So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[plumjam]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Might as well just go about my life, without wasting energy on going to church or draining my bank accounts to pay for a new sound system.

[plumjam]

Might as well just go about my life, without wasting energy on going to church or draining my bank accounts to pay for a new sound system.

yeah, nothing positive then

[skoob]

Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
No, of course not. Being atheist means lack of theist beliefs. Nothing more. Asking for atheist values is like asking about foreign culture. Do foreigners celebrate Christmas? If so, what kind of food do they eat? Make sure to give an answer that applies to all foreign cultures (i.e. every culture except your own).

The only thing you can be sure that two atheists have "in common" is that they lack a belief in gods. The only thing you can be sure that that two foreigners have "in common" is that they don't share your nationality. If you realise this, the answers to all of the questions you posed should be evident.

[plumjam]

No, of course not. Being atheist means lack of theist beliefs. Nothing more. Asking for atheist values is like asking about foreign culture. Do foreigners celebrate Christmas? If so, what kind of food do they eat? Make sure to give an answer that applies to all foreign cultures (i.e. every culture except your own).

The only thing you can be sure that two atheists have "in common" is that they lack a belief in gods. The only thing you can be sure that that two foreigners have "in common" is that they don't share your nationality. If you realise this, the answers to all of the questions you posed should be evident.

so it's basically an emptiness, a nothingness

[m_huber]

If you live your life for a purpose, and that purpose is grounded in a lie, then have you made good use of your life? Arguably, there is no truly good endeavor. Medicine only delays the inevitable. Death will come to all beings, to all species, and even to the universe. Belief in some form of higher power or afterlife is an attempt to make life meaningful. However, if no deity exists, then those who believe in that deity are certainly doing nothing to "make the world a better place." I find meaning and purpose in simply enjoying the world as it actually is. I am much less confused and disturbed by the world than I was when I still believed in God.

"Rescuing others" is not what atheism is about. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Many religions attempt to "rescue" the "perishing," but atheists have no dogma comparable to the Great Commission. Some do choose to actively convert believers to non-belief (Randi and Dawkins immediately come to mind), but that is a personal choice.

I would suggest that Daniel Dennett, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Frederick Neitche, and numerous other famous and well-educated philosophers have already answered your question with regard to values. Your library probably has a nice section on atheism.

[Graham Ross]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically asantaist 'values'?
Are there any specifically asantaist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?[/QUOTE]

[plumjam]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically asantaist 'values'?
Are there any specifically asantaist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?[/QUOTE]

as I expected, entirely negative

[plumjam]

Arguably, there is no truly good endeavor.


Folks, this is where atheism, taken to its extreme, leads you.

Really, need I say any more? :rolleyes:

[86kam]

you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Live life to it's fullest, make the best of your genetic lottery winning..

Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.
Ok. Then what?
Why do you characterize atheists as some kind of crusader type? Most atheists I know are merely concerned with truth and facts. How many atheist missionaries do you know?

What can you do that is positive?
I help, or try and help someone everyday... that's what I do that's positive.. no god required.
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Like a set of rules such as laid out in the bible?? I don't think so. You seem to be making the error of equating atheism with some kind of belief system, morality, or philosophy. I think It isn't. Atheism, at it's kernel, is lack of belief in a deity, pointe finale, that's it, that's all.

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)
What religious affiliation is the Red Cross? UNICEF?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

Humanism, if you like.

[Graham Ross]

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
I don't think I've heard of any.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm)

Now you have.

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]Live life to it's fullest, make the best of your genetic lottery winning..

do you remember entering a lotter before birth? no. thus it was not a thing of chance.

Why do you characterize atheists as some kind of crusader type? Most atheists I know are merely concerned with truth and facts.
being concerned with truth and facts does not necessitate atheism, so that is not a plausible atheist characteristic

How many atheist missionaries do you know?

we hear about them all the time on this forum, and they're admired by the majority.. such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc..


I help someone everyday... that's what I do that's positive.. no god required.
sure, but I bet becoming atheist did not in any way help you in this regard


Like a set of rules such as laid out in the bible?? I don't think so. You seem to be making the error of equating atheism with some kind of belief system
of course it's a belief system, commonly it's a belief in exclusive materialism


Atheism, at it's kernel, is lack of belief in a deity, pointe finale, that's it, that's all.
sorry, but that's just naive. Lack of belief in certain things, such as the spiritual, commonly promotes beliefs and values based on a world view based on their opposite.. i.e. materialism

What religious affiliation is the Red Cross?
the clue is in the question

UNICEF?
that's an intergovernmental organisation covering all nations, with their varying religions, so it couldn't be religious
it's not exactly a charity as the term is commonly used

[plumjam]

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm)

Now you have.

does that derive it's identity or inspiration from atheism?

[plumjam]

Humanism, if you like.

what are the great contributions of humanism to humanity?

[Tricky]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Continue with my life.

Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?
I continue to live, love, create, laugh, cry, give, accept, enjoy... in short, just about everything you do.

What can you do that is positive?
Lots of stuff. Did you see that thread the The Atheist started to help a fellow forumite down on their luck?

As for myself, I am fairly active in social causes, especially environmentalism. I write my congresscritters. I teach. As it turns out, my family requires a good deal of help from time to time, so I spend a lot of effort on that. What sort of positive things are you looking for?

Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
No. Values are values. It doesn't matter where you get them from. Mine are probably similar to yours, except the one where you try to perpetuate your choice of myths. I don't spend a lot of time on that one.

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
No. The charities I give to are, for the most part. secular, not atheist. I even occasionally give money or time to religious charities, though I try to be sure the money is not used to proselytize. A lot of the things I do are for environmental causes, but I also help out when there are disasters. I spent many hours helping the victims of Katrina.

But I don't do any of it in mercenary hopes of some reward from God. I do it because it is the right thing to do and because I love people.

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
Not many. They aren't as interested in self-promotion as religious charities are. Most atheists simply do their good deeds without advertising atheism. We have nothing to sell.

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.
I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If there's a flaw in my methods, perhaps you could point it out to me.

[skoob]

so it's basically an emptiness, a nothingnessKind of. The word "atheist" doesn't say anything about a persons beliefs, values or hair colour. All it means is lack of one particular belief. An atheist might believe in absolutely nothing or they might believe in absolutely everything except for deities.

The word "atheist" only makes sense from a theist perspective. If there were no theists, there would be no reason to point out that a person lacks theist beliefs. Calling someone "non-Nepalese" only makes sense from a Nepalese perspective. It is only useful to distinguish people from Nepal from everybody else. In some situations it might be useful to consider people as either Nepalese or not -- if you are discussing things that are unique for Nepalese people. However, being non-Nepalese doesn't really say anything about a person except for their lack of Nepalese nationality. If Nepal didn't exist, there would be no non-Nepalese people.

[SezMe]

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.
Try to leave the world a little better off than when I arrived. However you want to measure "better".

Which, speaking of "better", is far, far "better" than trying to proselytize some poor sods into thinking that playing a harp forever is a good thing.

[Graham Ross]

does that derive it's identity or inspiration from atheism?

Well it is a secular charity. And Bill Gates is an atheist. So, yes.

[plumjam]

Continue with my life.


I continue to live, love, create, laugh, cry, give, accept, enjoy... in short, just about everything you do.


Lots of stuff. Did you see that thread the The Atheist started to help a fellow forumite down on their luck?

As for myself, I am fairly active in social causes, especially environmentalism. I write my congresscritters. I teach. As it turns out, my family requires a good deal of help from time to time, so I spend a lot of effort on that. What sort of positive things are you looking for?


No. Values are values. It doesn't matter where you get them from. Mine are probably similar to yours, except the one where you try to perpetuate your choice of myths. I don't spend a lot of time on that one.


No. The charities I give to are, for the most part. secular, not atheist. I even occasionally give money or time to religious charities, though I try to be sure the money is not used to proselytize. A lot of the things I do are for environmental causes, but I also help out when there are disasters. I spent many hours helping the victems of Katrina.

But I don't do any of it in mercenary hopes of some reward from God. I do it because it is the right thing to do and because I love people.


Not many. They aren't as interested in self-promotion as religious charities are. Most atheists simply do their good deed without advertising atheism. We have nothing to sell.


I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If there's a flaw in my methods, perhaps you could point it out to me.

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.
Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.

[plumjam]

Kind of. The word "atheist" doesn't say anything about a persons beliefs, values or hair colour. All it means is lack of one particular belief. An atheist might believe in absolutely nothing or they might believe in absolutely everything except for deities.

The word "atheist" only makes sense from a theist perspective. If there were no theists, there would be no reason to point out that a person lacks theist beliefs. Calling someone "non-Nepalese" only makes sense from a Nepalese perspective. It is only useful to distinguish people from Nepal from everybody else. In some situations it might be useful to consider people as either Nepalese or not -- if you are discussing things that are unique for Nepalese people. However, being non-Nepalese doesn't really say anything about a person except for their lack of Nepalese nationality. If Nepal didn't exist, there would be no non-Nepalese people.

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.
The moral systems derived from exclusive materialism have proved to be disastrous.
Possibly this is why atheists now are so reluctant to admit to explicitly tying their atheism to anything non-negative.

[Graham Ross]

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.
Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.

So we should expect to see a higher rate of atheists in prison than theists, right?

[plumjam]

Well it is a secular charity. And Bill Gates is an atheist. So, yes.

going by that logic Live Aid was inspired by unkempt Irish single fatherhood.

[plumjam]

So we should expect to see a higher rate of atheists in prison than theists, right?

did you win a high school trophy for the long jump?

[Undesired Walrus]

what are the great contributions of humanism to humanity?

Italian Neo-Realism.

[Undesired Walrus]

And I resent the idea I have no desire to help others because I am an Atheist, and thus follow no values. Working in the homeless sector, with a dear colleague being an Atheist too (An ex-heroin addict who quit it not because of Christ but himself), I have to stick a strong, stiff middle finger up at you.

[zooterkin]

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.
The moral systems derived from exclusive materialism have proved to be disastrous.
Possibly this is why atheists now are so reluctant to admit to explicitly tying their atheism to anything non-negative.

Do you live near a farm? I imagine it would be handy for the amount of straw you must need.

[plumjam]

Italian Neo-Realism.

well, I'd never heard of it.. so I Wiki'd it, and it turns out to be a film movement starting in 1943 and ending in 1951.
I don't know, maybe it did some good. But it couldn't have been very much.

[Graham Ross]

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.

Butter usually goes along with bread. Going by your logic, butter and bread must be the same thing.

[Tricky]

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
I would venture to say this is the same with you. Oh sure you give God credit, but do you honestly think your morality would be different if the only thing different about you was that you had a different view of religion? If so, then you might want to consider if you really are a good person at heart or if you're doing it for praise.

Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.
LOL. You think so? I think some theists do, while other theists hate and murder our fellow human beings. Some even use their theism as an excuse. Western Christianity is not this way as much as it used to be, but it is still very much self-serving.

Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
What matter are atheists required to keep silent on? You seem to continue to object because atheism is not an organized church that makes press statements. If anything, atheists are more moral than theists because they don't seek recognition when they do something good.

Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
Having been exposed to theists all my life, I've discovered that they are just humans. Some of them are more moral than others. Some of the "positive moral exhortations typical of theism" amount to people who blame natural disasters on sinners. Some theists exhort people to send money to their television mission. Some prey on the elderly and grieving by promising them communication with the dead that they cannot deliver.

This whole "Theists are more moral than atheists" tack is a losing one, Plumjam, and a thinly veiled insult at people who, for the most part, are every bit as moral as you. And you are by no means the first theist to make such insulting statements. Is insulting those who don't share their religion part of their "positive moral exhortations"? It sounds pretty hateful to me. I'm glad most theists don't feel this way.

That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.
Actually, it suggests that theists are basically immoral, and must be herded into morality by making them believe a myth. Of course, this is not true, but I caution you about pursuing this line of logic. It will backfire on you.

[plumjam]

And I resent the idea I have no desire to help others because I am an Atheist, and thus follow no values. Working in the homeless sector, with a dear colleague being an Atheist too (An ex-heroin addict who quit it not because of Christ but himself), I have to stick a strong, stiff middle finger up at you.

yeah, but the point is that neither of you were so inspired by atheism that you chose to go into working with the homeless, whereas some people who wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of doing that are so inspired by theism that they go into that area.

[WDB]

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.
The moral systems derived from exclusive materialism have proved to be disastrous.
Possibly this is why atheists now are so reluctant to admit to explicitly tying their atheism to anything non-negative.

Can you cite some evidence to support your apparent belief that atheism is synonymous with materialism. It's certainly not true of the atheists I know.

[Undesired Walrus]

well, I'd never heard of it..

No wonder.:rolleyes:

so I Wiki'd it, and it turns out to be a film movement starting in 1943 and ending in 1951.
I don't know, maybe it did some good. But it couldn't have been very much.

Oh, so now it is some good is it? Tell me, when a man picks hair from his head, at which stage does he go bald? Is it when 3,142 hairs have been removed or 3,143?

It produced The Bicycle Theives, often called the greatest film of all time, and Sight And Sounds Number One Film of all time. There is also a very interesting scene in a church. It says a lot.

[Undesired Walrus]

yeah, but the point is that neither of you were so inspired by atheism that you chose to go into working with the homeless, whereas some people who wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of doing that are so inspired by theism that they go into that area.

Is it better to do things because they are the right things to do or because you feel God will approve?

[Undesired Walrus]

And yet somehow, when the Pope, God's supposed representative on Earth, says that you shouldn't save yourself from AIDS with condoms, this isn't a black stain on Christian 'values'.

