying, here... I would say that killing or being killed doesn't have to involve suffering.

It does have to involve ignoring that your own will to survive, you own will to not be violated or murdered, would be violated by being murdered and that by murdering someone else your actions are not in interpersonal solidarity (you violate another's desire not to be killed against their will) because of that. It's really a matter of equilibrium; no person on this entire planet wants to be caused any suffering or caused a death they do not want to be inflicted with. So, it logically stems from there that in order to have that desire recognized one should not cause another to suffer unconsensually nor should one murder another unconsensually. Just the same, nobody on this Earth wants to be unwantedly violated in any means; by theft, by rape, by adultery, by violence. It is logically conclusive then that to see these things recognized, a person should not do these to another person.

Not everyone wants to steal, not everyone wants to rape, not everyone wants to murder, but EVERYONE doesn't want to be unconsensually violated in any of these ways. Thus, there is a universal human desire to not be unconsensually violated upon which a human being can base their moralities, and such a moral system is self-regulating and coherent and consistent in that it must always, constantly, take into account that principle. If I should at any time believe some desire of mine not inherent in all others, thus not universal (to rape, to kill, should I have such desires) is at any point warranted I should only need to ask myself whether carrying out that desire contradicts the universal desire not to be unconsensually violated or inflicted with suffering.

If it does, then I have my answer on whether it's right or wrong.

Take you for instance. You, like every other human, do not desire to be inflicted with unconsensual suffering nor to be violated unconsensually. Say I felt like punching you. I would ask if that violates your will not to suffer unconsensually. The answer is that it would indeed violate that will. Thus, I would decide not to punch you.

As for the suffering my own anger and suppressed desire to hit you causes, that is a product of my own cognition and emotion. You did not cause it, thus you have not caused me to suffer. I have caused myself to suffer and I should learn in future how to recognize and detachedly view that anger rather than be sucked into any tempting situation by it.

 

[Cycel]

Cycel I want to ask you something, not trying to argue I just want to ask because evolution screams this ideal to me....

doesn't evolution fully utilize survival of the fittest?

Yes, I believe so, but being fit only means to pass on more genes. There are plenty of ways to do that without being violent, and in fact, maybe violence and force are the least effective ways of achieving this.

I mean if we all evolved would it not be whoever is willing to steal, kill, lie, etc would get ahead and be in control?

I think you can answer that for yourself. If you did these things how long do you think it would be before you were hunted down or simply incarcerated, perhaps for life, or until you were well past reproductive prime? In small human groups the key to survival is cooperation and effective conflict resolution techniques among community members. Not every act affecting evolutionary outcome is red in tooth and claw.

the ones who evolved into "gazelles" would be eaten by those of evolved in to "lions"? and this would be completely normal, natural and acceptable?

Natural for the lions, yes, but not acceptable to the gazelles, and kid yourself not, early humans residing on the African plains were often the prey. They best way to survive and pass on your genes was not through stealing, lying or killing your own kind.

 

[Dan_473]

Cycel I want to ask you something, not trying to argue I just want to ask because evolution screams this ideal to me....

doesn't evolution fully utilize survival of the fittest?

I mean if we all evolved would it not be whoever is willing to steal, kill, lie, etc would get ahead and be in control?

the ones who evolved into "gazelles" would be eaten by those of evolved in to "lions"? and this would be completely normal, natural and acceptable?

Stealing, killing, and lying can certainly promote gene spread in some situations.

 

[Percepi]

I'd like to sum up a lot of these morality arguments with one simple phrase.

You keep telling me I have to base my morality off of God or somehow base it off our origins and evolution. Why does it have to be based off of one of those? Why can't my morality be based off of other things such as human emotion and philosophy?

 

[Hizikyah]

Yes, I believe so, but being fit only means to pass on more genes. There are plenty of ways to do that without being violent, and in fact, maybe violence and force are the least effective ways of achieving this.


I think you can answer that for yourself. If you did these things how long do you think it would be before you were hunted down or simply incarcerated, perhaps for life, or until you were well past reproductive prime? In small human groups the key to survival is cooperation and effective conflict resolution techniques among community members. Not every act affecting evolutionary outcome is red in tooth and claw.


Natural for the lions, yes, but not acceptable to the gazelles, and kid yourself not, early humans residing on the African plains were often the prey. They best way to survive and pass on your genes was not through stealing, lying or killing your own kind.

..........