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]I would venture to say this is the same with you. Oh sure you give God credit
I don't give God credit for anything.

but do you honestly think your morality would be different if the only thing different about you was that you had a different view of religion? If so, then you might want to consider if you really are a good person at heart or if you're doing it for praise.
on a personal level, in my case (which is the only case I can speak about with any authority) I would say that throughout my adult life, even when I was an atheist, I was reasonably moral, with my faults. Theism, however, has tended to reduce my feeling of separation from other sentient beings, resulting in a greater feeling of empathy and compassion.
It'll be different for every individual, but I believe that is the general trend.


LOL. You think so? I think some theists do, while other theists hate and murder our fellow human beings. Some even use their theism as an excuse.
If and when they do that they're wrong. It's a practice much more common and intense in moral systems which expressly forbid theism.

Western Christianity is not this way as much as it used to be, but it is still very much self-serving.
Is it? Or is it just that your mind focuses on the self-serving bits rather than the huge charitable part?

What matter are atheists required to keep silent on? You seem to continue to object because atheism is not an organized church that makes press statements.
There is no central dictat, but then that is not needed. They commonly keep silent on the consequences of moral and political systems that have shared their exclusive materialism.

If anything, atheists are more moral than theists because they don't seek recognition when they do something good.
well, we just saw Bill Gates

Having been exposed to theists all my life, I've discovered that they are just humans. Some of them are more moral than others.
Agreed.

Some of the "positive moral exhortations typical of theism" amount to people who blame natural disasters on sinners. Some theists exhort people to send money to their television mission. Some prey on the elderly and grieving by promising them communication with the dead that they cannot deliver.
Yeah. Some.


This whole "Theists are more moral than atheists" tack is a losing one, Plumjam, and a thinly veiled insult at people who, for the most part, are every bit as moral as you. And you are by no means the first theist to make such insulting statements. Is insulting those who don't share their religion part of their "positive moral exhortations"? It sounds pretty hateful to me. I'm glad most theists don't feel this way.
If you interpret all this as insulting that's your prerogative. It wasn't meant as an insult; I started the thread to try to get atheists to face up to the 'what next?' aspect of their belief system... which IMO is basically a big nothing.
I would never say any individual atheist is likely to be less moral than any individual theist. But there is massive denial about the dangers of exclusive materialism when that philosophy is allowed to be expressed in the form of moral and political systems.
I don't believe this has yet been fully admitted or reflected upon by the great majority of atheists.
Further to that, the kind of politicking in favour of exclusive materialism going on recently.. if that were translated into political power, I'm sure the great majority of atheists here would be horrified by the end results.
Sure, it's not likely to get far off the ground, but the likely consequences if it did are not something ever honestly addressed here.

[plumjam]

No wonder.:rolleyes:



Oh, so now it is some good is it? Tell me, when a man picks hair from his head, at which stage does he go bald? Is it when 3,142 hairs have been removed or 3,143?

It produced The Bicycle Theives, often called the greatest film of all time, and Sight And Sounds Number One Film of all time. There is also a very interesting scene in a church. It says a lot.

that's great. It's all had such an impact on humanity that for some reason society has been hiding all this from me for all my 36 years :rolleyes:

[linusrichard]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades,
Yes, 3.
you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.
Yes.
Well.
Here you are.

Indeed. Here, as you adeptly point out, I am. I am here. Here I am.
What do you do now?
Well, I'm trying to balance law school with being a husband and a new dad, which is challenging, but a lot of fun. Also I try to hang out with friends, play some Wii, maybe do some reading, see a movie now and then.
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.
That's an interesting description of what a lawyer does, actually, although I don't think it applies to all lawyers. I suppose it could also be an description of what a parent does, in a sense. So, as a new parent and a soon-to-be lawyer, maybe I will spend a few years doing that.

Or did you mean proselytizing for atheism? Why would I spend a few years, or even a few minutes, doing that?
Ok. Then what?
Retirement, travel, more reading.
What can you do that is positive?
Mainly raise my daughter the best I can. Career-wise, some lawyers are in a position to do very positive things. Think Ralph Nader, think Gideon's Trumpet, think The Buffalo Creek Disaster. I don't know if I'll be in that position, but I can hope! Maybe I could get into politics, if the American public can overcome its bigotry enough to consider voting for an otherwise qualified atheist (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm).
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Of course not. Assuming you don't believe in leprechauns, are there any values you hold that directly flow out of your nonbelief in leprechauns?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
Not that I'm aware of. But I'm pretty sure there are secular (non-religious) charities. Bill Gates gives billions through his foundation, and he's at least an agnostic, maybe an atheist. Warren Buffet is an atheist and he gives billions as well. It doesn't matter to me if a charity is administered by theists or atheists, as long as it's administered well. Also, there's nothing stopping me from giving to a religious charity - again, presuming it's administered well. If I make enough money, I could even start my own atheist charity. Red Nothing? No, what's the point? If I start a charity, it would be secular, of course, but there's no reason it would have to be specifically atheist. Do you know of any charities specifically devoted to a nonbelief in leprechauns? Isn't it the case that most charities completely ignore the question of the existence of leprechauns? That would be my charity's position on God.
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)
Indeed. I think some of those charities are probably fine, and when I start making some money, I wouldn't be surprised if some of my charitable giving goes to religious charities.
Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.
Raising my daughter. Completing my degree. Establishing my career, and hopefully making a positive difference through my work. Further service through politics, if it seems feasible (not likely). Charitable giving. Retirement. Travel. The pleasures of growing old with my family. Dying in my sleep at an advanced age. And that would be it!

Is this what you were looking for?

[plumjam]

Is it better to do things because they are the right things to do or because you feel God will approve?

if they are the right things God will approve. your conscience will help you to work it out

[plumjam]

And yet somehow, when the Pope, God's supposed representative on Earth, says that you shouldn't save yourself from AIDS with condoms, this isn't a black stain on Christian 'values'.

there is a whole self-consistent rationale behind that which would need a whole other thread to go into.

[plumjam]

Can you cite some evidence to support your apparent belief that atheism is synonymous with materialism. It's certainly not true of the atheists I know.

Exclusive materialism. A materialism which denies the possibility of supposedly non physically verifiable entities like souls, gods, God, demons etc..
I am speaking to this forum, and my experience of this forum is that every atheist I have spoken to or read has been an exclusive materialist.

[plumjam]

linusrichard,

I was going to answer your long response, but what you wrote was about 80% facetious and not particularly related to atheism, so I decided not to.

Thanks anyway, and good luck in your job and pastimes.

:D

[linusrichard]

Really, need I say any more? :rolleyes:

Assuredly no.

[plumjam]

Try to leave the world a little better off than when I arrived. However you want to measure "better".
Is that inspired by your atheism, or would you have done that anyway?

Which, speaking of "better", is far, far "better" than trying to proselytize some poor sods into thinking that playing a harp forever is a good thing.
you have a pretty inadequate view of religion, those proselytizers must have been crap

[86kam]

do you remember entering a lotter before birth? no. thus it was not a thing of chance.
Are you serious? Prove one has to be cognizant to win something? Ever get a lotto ticket for a birthday gift?

being concerned with truth and facts does not necessitate atheism, so that is not a plausible atheist characteristic
Big fat ***** strawman here, I'm not surprised. Where did I say that being concerned with facts necessitates atheism??? Try R.E.A.D.I.N.G. what I stated.. I stated:
Most atheists I know are merely concerned with truth and facts.
You are bordering on cognitive dissonance here...


we hear about them all the time on this forum, and they're admired by the majority.. such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc..
They state their views publicly, wonderful. Where do they go out of their way to turn people from one belief to another... I am remembering something I learned about catholics and native americans, there's a hint.....

sure, but I bet becoming atheist did not in any way help you in this regard
Stop moving those goalposts. That wasn't the original question was it??

of course it's a belief system, commonly it's a belief in exclusive materialism
There is no "belief" in atheism... how can it be a belief system??? If it's a belief system, what are the tenets and doctrine?? Even a child can figure this one out. It is a position held based on the evidence.



sorry, but that's just naive. Lack of belief in certain things, such as the spiritual, commonly promotes beliefs and values based on a world view based on their opposite.. i.e. materialism
Incorrect. Atheism is simply lack of belief in a deity. Any other philosophy is simply subjective reasoning. Stop throwing all your strawmen about... the crows will come a calling.


the clue is in the question
Concerning the Red Cross?? Oh Please... do enlighten me.:rolleyes:


that's an intergovernmental organisation covering all nations, with their varying religions, so it couldn't be religious
it's not exactly a charity as the term is commonly used
Really? What does UNICEF do then? You distort the role to suit your argument.. It is ABSOLUTELY a charity, one can donate, one can claim said donation on a tax form. You lose on ALL counts..

[Graham Ross]

Exclusive materialism. A materialism which denies the possibility of supposedly non physically verifiable entities like souls, gods, God, demons etc..
I am speaking to this forum, and my experience of this forum is that every atheist I have spoken to or read has been an exclusive materialist.

Every christian I've ever met has enjoyed U2. Does that mean christians and U2 fans are the same thing?

[dglas]

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.

Ehhhntt!!! Dead wrong!
If there is anything that distances humanity more from itself than religion, I cannot imagine it. From the farcical self- and other-hatred represented by original sin (intrinsic evil) to the devaluation of humans below that of a delusional webwork of lies. This is precisely what I am talking about when I speak of philosophies being tools, not truths. Philosophies exist to serve people, not the other way around. As tools philosophies can be powerful servants. As "Truths" philosophies can be enslavement machines.



Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.

Again, entirely mistaken. One can derive or acquire one's values from any of a number of sources. I see no particular reason why one should derive one's values from the webwork of lies and anti-humanity hatred that is religious truth-think. That so-called morality is a means to an ends - the subjugation of humanity to one philosophy, which cannot but be a serious error.

Better, I would say, to recognize that one's values are a result of the persons around you, the reasonable expectations you have of them and that they have of you and attempts to try to universalize these, and do away with the nonsense of "objective morality" grounded in a psychopathic monstrosity.

Positive secular values? Longer life spans with better quality of living, progress in terms of human efficacy, a better tomorrow for our children. That some cannot (scratch that!) refuse to see these things as positive without the gawd element is not a sign of an atheist's failure - it is a symptom of an attempt to define all things in terms of gawd and render meaningless anything that does not derive from it. It is a shoehorning of positive human traits into the wrong shaped slots.

The future is not meaningless. Children are not meaningless. Other people are not meaningless. We can perceive them as having value in themselves, entirely without gawd. In fact, we must do away with gawd to allow their value to become clear, rather than subordinate to some miscellaneous, anonymous, third-rate, ill-conceived, cynical, anti-human dogma. People are more than cogs in a dogmatic machine; more than a means to an end. It is not the atheist's failure that the religious cannot (will not) see this.

Atheism doesn't necessarily lead to these particular values, but without it we don't even have a chance of reaching them - the lie of "Truth" gets in the way.

In reality, religious thinking is so rife with contradictions and incoherencies that it does not, in fact, consistently prohibit or encourage anything at all. To those who say that without gawd, there is no guiding light, the only proper answer is to point out just how dim that "light" is, that light that advocates murdering children and killing non-believers on sight, indoctrinating the young with self-hatred and terror, covering up sexual abuses, the list or exemplary morality goes on and on and on. If that's morality, it's time to leave morality by the wayside and come up with something better. There's a reason that "light" is so dim; it is not founded in humanity. It is the subjugation of humanity - the sickness that infects us when we elevate philosophies to Truths and think them more important the people.

It's time to do better, and we can do better...but not until we have pulled ourselves from the quagmire of superstition, horror, hatred, cruelty, self-loathing and subjugation of humanity that is religion, and the symbol and icon of that anti-human thinking, gawd.

Atheism is the first step towards a morality for living, breathing, loving, multi-faceted, full-living-colour humanity, not just abstracted pawns in a two-dimensional black & white dogmatic scheme.

Religion qua pre-packaged morality is a deliberate failure to accept responsibility for one's attitudes, not just one's actions, but one's attitudes. How many more young women have to die of cancer caused by HPV before we realize that the "high road" is a dead end?

[linusrichard]

linusrichard,

I was going to answer your long response, but what you wrote was about 80% facetious and not particularly related to atheism, so I decided not to.


None of it was facetious.

Most of it was unrelated to atheism because your open-ended questions ("What do you do now?"; "What can you do that is positive?") had nothing to do with atheism. Open-ended questions elicit longer responses. The questions you wrote that did relate to atheism were easily answered with a "yes" or a "no," so I didn't write much about them. That's the root of the disparity. If you want people to write more about atheism, ask more open-ended questions about atheism.

[Modified]

if they are the right things God will approve. your conscience will help you to work it out

You could use that logic to justify all sorts of nasty behavior.

[lupus_in_fabula]

what are the great contributions of humanism to humanity?

Recognizing that we don’t need to invent celestial beings and arbitrary doctrines thereof in order to enjoy life to the fullest; recognizing the also numinous nature of life without devaluing that with supernatural explanations; realizing that our short existence here is exceptional and real, and we can make the best of it, towards ourselves and others, without having to rely on celestial dictums.

In short: everything in terms of goodness that theist claim to have a prerogative for, is a faculty all humans can share, without religious incantation.

Or as I would perhaps put it: Wake up and smell the coffee!

[Tricky]

on a personal level, in my case (which is the only case I can speak about with any authority) I would say that throughout my adult life, even when I was an atheist, I was reasonably moral, with my faults. Theism, however, has tended to reduce my feeling of separation from other sentient beings, resulting in a greater feeling of empathy and compassion.
It'll be different for every individual, but I believe that is the general trend.
For me, it was just the opposite. But it shouldn't surprise you that whatever you belive now, you feel that it is the right way. Otherwise, why would you believe it?

If and when they do that they're wrong. It's a practice much more common and intense in moral systems which expressly forbid theism.
They don't think they're wrong. And I don't think you can support your second statement. Religious wars have been going on since the earliest recorded history. (Note: In this space we can insert a long discussion about Stalin and Pol Pot. It's been done. Let's not derail.)
Is it? Or is it just that your mind focuses on the self-serving bits rather than the huge charitable part?
I see both. But church charities also benefit the church. Where do you think they got all those nice buildings? They are not totally altruistic. Of course, if you can show me some elaborate atheist temples, I'll concede this point.

There is no central dictat, but then that is not needed. They commonly keep silent on the consequences of moral and political systems that have shared their exclusive materialism.
No they don't. They just don't announce their atheism. The reason is that a good idea should stand on its own, not be propped up by an appeal to false authority.

well, we just saw Bill Gates. Where did Bill Gates announce that his charity was in the name of atheism? Somebody else mentioned it. As far as I know, he doesn't advertise his beliefs at all. Very moral of him.

If you interpret all this as insulting that's your prerogative. It wasn't meant as an insult; I started the thread to try to get atheists to face up to the 'what next?' aspect of their belief system... which IMO is basically a big nothing.
I answered your question about what's next. But I honestly don't understand how you can say that atheists tend to be less moral than theists without it being insulting.

Now if I said, "It is my observation that theists tend to have lower intelligence than atheists," would you find that insulting?

I would never say any individual atheist is likely to be less moral than any individual theist. But there is massive denial about the dangers of exclusive materialism when that philosophy is allowed to be expressed in the form of moral and political systems.
Do you think so? I have the idea that you are switching between two different definitions of materialism. We aren't all in the Ayn Rand "get what you can for yourself" boat. Scientifically, materialism only states that there is no evidence for anything beyond the material world. That has no moralistic connotations whatsoever. Once again, doing something good for a spiritual reward is less moral, IMO, than doing it because of pure empathy. It is like the child who will only do their homework if their parent is watching.

I don't believe this has yet been fully admitted or reflected upon by the great majority of atheists.
It has not been admitted because it is not true. It's been reflected on plenty.

Further to that, the kind of politicking in favour of exclusive materialism going on recently.. if that were translated into political power, I'm sure the great majority of atheists here would be horrified by the end results.
Maybe you'd better define what you mean by "materialism" before we go on here. It almost sounds as if you're using it as a synonym for greed.

Sure, it's not likely to get far off the ground, but the likely consequences if it did are not something ever honestly addressed here.
You've been here fewer than six months. I think you would be surprised at the number of things that have been honestly addressed here. Unless by "honest" you mean "agreeing with you".

[plumjam]

None of it was facetious.

Most of it was unrelated to atheism because your open-ended questions ("What do you do now?"; "What can you do that is positive?") had nothing to do with atheism. Open-ended questions elicit longer responses. The questions you wrote that did relate to atheism were easily answered with a "yes" or a "no," so I didn't write much about them. That's the root of the disparity. If you want people to write more about atheism, ask more open-ended questions about atheism.

why doesn't it surprise me that you're a lawyer?
everyone else has implicitly recognised that the 'what next' is obviously related to how atheism affects the 'what next' :rolleyes:

[plumjam]

You could use that logic to justify all sorts of nasty behavior.

it's up to your own conscience whether you would use that to justify nasty behaviour or not

[plumjam]

Recognizing that we don’t need to invent celestial beings and arbitrary doctrines thereof in order to enjoy life to the fullest; recognizing the also numinous nature of life without devaluing that with supernatural explanations; realizing that our short existence here is exceptional and real, and we can make the best of it, towards ourselves and others, without having to rely on celestial dictums.

In short: everything in terms of goodness that theist claim to have a prerogative for, is a faculty all humans can share, without religious incantation.

Or as I would perhaps put it: Wake up and smell the coffee!

sounds nice enough, but rings hollow to me. It's all surface, with no deeper meaning or directionality.

[Tricky]

sounds nice enough, but rings hollow to me. It's all surface, with no deeper meaning or directionality.
Are you not capable of finding your own direction? Must you be given one?

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]For me, it was just the opposite. But it shouldn't surprise you that whatever you belive now, you feel that it is the right way. Otherwise, why would you believe it?
People can go for years believing something in a pretty superficial way, all the time with the uneasy feeling that there's something wrong with it.

They don't think they're wrong. And I don't think you can support your second statement. Religious wars have been going on since the earliest recorded history. (Note: In this space we can insert a long discussion about Stalin and Pol Pot. It's been done. Let's not derail.)
well, yeah, but that's more avoidance isn't it.. whenever atheism has been tried on a grand scale it has been disastrous, much worse than any religious abuses in the past.

I see both. But church charities also benefit the church. Where do you think they got all those nice buildings?
cathedrals etc are generally built to glorify God, many took many decades to build, so the original instigators were dead at completion

Of course, if you can show me some elaborate atheist temples, I'll concede this point.
You're adding to my argument here. Atheists are not inspired enough by their atheism to want to build even a shack in the back garden.


I answered your question about what's next. But I honestly don't understand how you can say that atheists tend to be less moral than theists without it being insulting. we've had this conversation before, and i've never made that accusation on any individual level, but remember the moral funneling concept.

Now if I said, "It is my observation that theists tend to have lower intelligence than atheists," would you find that insulting?
not at all, in fact to some extent it would make some sense.
intellectual types are more apt to identify with their head than their hearts or souls, whereas often 'simpler' people identify more with their hearts and thus find that the spiritual approach to life resonates more with them. There are plenty of famous saints who were not intellectual, or academic.. many were semi literate or illiterate altogether.


Do you think so? I have the idea that you are switching between two different definitions of materialism. We aren't all in the Ayn Rand "get what you can for yourself" boat. Scientifically, materialism only states that there is no evidence for anything beyond the material world. That has no moralistic connotations whatsoever. Once again, doing something good for a spiritual reward is less moral, IMO, than doing it because of pure empathy. It is like the child who will only do their homework if their parent is watching.
do you really think religious people generally do things because of that? I agree with you that it's better to do it out of empathy. Spiritual practice is a tried and tested millenia old method of developing one's existent empathy.


Maybe you'd better define what you mean by "materialism" before we go on here. It almost sounds as if you're using it as a synonym for greed.exclusive materialism in the philosophical sense, i.e. denying the possibility of things like Gods, the afterlife, objective morality.. etc
Not consumerism.


You've been here fewer than six months. I think you would be surprised at the number of things that have been honestly addressed here. Unless by "honest" you mean "agreeing with you".
perhaps, but my experience is that the moral consequences of exclusive materialism (atheism) have not been adequately faced.

[plumjam]

Are you not capable of finding your own direction? Must you be given one?

talking about objective meaning and directionality, not the subjective 'life's what you make it' meaningless 'meaning' and 'directionality.

[plumjam]

ok folks, lots of answers, cheers... going for a kip now

[Dr Adequate]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now? Lunch.

[lupus_in_fabula]

sounds nice enough, but rings hollow to me. It's all surface, with no deeper meaning or directionality.

Meaning and directionality is what we make of it. There are people who are uncomfortable with ‘is’ and will rather live in ‘ought’ regardless of how preposterous such ambition might form into. I guess it says more about the person than the actuality of the situation thou. Unless you can’t find solitude in existence (in and of itself), then you might be searching endlessly, and never endingly projecting what's not there. A waist of this precious existance I think.

[cyborg]

well, yeah, but that's more avoidance isn't it.. whenever atheism has been tried on a grand scale it has been disastrous, much worse than any religious abuses in the past.

plumjam, you may want to open your eyes to the UK.

You see those people in Newcastle on the street? Most of them couldn't give less of a **** about religion.

Just an FYI.

[Lord Emsworth]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

A bunch of stupid questions, that is what comes next.

[Nogbad]

Lunch.

:)

Coffee and doughnut for me

I need it because I am completely baffled by this oneupmanship of good deeds.

Ecclesiastes 1:2 springs to mind.

[linusrichard]

why doesn't it surprise me that you're a lawyer?
everyone else has implicitly recognised that the 'what next' is obviously related to how atheism affects the 'what next' :rolleyes:

Oh, obviously I recognized that that's what you were going for. But I didn't think I had an obligation to give you the answers you were fishing for. I gave you honest answers to the questions you actually asked. If you don't like the answers you're getting, maybe you should be asking different questions.* Or maybe, if you're not satisfied with honest answers, you shouldn't ask questions at all.

They weren't honest questions. You weren't looking for answers, you were looking for confirmation of your worldview. You were looking to make a point. When my honest answers to your dishonest questions showed the flaws in the point you were trying to make, you dismissed them as "facetious" and dismissed me as a "lawyer," and made :rolleyes:.

What is it you're trying to do here, anyway?




*Is that from a movie?

[DOC]

Why do you characterize atheists as some kind of crusader type?

I imagine he did because many are:

Madeline Murray O'Hare was a atheistic crusader who led the campaign to kick prayer out of schools.

All these new books coming out by atheists (like Hitchens) are on a crusade against Theism. For example Hitchens even attacked Nobel Prize winner Mother Teresa -- that sounds like a crusader to me.

The ACLU is on a Crusade to remove all religion from public areas. (like manger scenes at Christmas)

You seem to be portraying modern atheists as some laid back, passive, live and let live group when the evidence is otherwise.

Atheists have the right to be on crusades, but don't deny they are on crusades.




You seem to be making the error of equating atheism with some kind of belief system, morality, or philosophy. I think It isn't. Atheism, at it's kernel, is lack of belief in a deity, pointe finale, that's it, that's all.[/b]

The "American Atheists" organization would disagree with you. The definition of atheism they put on their website does have a belief system and a specific philosophy. I counted the words "believe or beliefs" about 8 times in the definition of atheism they have on their site.

From American Atheists website:

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers
of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/


Atheists have the right to have all of these beliefs but people shouldn't deny atheists have beliefs (which happens a lot in these threads).

[H3LL]

Just keep busy.

The alternative...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/3180479b1f8501ec2.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10388)

is wasting time and doing nothing useful.

.

[Mojo]

Why not ask DOC (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3363538#post3363538) what he'd do if he thought he would get away with it without suffering divine retribution?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Avoid wasting any more time of my life responding to insipid questions like the OP?

[cyborg]

Atheists have the right to have all of these beliefs but people shouldn't deny atheists have beliefs (which happens a lot in these threads).

Do you understand the difference between a class and an instance?

[calebprime]

Yes, 3.

Yes.

Indeed. Here, as you adeptly point out, I am. I am here. Here I am.

Well, I'm trying to balance law school with being a husband and a new dad, which is challenging, but a lot of fun. Also I try to hang out with friends, play some Wii, maybe do some reading, see a movie now and then.

That's an interesting description of what a lawyer does, actually, although I don't think it applies to all lawyers. I suppose it could also be an description of what a parent does, in a sense. So, as a new parent and a soon-to-be lawyer, maybe I will spend a few years doing that.

Or did you mean proselytizing for atheism? Why would I spend a few years, or even a few minutes, doing that?

Retirement, travel, more reading.

Mainly raise my daughter the best I can. Career-wise, some lawyers are in a position to do very positive things. Think Ralph Nader, think Gideon's Trumpet, think The Buffalo Creek Disaster. I don't know if I'll be in that position, but I can hope! Maybe I could get into politics, if the American public can overcome its bigotry enough to consider voting for an otherwise qualified atheist (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm).

Of course not. Assuming you don't believe in leprechauns, are there any values you hold that directly flow out of your nonbelief in leprechauns?

Not that I'm aware of. But I'm pretty sure there are secular (non-religious) charities. Bill Gates gives billions through his foundation, and he's at least an agnostic, maybe an atheist. Warren Buffet is an atheist and he gives billions as well. It doesn't matter to me if a charity is administered by theists or atheists, as long as it's administered well. Also, there's nothing stopping me from giving to a religious charity - again, presuming it's administered well. If I make enough money, I could even start my own atheist charity. Red Nothing? No, what's the point? If I start a charity, it would be secular, of course, but there's no reason it would have to be specifically atheist. Do you know of any charities specifically devoted to a nonbelief in leprechauns? Isn't it the case that most charities completely ignore the question of the existence of leprechauns? That would be my charity's position on God.

Indeed. I think some of those charities are probably fine, and when I start making some money, I wouldn't be surprised if some of my charitable giving goes to religious charities.

Raising my daughter. Completing my degree. Establishing my career, and hopefully making a positive difference through my work. Further service through politics, if it seems feasible (not likely). Charitable giving. Retirement. Travel. The pleasures of growing old with my family. Dying in my sleep at an advanced age. And that would be it!

Is this what you were looking for?


None of it was facetious.



Lunch.

Oh, obviously I recognized that that's what you were going for. But I didn't think I had an obligation to give you the answers you were fishing for. I gave you honest answers to the questions you actually asked. If you don't like the answers you're getting, maybe you should be asking different questions.* Or maybe, if you're not satisfied with honest answers, you shouldn't ask questions at all.

They weren't honest questions. You weren't looking for answers, you were looking for confirmation of your worldview. You were looking to make a point. When my honest answers to your dishonest questions showed the flaws in the point you were trying to make, you dismissed them as "facetious" and dismissed me as a "lawyer," and made :rolleyes:.

What is it you're trying to do here, anyway?



I was going to answer, then I saw this exchange with linusrichard. My answer would have been merely a variation on his, with some individual differences. They weren't honest questions.

[thatguywhojuggles]

I used to be able to pick up some great recipes in threads like this one. What's up guys??

[Bluefire]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Ok


Well.
Here you are.

Obviously


What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

That's quite the assumption. I don't debate religion to "save" people. I do it as a hobby, and as a mental exercise. Also, I have a strong interest in ideas/philosophy, and religion is obviously part of that.


What can you do that is positive?

Live my life to the fullest extent possible.


Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?

No, because Atheism is not a philosophy. It is a position on one specific question.


Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?

Not Atheist, because that kind of charities are held together by a common thread that is more comprehensive than one specific position on one question. There are alot of specific charities that are not specifically religious.


Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

Live the life you have. Be productive, make friends, fullfill your dreams if you have any.

I think you are sort of asking the question "no god? Well, then what is the meaning of life?"

To me, life doesn't need a meaning "higher" than itself. Eg. the meaning of life is itself, eg living. Have as much fun and experiences as you want. I specifically do not think that the meaning of life is to be a "charity".

I would also say that religion doesn't help in this question at all (eg. if you can not find a meaning in a life on earth without a god: What meaning would there be in a life with god after this life?).

So what am I doing? I work hard (as a software engineer). I help people that have value for me (mostly family). I try to train up hobbies that I think are fun (I'm shooting a gun at a club, and I train the Piano as well as some composing) . I debate different stuff intellectually, and occasionally I party and let loose.

I do not subscribe much to the stereotype of what one should do to be "good":
- I do not personally give much to charity (and I'm not the slightest embarrassed by that). My life is mine, and I help the ones that mean something to me.

If you need to know my philosophy, I consider myself highly influenced by Ayn Rand and her philosophy objectivism. Atheism is but a small part, and by far not the most significant part of it.

[Bluefire]

Folks, this is where atheism, taken to its extreme, leads you.

Really, need I say any more? :rolleyes:

The hell it is. Atheism is one position on one question. The questions of morality is a question answered by a philosophical system. There are several philosophical systems , that have an atheistic position, that gives moral quidance, and definitions of what is good.

[Bluefire]

yeah, but the point is that neither of you were so inspired by atheism that you chose to go into working with the homeless, whereas some people who wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of doing that are so inspired by theism that they go into that area.

I am also not inspired by my ahomeopathy to start a charity. And I am not inspired by my adowserism, also, curiously not my ademonism either.

As we can see, there is obviously no ademonist charities. As such, not believing in demons implies a big void... :rolleyes:

[linusrichard]

Atheists have the right to have all of these beliefs but people shouldn't deny atheists have beliefs (which happens a lot in these threads).

First, let's leave the ACLU out of it. The ACLU is not an atheistic organization. They defend civil liberties for all, including Christians:
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=26128
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308170613/http:/www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/freespeech/News-SpokTransit.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html


Next, the others you mention, O'Hair was just an individual. Hitchens is just an individual. American Atheists is just a group. They can claim to speak for all atheists, but they don't really. I think you are a Christian - would you like me to post what Latter Day Saints thinks a Christian is and try to hold you to it? Or (far worse) Westboro Baptist? Or World Church of the Creator? Of course not. If I'm talking about Christians in general, I'm going to use a generally applicable definition of Christian. You have to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, maybe virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection, and that he is some kind of redeemer or messiah. Same idea with atheists. Atheists for Jesus is an atheist group. Church of Satan is basically an atheist group. I think the Raelians are too. That doesn't make me responsible for their beliefs, or them for mine.

Hitchens might be on a "crusade" (I don't know, I'm no fan of Hitchens), but if he is, it's not The Atheist Crusade, it's just an atheist's crusade.

[Bluefire]

everyone else has implicitly recognised that the 'what next' is obviously related to how atheism affects the 'what next' :rolleyes:

Atheism only has a small effect on the "what next". The effect is more of the fact of no eternal life -> this life is more valuable. Atheism (or rather, a(personal god theism)) itself also inspires one to take full responsibility for making what one wants happen. When I was religious I often prayed for stuff I wanted instead of working to get it.

Other than that it's a question of philosophy, not a question of atheism.

[Bluefire]

talking about objective meaning and directionality, not the subjective 'life's what you make it' meaningless 'meaning' and 'directionality.

How does religion give you that?
In what way is the eternal life with god "meaningful", in a way that this life would not be?

[Bluefire]

I imagine he did because many are:

Madeline Murray O'Hare was a atheistic crusader who led the campaign to kick prayer out of schools.

All these new books coming out by atheists (like Hitchens) are on a crusade against Theism. For example Hitchens even attacked Nobel Prize winner Mother Teresa -- that sounds like a crusader to me.

The ACLU is on a Crusade to remove all religion from public areas. (like manger scenes at Christmas)

You seem to be portraying modern atheists as some laid back, passive, live and let live group when the evidence is otherwise.

Atheists have the right to be on crusades, but don't deny they are on crusades.

Some atheists are (not many, not nearly as big percentage as christians though). I think it is appropriate. Because if you think that this life matter, and humanity matters, then ideas matter alot.




The "American Atheists" organization would disagree with you.

The "American Atheists" organization would be wrong. What they describe seems to be some outline of what could be a humanist philosophy.

[DanishDynamite]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.
I guess I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "What next"?

What next is that you live your life.

Can you elaborate on your question?

[DanishDynamite]

so it's basically an emptiness, a nothingness
What is "basically an emptiness, a nothingness"? Your life as an atheist?

[Sleepy]

Might as well just go about my life..
yeah, nothing positive then


Oh, life? That's some negative **** right there man. You need yourself some reeeligiyoooon, brother!

[Akhenaten]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

No, that's where I started


Well.
Here you are.

You mean "There you are." No way am I where you are.


What do you do now?

Whatever I feel like, mostly


Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Let's not. I have no interest in any such thing. Stupidity is its own punishment - why would I interfere?


Ok. Then what?

I'll die


What can you do that is positive?

In most people's opinion, as above.


Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?

No.


Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?

Yes

(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Read more. Believe less.


Well, it's up to you. What next?

Nothing


Preferably positive.

I'm absolutely positive.

[Upchurch]

What religious affiliation is the Red Cross?
the clue is in the question
I haven't read the entire thread, but has this truely uninformed response been addressed?

The Red Cross (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_cross) was started in Switzerland. The name and its symbol comes from a reversal of the Swiss flag's colors. It is not a Christian affiliated organization. Or with any religion, for that matter.

If you are looking for a secular non-religious charity, the Red Cross is one of the best.

[Fitter]

First, let's leave the ACLU out of it. The ACLU is not an atheistic organization. They defend civil liberties for all, including Christians:
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=26128
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308170613/http:/www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/freespeech/News-SpokTransit.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html



DOC can never leave the ACLU out of it. Next we'll hear from the famous historian Suetonius how Elvis was one of the disciples or some such thing. Please don't do anything to discourage his belief though, as it appears that his fear of eternal damnation is the only thing keeping the rest of us safe.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Atheism is neither a comprehensive philosophy of life, nor the absence thereof. Nor an epistemological or ontological position such as "materialism".

Atheism means not being gullible about one particular thing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Exclusive materialism. A materialism which denies the possibility of supposedly non physically verifiable entities like souls, gods, God, demons etc..
I am speaking to this forum, and my experience of this forum is that every atheist I have spoken to or read has been an exclusive materialist.

Then you need to read more closely. What you have experienced is not materialism but monism. The denial of the "non-physical" does not derive from an exclusive reliance on "materialism" (whatever that is) but on the incoherence of dualism.

Would you like to defend dualism? I, for one, would be very interested to hear how dualism could work when closely examined. So, launch away.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Exactly the same things I did after I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny. And the same things I plan to do after I stop believing in the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune.

~~ Paul

[H'ethetheth]

Is that inspired by your atheism, or would you have done that anyway? In other words, we learn the following:

- Atheist does something good: Atheist would have done so anyway, and is not inspired by atheism.
- Atheist does something bad: Atheist has no morals, and is therefore inspired by his atheism.

How does this work for theists?

- Theist does something good: Theist has theistic morals, and is therefore inspired by his theism.
- Theist does something bad: Theist would have done so anyway, and is not inspired by theism.

From this of course follows that:

a) Theism is good.
b) Atheism is bad.

Also,

- 500 g chicken breast, diced
- 500 g mie noodles
- 800 g broccoli, in bits
- garlic to taste
- 1 onion, diced finely
- 1 generous amount Kechap Manis (sweet soy sauce)
- 2 dollops Thai sweet chilli sauce
- 125 ml crème fraiche
- curry powder
- Sambal Ulek
- some vegetable oil

Brown the chicken breast, garlic and onion in vegetable oil, add chilli sauce, stir for a while until it gets hot, add Kechap and Broccoli, and stir. Put a lid on the wok and let it simmer until the broccoli are cooked to taste. In the mean while, prepare the mie noodles according to the instructions no doubt supplied with the noodles. Season the chicken mixture with more Kechap, sambal and curry powder to taste. Add the creme fraiche, et Bon appétit!

[JoeEllison]

This sort of negative thread tells us much more about plumjam than I think he means to let on. Clearly, his life is empty and meaningless, and only religion keeps him from killing himself. He has little interest in helping other people, and projects that feeling onto atheists. His intentional misunderstandings and projections allow him to avoid examining his own life.

He's had all of this explained to him before. He isn't stupid, so clearly he's having a bad week, and is looking to prop up his own emotional state by pretending that he has more in his life by being a theist, because of his claim that atheists have less. It is pretty pathetic, and we should all feel a little bit sorry for him.

[tumnus]

what a nasty, mean-spirited and spiteful thread.

It shows off the last desperate throw of someone trying to argue with a theist agenda, then getting some stabs in. for example, evolution can't be true, it must be god, else how horrible the world would be. (that's not a strawman but an actual argument i've heard)

The most inspiring quote to me was from Carl Sagan, talking of Kepler: "he prefered the truth, even if it was uncomfortable, to his most cherished fantasies or hopes" (paraphrased cos I dont want to dig it up just yet)

So what if there is a god? To me it doesnt really answer any of my questions, just let's someone else worry about them while I try hard to serve him. Its not so much an answer to my problems as much as an opiate, stopping me thinking about it. Which I admit, some people do need.

So what if there is no god, looking out for you? Well, there's not much you can do about it, is there? Best stop whining about it, grow some 'cohones', and act like a man. I was born with a spinal tumour which nearly crippled me, I don't whine about it. Just play the cards that are dealt.

*hmmm, i'm reminded of The Godfather, when Marlon Brando admonishes the singer Johnny Fontaine*

[jjramsey]

When Hemant Mehta had his "motivational poster contest," (http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/06/friendly-atheist-contest-8-atheist-haiku/) my contribution (attached) had the slogan "Atheism: Sometimes you got to knock stuff down before you build things up." Of course, atheism by itself is negative, but atheism is just a clearing out of certain false beliefs that can get in the way of correctly understanding the world around us. Bulldozers are "negative" in a sense, too, but they are often necessary for construction.

[Eskarina]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

Yes, here I am. Hello! :)

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Rescue humans from stupidity? I'm not Sisyphos.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?

Continue with my work and my life? I'm just saying, you know...

Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?

Are there any speffic values at all?

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

What's to stop someone from going to a senior citizen's home and spend a day with one of the old folks there? Picking up litter? Donating money to AI? And what does that have to do with religion?

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

I'll continue doing my work in adult aducation and enjoy the fact that religion doesn't come into it.

[blobru]

I used to be able to pick up some great recipes in threads like this one. What's up guys??

take:
one half-pint theist

stir in:
two-bits semi-sweet chocolate guru
several tonnes spiritual superiority derived therefrom
one dose delusion whatever feelings of emptiness and self-loathing led you to guru / God must be universal

strain fragile ego yolks
beat until tender & spongey

fill void with goo
half-bake
frost with "love"
project onto others

... voilà ...
1 divine OP!

[DanishDynamite]

take:
one half-pint theist

stir in:
two-bits semi-sweet chocolate guru
several tonnes spiritual superiority derived therefrom
one dose delusion whatever feelings of emptiness and self-loathing led you to guru / God must be universal

strain fragile ego yolks
beat until tender & spongey

fill void with goo
half-bake
frost with "love"
project onto others

... voilà ...
1 divine OP!
Almost as idiotic as Ignoring someone, is posting ******** posts on a thread.

[Ichneumonwasp]

This sort of negative thread tells us much more about plumjam than I think he means to let on. Clearly, his life is empty and meaningless, and only religion keeps him from killing himself. He has little interest in helping other people, and projects that feeling onto atheists. His intentional misunderstandings and projections allow him to avoid examining his own life.

He's had all of this explained to him before. He isn't stupid, so clearly he's having a bad week, and is looking to prop up his own emotional state by pretending that he has more in his life by being a theist, because of his claim that atheists have less. It is pretty pathetic, and we should all feel a little bit sorry for him.

I usually don't like taking such an approach, but after reading this thread I think I have to say, "Spot on". It is pretty pathetic, especially since this has all been explained to him repeatedly.

ETA:

To which he is likely to respond, "Oh, how typical of all those atheists, negativity, negativity, negativity."

Plumjam, please examine the beam in your own eye.

[ohp]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?


Devoid of all morals, and unguided by a book of truth, I rampage the earth, causing pain and suffering to my fellow man - inflicting malicious acts on people, such as cutting a hand off someone who stole from me, stoning my adulterous wife, and letting my injured children die for want of a blood transfusion. I persuade people that condoms are laced with HIV, so they should have unprotected sex, and I spend none of the money I was given to relieve the pain of the dying, because I get a kick out of pain and suffering.

Only kidding, I don't think I could be that malicious!

[JoeEllison]

I usually don't like taking such an approach, but after reading this thread I think I have to say, "Spot on". It is pretty pathetic, especially since this has all been explained to him repeatedly.

ETA:

To which he is likely to respond, "Oh, how typical of all those atheists, negativity, negativity, negativity."

Plumjam, please examine the beam in your own eye.

It isn't as though I much enjoy it either... but at some point, you have to realize that not everyone views the world in the same way that you do. For instance, if you were to ask the questions that plumjam asks, it would be because you actually want an answer. You would listen to the answers, take them as serious and honest answers, and try to gain some knowledge from it. He is just asking so that he can bash atheists and make himself feel more complete by calling atheists less than him. If you conduct yourself with him as though he shares your motives, you'll get nothing but frustrated.

By the same token, plumjam could use a lesson in seeing things from another person's perspective. He has a giant hole in his life, that he fills with religion. He seems to be asking how atheists can live with that gaping abyss in themselves, without religion to fill it. He doesn't understand that, at least for many atheists, that hole simply doesn't exist. We don't need to find something to fill a hole that we don't have.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . . And the same things I plan to do after I stop believing in the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune.

~~ Paul
That's just crazy talk.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It isn't as though I much enjoy it either... but at some point, you have to realize that not everyone views the world in the same way that you do. For instance, if you were to ask the questions that plumjam asks, it would be because you actually want an answer. You would listen to the answers, take them as serious and honest answers, and try to gain some knowledge from it. He is just asking so that he can bash atheists and make himself feel more complete by calling atheists less than him. If you conduct yourself with him as though he shares your motives, you'll get nothing but frustrated.

By the same token, plumjam could use a lesson in seeing things from another person's perspective. He has a giant hole in his life, that he fills with religion. He seems to be asking how atheists can live with that gaping abyss in themselves, without religion to fill it. He doesn't understand that, at least for many atheists, that hole simply doesn't exist. We don't need to find something to fill a hole that we don't have.

Excellent points.

[calebprime]

Almost as idiotic as Ignoring someone, is posting ******** posts on a thread.

Can't you give us a tasty Danish recipe?

also, what 8-letter word did you intend here?

meshugah?

[thatguywhojuggles]

...

Also,

- 500 g chicken breast, diced
- 500 g mie noodles
- 800 g broccoli, in bits
- garlic to taste
- 1 onion, diced finely
- 1 generous amount Kechap Manis (sweet soy sauce)
- 2 dollops Thai sweet chilli sauce
- 125 ml crème fraiche
- curry powder
- Sambal Ulek
- some vegetable oil

Brown the chicken breast, garlic and onion in vegetable oil, add chilli sauce, stir for a while until it gets hot, add Kechap and Broccoli, and stir. Put a lid on the wok and let it simmer until the broccoli are cooked to taste. In the mean while, prepare the mie noodles according to the instructions no doubt supplied with the noodles. Season the chicken mixture with more Kechap, sambal and curry powder to taste. Add the creme fraiche, et Bon appétit!

Thats more like it! :D Now, what the heck is a Sambal Ulek?? Is it like a Neptunian Slug?

[blobru]

Can't you give us a tasty Danish recipe?

also, what 8-letter word did you intend here?

meshugah?

No, pretty sure he meant "********"! (Though the recipe doesn't really call for that... maybe in Denmark, pickled?)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Unlike Upchurch I have just read the entire thread(I read fast) and all I can say is that,
"Folks you are trying to edcate someone who thinks Men Should Sit on the Toilet to Pee."


Pah!

[Jimbo07]

damn!

:mad:

ETA: Gord, PM...

[Nogbad]

Devoid of all morals, and unguided by a book of truth, I rampage the earth, causing pain and suffering to my fellow man - inflicting malicious acts on people, such as cutting a hand off someone who stole from me, stoning my adulterous wife, and letting my injured children die for want of a blood transfusion. I persuade people that condoms are laced with HIV, so they should have unprotected sex, and I spend none of the money I was given to relieve the pain of the dying, because I get a kick out of pain and suffering.

Only kidding, I don't think I could be that malicious!

You weren't fooling anyone - nobody could be that twisted.

[Eskarina]

Unlike Upchurch I have just read the entire thread(I read fast) and all I can say is that,
"Folks you are trying to edcate someone who thinks Men Should Sit on the Toilet to Pee."


Pah!

Men Who Sit On The Toilet To Pee Do Not Need Edyucashuon!!!!

Bah, Humbug!

[UnrepentantSinner]

what a nasty, mean-spirited and spiteful thread.

Ooops, I thought I'd accidently clicked on a thread where a skeptic who was a theist had posted.

But it's trolljam, so nevermind.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thats more like it! :D Now, what the heck is a Sambal Ulek?? Is it like a Neptunian Slug?

How dare you! Sambol Olek is the 2nd tier hot cock sauce produced by the Huy Fong company - ironically in California.

[thatguywhojuggles]

How dare you! Sambol Olek is the 2nd tier hot cock sauce produced by the Huy Fong company - ironically in California.

Valuable information... so this thread is not a total waste of space.

[tumnus]

Ooops, I thought I'd accidently clicked on a thread where a skeptic who was a theist had posted.

But it's trolljam, so nevermind.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I've got plenty of time and respect for skeptics who are theists. I've compassion enough to realise people need stuff to get through the day, or may approach a problem from a completely different direction to me.

Its just the OP was followed up with loads of vicious little barbs that just seemed to go "Nyaarr, Nyaarr!" I can tell the difference between that and someone honestly attempting to find out some answers (whatever their beliefs).

[Achán hiNidráne]

How dare you! Sambol Olek is the 2nd tier hot cock sauce produced by the Huy Fong company - ironically in California.

"CALI-FORN-I-A!"

"Git a rope!"

[anticonspiracy911]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?

Live?

Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

Live?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

I'm sorry, but what is your point? Are you trying to tell me that if I don't have some grand model that shows many layers of life after this life that my whole premise of there being no god is useless? This is my favorite question because I get asked this a lot. Why is there life? Why is there a universe? I don't know. Does it have to have a grand purpose in the end? And even if there was a God those two questions are still not answered until God tells us himself. What was the purpose of God creating life? Why did he create a universe? Was he just bored? Why did he leave the universe humanless for billions of years? These questions still aren't answered any more conclusively even if we say in some magical land there is a God controlling everything. So I don't know what the point of this thread is. Did you expect us to stumble, not give you a grand model of life, then through that have us reconsider that hey, maybe this whole God business isn't so bad afterall? Honestly, explain the intent behind this thread.

[Beerina]

does [Bill Gates' charity] derive it's identity or inspiration from atheism?

At this point, may I remind you of the old saying that atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Without it, it isn't "driving" any behavior per se. You're just not doing "religious" things in addition to your daily life.

Most "religious" types view their religion like the government: they donate to it, and some arm somewhere "out there" goes about helping people.

[X]

[Plumjam] has a giant hole in his life, that he fills with religion. He seems to be asking how atheists can live with that gaping abyss in themselves, without religion to fill it. He doesn't understand that, at least for many atheists, that hole simply doesn't exist. We don't need to find something to fill a hole that we don't have.

Says it all, really.

That seems to be the basic misunderstanding many theists have about atheists.
And there stated very well and clearly.

Perhaps the reason for this misunderstanding is the position of religion that morals and personal value stem from a higher power.

Atheists don't generally have this belief (although there are some who support personal transcendence). This appears to be an inconcievable concept to many theists, which I think is why they seem willfully blind to such explanation.

Are you reading this, PlumJam?
Are you comprehending it?

Atheism is not a code of morals, or a system of beliefs. It is a lack of belief. Trying to argue otherwise is pointless.

Further, it seems to me that most atheists are willing to "live and let live", so long as religion doesn't interfere with the well-being of others, and so long as theists don't endlessly try to convince us that we're wrong. I know I don't generally go into a discussion about why I don't beleive unless somebody tries to tell me I'm ignorant, or empty, or foolish, or somehow "less".

[Esperdome]

The "American Atheists" organization would disagree with you. The definition of atheism they put on their website does have a belief system and a specific philosophy. I counted the words "believe or beliefs" about 8 times in the definition of atheism they have on their site.

From American Atheists website:

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers
of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/


Atheists have the right to have all of these beliefs but people shouldn't deny atheists have beliefs (which happens a lot in these threads).

While I agree with AA's sentiments, (and I've been a member both in the O'Hare days and modern day), they do not represent ALL atheists, only a subset of atheists. And also, you could find humanists who support this philosophy amongst agnostics, deists, and even theists. If someone came up to me and said they were an atheist but couldn't stand AA's definition of an atheist, I would agree, they are painting with too broad a brush.

[plumjam]

Well, lots of responses. Sorry, but too many directed to me to answer individually.
Some were decent enough. Unfortunately most were facetious and/or ad hominem and/or entirely negative.
Apparently, me even having the gall to ask such questions shows I have 'a giant hole' in my life. :rolleyes: Lol.

For the quibblers who keep arguing that atheism is not a belief system as such, please get real and quit the pedantry. I did explain that the atheism on this board, in my experience, has always come pre-packaged with a positive belief in exclusive materialism. This is a point that people are studiously avoiding.

Maybe I should say instead then: so you're an exclusive materialist and therefore an atheist, what next?

[PAC]

I give to charity (never religious ones for obvious reasons). I like to think I perform charitable acts. I like to think I add positively to our community. I do so because I believe this is right. I BELIEVE not some magical being in the sky telling me to believe! When I die I will end but the world will go on.
Do you fail to see the beauty and wonder of an athiest doing what they believe is right because they believe? You look at the good done by religion.
I think this good is destroyed by the damage religion does.

I suggest you try letting go of the silliness of religion and find the strength of being you. The rewards on this earth can be satisfying. Let it go! There is nothing after this life. That is reality. Why not accept it, put it behind you and lead your life rather than the life religions attempts to force upon you.

You are looking for positive answers. What can be more positive than living a satisfying life for yourself and those close to you?

Most atheists are not missionaries. We are not out to recruit. We see the positive that could be in a world without the demons of religion. What could be more positve than a world without religion?

[tumnus]

Well, I dunno, whatever floats your boat I suppose. I'm quite passionate about music, and it makes me feel free. I like travelling and seeing new things, and the backs of lady's calves.

Also you could try earnestly trying to piece together how this all came about, by looking around you and trying to find if there are any clues left over. I'm filled with a burning desire to find this out, and I won't be fobbed off by easy answers, or the creation myths of different cultures (although I love to read about them). We are quite curious primates, after all!

[cyborg]

Maybe I should say instead then: so you're an exclusive materialist and therefore an atheist, what next?

The baby eating commences.

[Tricky]

For the quibblers who keep arguing that atheism is not a belief system as such, please get real and quit the pedantry. I did explain that the atheism on this board, in my experience, has always come pre-packaged with a positive belief in exclusive materialism. This is a point that people are studiously avoiding.

Skepticism is a philosophy. Atheism is applying that philosophy toward religion. Would you call skepticism about N-rays a belief system? I somehow doubt it. Is your lack of belief in the divinity of Zeus a "belief system"?

As to materialism, I'd still like your definition. I gave you mine earlier, but since I'm a nice guy, I'll do it again. Materialism is the position that there is no evidence for anything beyond the physical universe.

I fail to see how that would have any affect whatsoever on morality, unless you are only being moral for supernatural, i.e. unmaterial rewards.

[plumjam]

Skepticism is a philosophy. Atheism is applying that philosophy toward religion. Would you call skepticism about N-rays a belief system? I somehow doubt it. Is your lack of belief in the divinity of Zeus a "belief system"?

As to materialism, I'd still like your definition. I gave you mine earlier, but since I'm a nice guy, I'll do it again. Materialism is the position that there is no evidence for anything beyond the physical universe.

I fail to see how that would have any affect whatsoever on morality, unless you are only being moral for supernatural, i.e. unmaterial rewards.

well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul, God, the afterlife, objective morality, objective meaning etc..

IMO it's a morally empty system. It cannot accommodate objective meaning or morality, and therefore the individual is left to 'make it up as he goes along'. It's no surprise then that such a belief system does not, in fact cannot be a genuinely inspirational factor in people's lives.
When exclusive materialists manage to be good, inspired people they do so not due to their belief in exclusive materialism, but rather in spite of it.

This represents a central contradiction in their lives.
On the surface they believe in exclusive materialism and therefore atheism. Yet in practice, in living their day to day lives they act as though they are not exclusive materialists and therefore atheists, but rather theists.

Those who do not live with and manage this central contradiction (i.e. who live and act as a belief in exclusive materialism would truly warrant) are literally free to make up meaning and morality as they see fit.. and that is where things start to go a bit crazy.

So, in short, you may be atheists but fortunately you have the good sense to live as theists.

[Lothian]

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)
If you have been looking for an athiest charity that endeavours to improve the plight of individuals, I am surprised you have not come across or heard of the Samaritans.

They do lots of fantastic work. As part of Befrienders Worldwide they work in 6 continents. You can find more details here (http://www.samaritans.org/about_samaritans/introduction_to_samaritans.aspx)

[JoeEllison]

Well, lots of responses. Sorry, but too many directed to me to answer individually.
Some were decent enough. Unfortunately most were facetious and/or ad hominem and/or entirely negative.
Apparently, me even having the gall to ask such questions shows I have 'a giant hole' in my life. :rolleyes: Lol.

For the quibblers who keep arguing that atheism is not a belief system as such, please get real and quit the pedantry. I did explain that the atheism on this board, in my experience, has always come pre-packaged with a positive belief in exclusive materialism. This is a point that people are studiously avoiding.

Maybe I should say instead then: so you're an exclusive materialist and therefore an atheist, what next?

See what I mean, folks? He is fundamentally unwilling or incapable of dealing with what people tell him in any serious way. He ignores or dismisses reality when it doesn't suit his real agenda, which is attacking atheism in order to make himself feel better. We tell him that we don't think the way he says we do, we don't believe the things he says we do, we don't feel the way he insists that we must feel... and he claims that we're lying, or that we don't actually know what's going on in our own lives, but he does.

[H'ethetheth]

How dare you! Sambol Olek is the 2nd tier hot cock sauce produced by the Huy Fong company - ironically in California.

Valuable information... so this thread is not a total waste of space.Also, it's made by other companies as well, originates from indonesia and consists mostly of crushed chilies and often salt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambal)

[Tricky]

well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul, God, the afterlife, objective morality, objective meaning etc...
Well, my definition specifically said that there is no reason to believe without evidence. That is completely different from saying a thing is impossible.

As for morality, there are lots of commonly accepted things about morality, almost always based on empathy rather than God or the afterlife. And morality is, by definiton, subjective. It changes over time. It wasn't all that long ago that slavery was not considered immoral by many Christians. In fact, a famous man wrote...
The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the opressors. For my part I would say, wecome the infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the vey name of religion into an engine of tyranny and bararous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels in this age than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!

That was only about 150 years ago. What could be less "objective" than a morality that changes in such a short time?

IMO it's a morally empty system. It cannot accommodate objective meaning or morality, and therefore the individual is left to 'make it up as he goes along'. It's no surprise then that such a belief system does not, in fact cannot be a genuinely inspirational factor in people's lives.
When exclusive materialists manage to be good, inspired people they do so not due to their belief in exclusive materialism, but rather in spite of it.

IMO, the same could be said of theists. If you don't think theists are "making it up as they go along", explain why different theists have such different moral codes? What makes you or any theist the arbiter of what is the "correct morality"? Your faith in God? No thanks. I've seen the kind of morality the God of the Bible has. I'll take empathy any day.

This represents a central contradiction in their lives. On the surface they believe in exclusive materialism and therefore atheism.
No they don't, at least not the way you define it. That is nothing but a straw man.

Yet in practice, in living their day to day lives they act as though they are not exclusive materialists and therefore atheists, but rather theists.
This would be true if one believed that living a moral life is contradictory to materialism and atheism. But this is not the case. You are assuming that theists have a monopoly on morality, and you are quite simply and demonstrably wrong.

Those who do not live with and manage this central contradiction (i.e. who live and act as a belief in exclusive materialism would truly warrant) are literally free to make up meaning and morality as they see fit.. and that is where things start to go a bit crazy.

There is no central contradiction. Repeating it numerous times won't make it true. The origins of morality are complex, but they are not the exclusive domain of theists, no matter how much your faith requires it to be true. It appears that this is your fundamental assumption. You are essentially making the circular argument that theists tend to be more moral than atheists because morality derives from a belief in god.

I can say, "Theists are less moral than atheists because they only do it for supernatural reward. " If this is my fundamental assumption, then all conclusions to be made will support that assumption.

But I do not defend that assumption. Theists have as many reasons for being moral as atheists, and they mostly relate to empathy. It is a faulty assumption. I do not believe you can defend your assumption either.

So, in short, you may be atheists but fortunately you have the good sense to live as theists.
This is about as arrogant a statement as I've ever seen anyone make.

[Pardalis]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?

Keep doing what I was doing, not waste time on thinking about something that may or may not exist and focus on the important stuff, family, work, art, women...

[zooterkin]

If you have been looking for an athiest charity that endeavours to improve the plight of individuals, I am surprised you have not come across or heard of the Samaritans.


I'm not sure they count as atheist (though how are we measuring these things?); they are non-religious in how they operate, but they were founded by a vicar.

[Pardalis]

well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul

How can you prove it exists?

GodSame thing, and while its existence is being disputed and fought over things won't change a bit, the world will keep doing what it always has been doing, so why bother?

the afterlife,We'll know when we get there, so why worry?

objective morality, objective meaning etc..Objective? You think by following your god's teachings you are objective? What about the 10000 other religions out there? Why did you choose this one and not the others?

IMO it's a morally empty system. It cannot accommodate objective meaning or morality, and therefore the individual is left to 'make it up as he goes along'.I think atheism is about being aware of our own limitations, our own subjectivity. Obviously you think you have the "Truth", which is kind of arrogant don't you think?

[Lothian]

I'm not sure they count as atheist (though how are we measuring these things?); they are non-religious in how they operate, but they were founded by a vicar.They have no religious agenda. It was specifically set up as a nonreligious organisation. Volunteers are banned from discussing their religious beliefs with callers.

I don’t think many churches would support their value ‘That everyone has the right to make fundamental decisions about their own life, including the decision to die by suicide’

[X]

well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul, God, the afterlife, objective morality, objective meaning etc..

Sounds interesting. So "Exlusive Materialism" is a denial of all things that cannot be measured? Or just the things you can nitpick out to support your definition of it?


IMO it's a morally empty system. It cannot accommodate objective meaning or morality, and therefore the individual is left to 'make it up as he goes along'. It's no surprise then that such a belief system does not, in fact cannot be a genuinely inspirational factor in people's lives.
When exclusive materialists manage to be good, inspired people they do so not due to their belief in exclusive materialism, but rather in spite of it.

So, without belief in all the stuff you have listed in you definition of "Exclusive Materialism", people can't be good?
Are you saying we need god(s) to be good?
Or just that we need to believe in objective meaning and morality, which, in your opinion, comes part-and-parcel with a belief in god(s) to be good?
You may feel that way. Don't assume that this makes it true of everyone else.
If your implication is that we need god(s) guidance to be good, do you think this guidance is represented in the Qur'an, Torah, Bible, and other holy texts?
How then do you explain the moral teachings of these texts that are held to be highly immoral in todays world?
If you want to claim divine guidance for good morality, you have to accept everything written in your Holy Book of choice (and how did you choose that book, he ponders...). If you have to pick and choose the morals from your chosen book, then you are obviously using some outside source of moral guidance, and therefore cannot possible claim that your holy book is a moral guide.
And saying "Well, God(s) told me what the good ones are." is a cop-out. Besides, wouldn't that mean that god(s)' own laws were wrong, and she/he/it/them had to change their morality?
And wouldn't a change in morality run entirely counter to what you are trying to say about morality being "objective" (i.e. constant)?


This represents a central contradiction in their lives.
On the surface they believe in exclusive materialism and therefore atheism. Yet in practice, in living their day to day lives they act as though they are not exclusive materialists and therefore atheists, but rather theists.

How many times do you need to be told that atheism is nothing more than an absence of belief in god(s), before you stop tap-ancing around it?
It does not make moral, ethical, or philosophical claims, except to express a lack of belief in god or gods.
You can't read more into it than that, because there is nothing more to read.
If you want to continue your ego-masturbation against a moral ideal, try ranting against Humanism. Unlike atheism, humanism is a way to view ethics and morality.


Those who do not live with and manage this central contradiction (i.e. who live and act as a belief in exclusive materialism would truly warrant) are literally free to make up meaning and morality as they see fit.. and that is where things start to go a bit crazy.

So, in short, you may be atheists but fortunately you have the good sense to live as theists.

So you don't make up your morality?
You beleive it's not something laid out by mere humanity?
Can I buy your daughter?

[plumjam]

If you have been looking for an athiest charity that endeavours to improve the plight of individuals, I am surprised you have not come across or heard of the Samaritans.

They do lots of fantastic work. As part of Befrienders Worldwide they work in 6 continents. You can find more details here (http://www.samaritans.org/about_samaritans/introduction_to_samaritans.aspx)

:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Varah

[Roadtoad]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

As usual, Plumjam refuses to get it. Wrapped up in his own narcissistic realm, he bleats on about how the Atheist is either a waste of time and flesh, or how there is no further meaning for the Atheist's "pathetic" excuse for a life. It's condescending, and it's offensive.

Last night, I had dinner with two people from this board whom I enjoy reading and for whom I have nothing but deep respect. Normal Dude is a student at UC Davis, entering into the field of molecular biology, with an emphasis on neurological biochemistry, (hope I got that right!), while Hokulele works as a trainer in computers and computer science, particularly with the software her company produces. We're talking of people of accomplishment and courage, something which is increasingly rare in a society which seems to be leaning more and more towards slackers and egotists, people who try to use Fate as an excuse for everything from their own cowardice to their well entrenched bigotry.

As we talked, one thing kept coming up: There was so much that we did not know. At one point, Normal Dude mentioned that in one particular field, there was so much unknown to deal with, it was actually exciting. Hokulele answered that saying that in her astronomy classes, they'd point to something and say, "We don't know that that is." Her answer: "Cool!"

See, this is part of what it means to be not just an Atheist, but a Skeptic. You don't flee the unknown; you go towards it, hoping not only to learn from the familiar, but from the unexplained. Your goal isn't just to take pleasure in the unusual, but to ultimately find out if the Great and Terrible Oz is just some dude hiding behind the curtains in the throne room.

It's simply another way of saying that some of us take greater and greater pleasure in admitting what we do not know than in our insistence that we know more than we do. We have matured in our lives, and take joy in recognizing that there's so much more to do, and equally, so much more we have to offer as our lives progress. Frankly, I find there's greater joy and meaning in that than I ever did as a "saved, sanctified, and justified" Christian, secure in my "knowledge" that I would endure in Heaven once I died. In fact, I find that latter element sad, because ultimately, I would only find "meaning" in my life once I had died and could offer nothing more to society.

I find I can do great things in this current stage of my life. If there's an "Atheist Value" to be found, it's the knowledge that my time here is short, and that what benefit I can offer to society needs to be given today, and not set aside for later when I'm nothing more than a memory. While I am well aware of scores of Christian/religious charities, I'm also well aware of the vast number of them who suck down voluminous amounts of cash for "administrative expenses." (I should note that the Randi Foundation seems to operate pretty much on the cheap, but seems to deliver far more bang for the buck. And Randi's pretty open about how it's done.) There are a number of "atheist" and "humanist" entities engaged in the charitable, but they generally don't advertise themselves that way, and they aren't overly picky about who they bring in to help, demanding that they be competent rather than dogmatic.

Part of this also requires me to show the truth of religion, that for the most part, it's a lie. I won't accomplish much by assaulting people with facts and figures, much as I was when I was being "witnessed" to by believers years ago, prior to becoming a Christian. (I'm pretty certain that many people become believers if for no other reason than to get the proselytizers to just shut up, recognizing that once you say "Yes," they'll leave you alone and never talk to you again.) Instead, I have to live my life in a manner that's gracious, honest, and courageous. That's not easy; our society rewards the boor, the liar, the coward.

But there's value in doing this. I think of Metullus, of Girl6, of Terry, of Doubting Stephen, of JJ, of Zep, of other people on this board (and a number who have unfortunately left), who demonstrate there is a greater value, a greater reward for stepping out in boldness and declaring the realities of life, of living within those realities, and ultimately in reaching beyond them with our compassion, our intellect, our passion. The whole idea is to reach Beyond, and bring it into focus, to make it new, to make it real. That speaks of greater integrity than this continued bleat that we cannot do this, because this is God's territory.

If I remember the story of Adam and Eve correctly, they weren't evicted from Eden because they merely ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but because they chose knowing Good and Evil over Life. Had they chosen to eat from the Tree of Life instead, which they had never been forbidden to do, they would have been rewarded rather than damned. I look at Normal Dude's actions, I look at Lost Angeles's actions, I look at the actions of so many here, I see a quest not for knowing right and wrong, (which is ultimately meaningless), and I see Life.

It's Hokulele's declaration: "We don't know what it is? COOL!"

What's next for me? Finishing my own education, and becoming a Marine Engineer. I'll probably be in my 60's, but I'm pretty sure if I can still draw breath, I can contribute to bettering people's lives. And rather than doing so because it gives some mystical deity a nice warm feeling about me, I can do so because it's based wholly on the facts, that the effects of my efforts can be measured, can be replicated, can be seen, and that ultimately, will outlast all the memory of me from centuries on. My service to the world ought to be seen from its evidence and benefits, and not from the chance memory of people bowing before an altar whose significance fades from the cruelty and misery it has inspired for centuries.

That's the difference between you and me, Plumjam. I want to serve. You want to be serviced. It's the difference between love and sex, between creation and masturbation.

[Pardalis]

Forget about soul, god and the afterlife, how can a snake speak? That's what I wanna know.

[Roadtoad]

Forget about soul, god and the afterlife, how can a snake speak? That's what I wanna know.

Well, you've seen Dick Cheney...

[Lothian]

:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Varah

Did you read the link you posted ? Right at the start
the world's first crisis hotline organization, offering non-religious telephone support to those contemplating suicide.:rolleyes:

[plumjam]

Obviously you think you have the "Truth", which is kind of arrogant don't you think?

No, I don't think so. I believe the truly arrogant statement is one which denies the possibility of objective truth in areas such as morality and meaning.
Thus any old fool is set free to make up his own morality and meaning, with sometimes disastrous consequences.
That is a massive form of egoism on behalf of the human individual. A physical analogy would be someone ignoring the actual size and shape of a chair in favour of the size and shape he would prefer the chair to have.
My own position is the opposite. I do not believe myself so omniscient and omnipotent to be able to create the whole of morality and meaning for myself. Instead I (as in practice do the so-called atheists here) attempt to discern objective morals by exercising and examining my conscience.
Sure, just as people would see and describe the chair slightly differently, the same happens in conscience.
There is a great deal of coalescence, such as the Golden Rule.

[plumjam]

Did you read the link you posted ? Right at the start
:rolleyes:

was Chad Varah inspired to create the Samaritans from his atheism or his theism?

[anticonspiracy911]

So Plumjam, are you going to respond to my response to you or not?

[plumjam]

Aw.. Roadtoad, you spoilt the lovely restaurant ambience by descending into ad hominem.

[cyborg]

I believe the truly arrogant statement is one which denies the possibility of objective truth in areas such as morality and meaning.

It is denied because, quite simply, agents which express moral and meaningful expressions can, quite simply, be inverted.

The physical analog is to look at a chair and say, "that chair is nice," and then have someone else look at a chair and say, "that chair is not nice".

The niceness is not a physical property of the chair - it is a physical property of the agent responding to the chair.

So you do not understand what the analog is quite simply. And I doubt you are much interested in correcting it.

[rocketdodger]

IMO it's a morally empty system. It cannot accommodate objective meaning or morality, and therefore the individual is left to 'make it up as he goes along'. It's no surprise then that such a belief system does not, in fact cannot be a genuinely inspirational factor in people's lives.
When exclusive materialists manage to be good, inspired people they do so not due to their belief in exclusive materialism, but rather in spite of it.

This represents a central contradiction in their lives.
On the surface they believe in exclusive materialism and therefore atheism. Yet in practice, in living their day to day lives they act as though they are not exclusive materialists and therefore atheists, but rather theists.

Those who do not live with and manage this central contradiction (i.e. who live and act as a belief in exclusive materialism would truly warrant) are literally free to make up meaning and morality as they see fit.. and that is where things start to go a bit crazy.


Here is a challenge, Plumjam -- come up with any value you can think of that you consider "good," and I will try to show you a way in which materialism not only can produce the same "good" in people but can also lead them to embrace it more wholeheartedly than theism.

I am really tired of these ignorant claims that materialism is "morally empty." Do people even know what "morality" means?

[rocketdodger]

My own position is the opposite. I do not believe myself so omniscient and omnipotent to be able to create the whole of morality and meaning for myself. Instead I (as in practice do the so-called atheists here) attempt to discern objective morals by exercising and examining my conscience.
Sure, just as people would see and describe the chair slightly differently, the same happens in conscience.
There is a great deal of coalescence, such as the Golden Rule.

Wait... you attempt to discern objective morality by examining your own conscience?

So what do you call it when the objective morality you find from this behavior is different from the one your neighbor finds by doing the same thing? Hint -- it begins with an "s."

[Lothian]

was Chad Varah inspired to create the Samaritans from his atheism or his theism?Chad Varah was a sex therapist who supported abortion and gay rights. Which of these did theism inspire?

Why did Chad Varah distance himself from the samaritans or why did they distance themselves from him ?

[Pardalis]

That is a massive form of egoism on behalf of the human individual. A physical analogy would be someone ignoring the actual size and shape of a chair in favour of the size and shape he would prefer the chair to have.

Well, there are overweight people, small people and handicapped people. What about them?

[JoeEllison]

Wait... you attempt to discern objective morality by examining your own conscience?

So what do you call it when the objective morality you find from this behavior is different from the one your neighbor finds by doing the same thing? Hint -- it begins with an "s."

Maybe he thinks he's a god? Certainly, he has placed himself in a position of standing in judgment of others, as though he does think he's a god of some sort.

[rocketdodger]

Thus any old fool is set free to make up his own morality and meaning, with sometimes disastrous consequences.

...except, this is exactly what you claim you do, by examining your conscience.

I don't get it. On the one hand, you are saying that people should accept objective morality, which means by definition explicitly being told what to do. Yet, because you know darn well that this is a stupid idea and in fact is the cause of the vast majority of evil in the history of the world, you also claim people should generate morality themselves by looking inward.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "you can't have your cake and eat it, too?"

[plumjam]

I'm sorry, but what is your point? Are you trying to tell me that if I don't have some grand model that shows many layers of life after this life that my whole premise of there being no god is useless? This is my favorite question because I get asked this a lot. Why is there life? Why is there a universe? I don't know. Does it have to have a grand purpose in the end? And even if there was a God those two questions are still not answered until God tells us himself. What was the purpose of God creating life? Why did he create a universe? Was he just bored? Why did he leave the universe humanless for billions of years? These questions still aren't answered any more conclusively even if we say in some magical land there is a God controlling everything. So I don't know what the point of this thread is. Did you expect us to stumble, not give you a grand model of life, then through that have us reconsider that hey, maybe this whole God business isn't so bad afterall? Honestly, explain the intent behind this thread.

you ask a lot of good questions, and it would take too long for me to go into all that in a worthwhile way. The best answers I have found to such questions are here:

http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/

more of his writings available free to read here:

http://www.ambppct.org/meherbaba/BooksByMeherBaba.php#3

please note, that contrary to the picture many atheists seem so keen to present, these teachings are in no way antithetical to the core teachings of the great religions

there are some differences, but the commonality is much stronger

As to the intent behind the thread. To get some atheists to possibly reflect on the nature of their belief system in relation to inspiration, morality, meaning, and how they, in practice live their lives.
To get them to examine to what extent their actions are in harmony with their belief system.

[plumjam]

Wait... you attempt to discern objective morality by examining your own conscience?

yes, in exactly the same way in order to discern the size and shape of the chair I examine my own individual visual perceptual experiences.
Just because they are my own visual perceptions doesn't mean the chair does not 'objectively' exist 'out there'.

So what do you call it when the objective morality you find from this behavior is different from the one your neighbor finds by doing the same thing? Hint -- it begins with an "s."
I call it the same thing as you seeing the chair slightly differently from your own angle, and due to your visual/brain apparatus not being entirely identical to my own.
Yes... s.... hmm... 'seeing' then.

[anticonspiracy911]

As to the intent behind the thread. To get some atheists to possibly reflect on the nature of their belief system in relation to inspiration, morality, meaning, and how they, in practice live their lives.
To get them to examine to what extent their actions are in harmony with their belief system.

Why is an atheist believing? I think if you have a lot of evidence supporting your view of the universe that it no longer remains to be just a mere belief. And I can be inspired, moral, and meaningful without pretending there is a deity guiding me. Why is that so hard for theists to understand? Putting a god in the picture is simply unnecessary plurality.

And again, atheism is not a religion. There's no dogmatic guidelines to follow. You simply have a godless world view and that's it. Everything else is just personal to you.

[Pardalis]

To get them to examine to what extent their actions are in harmony with their belief system.

Simple.

My daily activities have nothing to do with god. So harmony? You betcha.

[plumjam]

It is denied because, quite simply, agents which express moral and meaningful expressions can, quite simply, be inverted.

The physical analog is to look at a chair and say, "that chair is nice," and then have someone else look at a chair and say, "that chair is not nice".

The niceness is not a physical property of the chair - it is a physical property of the agent responding to the chair.

So you do not understand what the analog is quite simply. And I doubt you are much interested in correcting it.

A chair designed by a top furniture designer will get a virtually unanimously superior aesthetic rating from viewers, than would a chair designed by a chimpanzee. So, yes, aesthetics, 'niceness' is objective too.

[Darat]

...snip...

As to the intent behind the thread. To get some atheists to possibly reflect on the nature of their belief system in relation to inspiration, morality, meaning, and how they, in practice live their lives.
To get them to examine to what extent their actions are in harmony with their belief system.

You keep tripping over at the start - atheism isn't a "belief system" that's what theism is.

Although strictly speaking "theism" also isn't actually a belief system, it's merely a belief in some form of supernatural entity; albeit many theists also seem to have a belief system that includes that belief.

So when you talk about atheists v theists in regards to anything bar that one believes in a supernatural entity and the other doesn't you actually need to specify what belief system you are actually talking about. For example is it Christianity or Judaism - followers of both of those are theists but they do not share a common belief system.

[m_huber]

I'm personally just glad that there are theists out there willing to act like atheists.

In fact, that was part of my transformation to atheism. I was a hard-core christian, and I was preparing to make a move in life that would have put me in dire financial straights. My mother (who has seminary training) managed to convince me that God would not provide for me. I was left with a bizarre contradiction: in the theoretical setting, God always is said to provide. In the realm of reality, God can't provide. And those who teach the ways of God know that just as well as anyone else. So, even though people (and it was more than just my mother) claimed to be believers, they acted like unbelievers.

So, if the moral acts of atheists are best described as "atheists acting like theists," then perhaps you should wonder if instead, the best acts of the theists are actually "theists acting like atheists."

Or perhaps even better, "atheists and theists acting like humans."

[zooterkin]

They have no religious agenda. It was specifically set up as a nonreligious organisation. Volunteers are banned from discussing their religious beliefs with callers.

I don’t think many churches would support their value ‘That everyone has the right to make fundamental decisions about their own life, including the decision to die by suicide’

I don't mean to derail this discussion, but while I would not disagree with any of that, I would say non-religious is not the same as atheist; it's just not something they take any account of in their work. Christians and members of other religions, as well as atheists, work as and support Samaritans. Pretty much the same applies to already mentioned Red Cross/Crescent, and Médecins Sans Frontières. I don't see why Plumjam demands that there be a specifically atheist charity or organisation anyway; atheism is not an organisation itself. We might equally well demand that there be a charity run by all religions together, but with no atheists supporting it. I think it's more in the nature of the religious to exclude those who don't believe their particular brand of belief than for atheists to only work with other atheists.

No, I don't think so. I believe the truly arrogant statement is one which denies the possibility of objective truth in areas such as morality and meaning.
Thus any old fool is set free to make up his own morality and meaning, with sometimes disastrous consequences.

So, who set up your morality? Not god, as set out in the bible, since I'm pretty sure you follow neither the example nor the supposed pronouncements of god as recorded there. How did you choose which rules to keep, and which to ignore?

[plumjam]

And I can be inspired, moral, and meaningful without pretending there is a deity guiding me. Why is that so hard for theists to understand? Putting a god in the picture is simply unnecessary plurality.

And again, atheism is not a religion. There's no dogmatic guidelines to follow. You simply have a godless world view and that's it. Everything else is just personal to you.

As an atheist on this board you are almost certainly a believer in exclusive materialism. In an exclusively materialist reality, the reality ultimately, as a whole, has no possibility of objective meaning. It is thenceforth a combination of self-delusion/ sloppy thinking/ denial to try to reintroduce small subjective meaning into such a scenario.
If the whole is meaningless the parts are ultimately meaningless too. In practice all the atheists so far are introducing this bogus meaningless meaning.
In this they are betraying a 'believe atheism, live theism' approach.

[Darat]

Anyone who is claiming that a god means there is an objective morality is once again just saying "it's turtles all the way down".

[Pardalis]

A chair designed by a top furniture designer will get a virtually unanimously superior aesthetic rating from viewers, than would a chair designed by a chimpanzee. So, yes, aesthetics, 'niceness' is objective too.

I don't really understand what you are getting at with the chair business.

There are many different types of chairs, rocking chairs, stools, couches and you can even use someone else's knee to sit on, so there isn't one custom made chair, there isn't an "objective morality".

[zooterkin]

As an atheist on this board you are almost certainly a believer in exclusive materialism. In an exclusively materialist reality, the reality ultimately, as a whole, has no possibility of objective meaning.

I'm with you up to here, I think, if you mean all that is real is that which we can perceive evidence for.

It is thenceforth a combination of self-delusion/ sloppy thinking/ denial to try to reintroduce small subjective meaning into such a scenario.


Nope, lost you completely at this point. Care to restate it in a different way? Maybe an example?

[plumjam]

So, who set up your morality? Not god, as set out in the bible, since I'm pretty sure you follow neither the example nor the supposed pronouncements of god as recorded there. How did you choose which rules to keep, and which to ignore?

The Creator of everything created everything, including morality. We perceive objective morality via moral intuition/conscience. This intuition/conscience is at a different level of development in all individuals, as is physical perception.
In the past individuals have set out the results of their moral consciences, sometimes in systems of rules etc..
These systems vary in quality in relation to the degree of development of the individual conscience.
So, for example, the consciences of the great saints and mystics were much better developed than those of, say, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.. who probably did what they could to avoid examining their consciences.

As to which systems to favour and which to reject, that's up to your own individual conscience.

[Pardalis]

The Creator of everything created everything, including morality.

No, morality is a human concept so that we can live together in relative peace. Just like chairs are a human invention so that we can sit down and rest our legs.

[plumjam]

I'm with you up to here, I think, if you mean all that is real is that which we can perceive evidence for.
There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.
To that I would add that if we are going to allow for morality, aesthetics, spirituality etc.. in life then this definition of what counts as allowable evidence is hopelessly weak and in certain circumstances socially dangerous.

Nope, lost you completely at this point. Care to restate it in a different way? Maybe an example?

I mean that believing that we can derive real meaning from, for example, our interpersonal relationships, is illogical if you hold to a philosophical position which denies objective meaning.
If the universe is ultimately meaningless then loving your wife and kids has to also be ultimately meaningless.
You can't have a bucket devoid of gold and then argue that in some part of the bucket there is a speck of gold.
This is the self-delusion and wishful thinking I'm getting at.

[Pardalis]

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.

And how is "internal" evidence "objective"?

:confused:

[plumjam]

I don't really understand what you are getting at with the chair business.

There are many different types of chairs, rocking chairs, stools, couches and you can even use someone else's knee to sit on, so there isn't one custom made chair, there isn't an "objective morality".

I'm meaning that the chair is as it is, out there. It's size, form, aesthetic characteristics etc.. exist independently of what I would prefer them to be. There is no way in which me believing something is going to change what the chair actually is.

It's the same with morality. It exists out there, and I have no power to change it by deciding that it must be the way I want to believe it to be.
People who try to invent their own subjective moralities at odds with objective morality are apt to come a cropper, and damage others in the process.

[plumjam]

And how is "internal" evidence "objective"?

:confused:

because just as my internal visual perceptions refer to an 'external' 'objective' reality, likewise do my internal moral intuitions refer to an 'external' 'objective' moral reality

two average people observing a child being murdered will visually experience pretty much the same thing, and will morally experience pretty much the same thing

of course, there are blind people, and likewise there are psychopaths/sociopaths/paedophiles

[Pardalis]

It's the same with morality. It exists out there, and I have no power to change it by deciding that it must be the way I want to believe it to be.

And yet it changes from one country to the other, from one culture to the other, from one epoch to the other.


From one religion to the other.

[zooterkin]

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.
To that I would add that if we are going to allow for morality, aesthetics, spirituality etc.. in life then this definition of what counts as allowable evidence is hopelessly weak and in certain circumstances socially dangerous.

Why?



I mean that believing that we can derive real meaning from, for example, our interpersonal relationships, is illogical if you hold to a philosophical position which denies objective meaning.

What do you mean by "real meaning" and "objective meaning"? Who assigns the meaning?


If the universe is ultimately meaningless then loving your wife and kids has to also be ultimately meaningless.

Yes, in the grand scheme of things, any individual is pretty meaningless. So too is the whole human race. That doesn't mean that loving my family is not real to me and them. Do you only do things because some cosmic being is keeping score of how you perform?

You can't have a bucket devoid of gold and then argue that in some part of the bucket there is a speck of gold.
This is the self-delusion and wishful thinking I'm getting at. You really must try to give it up.

[anticonspiracy911]

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.
To that I would add that if we are going to allow for morality, aesthetics, spirituality etc.. in life then this definition of what counts as allowable evidence is hopelessly weak and in certain circumstances socially dangerous.



I mean that believing that we can derive real meaning from, for example, our interpersonal relationships, is illogical if you hold to a philosophical position which denies objective meaning.
If the universe is ultimately meaningless then loving your wife and kids has to also be ultimately meaningless.
You can't have a bucket devoid of gold and then argue that in some part of the bucket there is a speck of gold.
This is the self-delusion and wishful thinking I'm getting at.


Speaking on existence here:

If you can't measure it, then it doesn't matter. Even if God exists in spades, if you can't find it, what good is it?

As an analogy, suppose I was mute. I never wrote anything, never said anything, never went anywhere, and just sat at home and watched TV, with no Neilsen box. What does it give you? Nothing at all. With no measurement or visual confirmation of me at all, I may as well not exist to you or to anyone else.

To the extent that it can't be measured, what value does it give you, in terms of making it an actionable item? None at all. It just sits there, like a blob, providing no value to anyone other than to itself.

[plumjam]

And yet it changes from one country to the other, from one culture to the other, from one epoch to the other.


From one religion to the other.

Not really as much as atheists would prefer it to. The universal compassion towards all sentient beings of the Buddha, of 2,500 years ago is an aspect found in pretty much every religion in one form or another. The value of selflessness in all its forms is there in every religion I can think of.

Changes that happen can be good or bad. They are good if they are headed in the direction of the objective morality, they are bad if they are moving away from it.
Social Darwinism, for example, was a morality that fit with the current evolutionary paradigm, but did not fit with objective morality (and the theistic paradigm). So its consequences were abhorrent.

You wouldn't expect human moral systems to be completely changeless, because nothing else in conditioned reality is either.

[plumjam]

Speaking on existence here:

If you can't measure it, then it doesn't matter. Even if God exists in spades, if you can't find it, what good is it?

As an analogy, suppose I was mute. I never wrote anything, never said anything, never went anywhere, and just sat at home and watched TV, with no Neilsen box. What does it give you? Nothing at all. With no measurement or visual confirmation of me at all, I may as well not exist to you or to anyone else.

To the extent that it can't be measured, what value does it give you, in terms of making it an actionable item? None at all. It just sits there, like a blob, providing no value to anyone other than to itself.

are there any 'measurements' to back up your (presumably) belief that human beings of all races, sexes, religions, ages..etc.. deserve equal fair moral treatment?

[plumjam]

What do you mean by "real meaning" and "objective meaning"? Who assigns the meaning?
objective meaning in the creation is assigned by God, who created it, and exists external to it.


Yes, in the grand scheme of things, any individual is pretty meaningless. So too is the whole human race. That doesn't mean that loving my family is not real to me and them. Do you only do things because some cosmic being is keeping score of how you perform?

well, perhaps that is your surface belief, but the way you live your life (I assume) goes wholly against your belief.
That's a big contradiction, and bringing that out is one reason I started the thread.

[anticonspiracy911]

are there any 'measurements' to back up your (presumably) belief that human beings of all races, sexes, religions, ages..etc.. deserve equal fair moral treatment?

What evidence do you have that tells us that different races, sexes, ages are inferior to the predisposition of a "dominant" race, sex, age?

[zooterkin]

The universal compassion towards all sentient beings of the Buddha, of 2,500 years ago is an aspect found in pretty much every religion in one form or another. The value of selflessness in all its forms is there in every religion I can think of.
Given the universality, where's your evidence that this is anything to do with religion or god, and not something that has evolved in humans in general?

Do you hold all religions as equal? Your references seem to be all over the place; do you view all religions as true, when they are clearly incompatible with each other?

[Pardalis]

likewise do my internal moral intuitions refer to an 'external' 'objective' moral realityDefine "intuition"?

two average people observing a child being murdered will visually experience pretty much the same thing, and will morally experience pretty much the same thingYes, of course, but where does god fall in to that? Why do we need god to tell us that it's wrong?

Not really as much as atheists would prefer it to. The universal compassion towards all sentient beings of the Buddha, of 2,500 years ago is an aspect found in pretty much every religion in one form or another. The value of selflessness in all its forms is there in every religion I can think of.

Compassion is a human feeling. Hatred and destruction are also human feelings. So did god give us both?

You wouldn't expect human moral systems to be completely changeless, because nothing else in conditioned reality is either.I don't understand.

[zooterkin]

objective meaning in the creation is assigned by God, who created it, and exists external to it.
And where do you find evidence for this?




well, perhaps that is your surface belief, but the way you live your life (I assume) goes wholly against your belief.
I'm touched that you know so much about me. Do go on; how do I live my life? What belief is contradicted by the way I do so?

[Pardalis]

objective meaning in the creation is assigned by God, who created it, and exists external to it.

well, perhaps that is your surface belief, but the way you live your life (I assume) goes wholly against your belief.
That's a big contradiction, and bringing that out is one reason I started the thread.

Your belief is that morality is from god. Is suspect Zooterkin's "belief" is that it's not, and thus he is not in contradiction with himself, but with you.

[plumjam]

What evidence do you have that tells us that different races, sexes, ages are inferior to the predisposition of a "dominant" race, sex, age?

you're missing the point here.. I'm not saying that.
I'm saying presumably you believe they deserve equal treatment, (as do I), yet this belief of yours can not be backed up by any 'external' empirical measurements or evidence.

the only 'evidence' will come from you internally examining your conscience about what is right and wrong.

[Pardalis]

the only 'evidence' will come from you internally examining your conscience about what is right and wrong.

There you go, it's not objective. Nothing wrong with that.

[plumjam]

Given the universality, where's your evidence that this is anything to do with religion or god, and not something that has evolved in humans in general?

you don't need to be a follower of any particular religion to have access to your own conscience and thus attempt to discern moral objectivity. the problem comes when your world view disallows the reality of moral objectivity... this is a world view that is almost always accompanied by atheism
in my experience atheists generally do, in practice, discern moral objectivity via their consciences, but their belief system is at odds with this, which presents a contradiction.

if morality has simply evolved and refers to nothing external to the human individual or society we are free to make up whatever crazy morality we like. This was attempted, to bring morality in line with evolution, and was seen to be abhorrent. It was seen to be abhorrent because people were comparing the results , in their individual consciences, to objective morality.


Do you hold all religions as equal? Your references seem to be all over the place; do you view all religions as true, when they are clearly incompatible with each other?

No, not all religions are of equal merit. Hinduism is better than Jim Jones or Scientology.
The great enduring religions are not 'clearly incompatible' with each other. At their centres they are saying pretty much the same thing.

[Tricky]

Although strictly speaking "theism" also isn't actually a belief system, it's merely a belief in some form of supernatural entity; albeit many theists also seem to have a belief system that includes that belief.
Actually, this is a very good point. Is theism a belief system? Why no. It is a single belief. If you get one step below that prime belief, then the beliefs theists begin to diverge.

Question 1:
Is there a God or gods? To this, all theists will answer "yes", because, that is the definition of theism.

Question 2: Is there only one God? To this, theists will go in all directions, from large pantheons to one single God to the a kind of "yes but no" answer that is the Christian concept of The Trinity.

Question 3: Is God or gods good? Again, the answers will range all over the place, especially in pantheistic religions. "Depends on which one you're talking about," they might say. "Yes, and He will send to hell anyone who says otherwise" a different theist might say.

And so on.

Now sure, there is going to be a lot of overlap between different versions of theism (because they are all human-created) but there is also going to be a lot of overlap with the beliefs that some atheists hold.

So my challenge to plumjam would be to come up with a list of the things that define a belief system as "theist". They must be present and unambiguous in all varieties of theism. Because I can think of tons of them that vary widely. The word "pork" comes to mind.

[zooterkin]

you don't need to be a follower of any particular religion to have access to your own conscience and thus attempt to discern moral objectivity. the problem comes when your world view disallows the reality of moral objectivity...
Explain to me how not believing in god(s) means I no longer have access to my conscience.



No, not all religions are of equal merit. Hinduism is better than Jim Jones or Scientology.
The great enduring religions are not 'clearly incompatible' with each other. At their centres they are saying pretty much the same thing.

Let's see, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism are all saying the same thing? Exactly what tiny kernel of 'truth' do they have in common?

ETA: Tricky has addressed this better and in more detail.

[plumjam]

Define "intuition"?
you intuitively know what intuition is ;)

Yes, of course, but where does god fall in to that? Why do we need god to tell us that it's wrong?
God set up the universe with meaning and directionality. Morality is directly derived from this meaning and directionality. That which is at odds with the meaning and directionality is immoral, that which is harmonious with the meaning and directionality is moral.
That is why Social Darwinism was/is immoral, because it goes counter to the objective meaning and directionality of reality.



Compassion is a human feeling. Hatred and destruction are also human feelings. So did god give us both?
God gave you free will to either foster compassion or foster hatred. It's up to you.
God gave you iron ore, which can be made into a scalpel. The scalpel can be used to murder someone or save a life.

[plumjam]

And where do you find evidence for this?

if you want you can study the teachings of the great religions, the lives of the saints, religious experience, meditation, spiritual practice etc..
but then I expect your world view disallows you from counting this as valid evidence.. in which case you're at a dead end.


I'm touched that you know so much about me. Do go on; how do I live my life? What belief is contradicted by the way I do so?

well I think you said that our lives are pretty much meaningless.. but then you still find meaning in your interpersonal relationships. I assume you are a decent compassionate loving person. In an ultimately meaningless reality finding meaning within little areas of that reality is illogical.

[Frost]

Jeez, is this the best he can do at the end of the day?

Goddidit, Goddidit, Goddidit.

[Pardalis]

you don't need to be a follower of any particular religion to have access to your own conscience and thus attempt to discern moral objectivity.

As Zooterkin said, atheists and agnostics also have a conscience.

the problem comes when your world view disallows the reality of moral objectivity... this is a world view that is almost always accompanied by atheism in my experience atheists generally do, in practice, discern moral objectivity via their consciences, but their belief system is at odds with this, which presents a contradiction.The only difference is that we are aware that humans are flawed and subjective. We are aware that saying there is one "Truth" is dangerous and ill advised.

People with such dogmas are responsible for alot of abhorrent things too. That's because we are all human.

if morality has simply evolved and refers to nothing external to the human individual or society we are free to make up whatever crazy morality we like. Hey, read about history. Religion has done just that.

[plumjam]

Explain to me how not believing in god(s) means I no longer have access to my conscience.

I haven't said that.


Let's see, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism are all saying the same thing? Exactly what tiny kernel of 'truth' do they have in common?

it could be expressed variously, but the attenuation of the ego/mind resulting eventually in expansion of consciousness to infinity.
(God consciousness, Self-realisation, Nirvikalpa Samadhi, Moksha, Fana, Theosis, Nirvana ... a rose by any name smells as sweet.)

[plumjam]

Jeez, is this the best he can do at the end of the day?

Goddidit, Goddidit, Goddidit.

If God indeed did it I'd be ill advised to say anything else.

[Pardalis]

you intuitively know what intuition is

Gibberish.

God set up the universe with meaning and directionality.

You don't know that.

Morality is directly derived from this meaning and directionality.

You don't know that.

God gave you free will to either foster compassion or foster hatred. It's up to you.

Then if I choose to not believe in him then that's OK then?

God gave you iron ore,

No, we humans found out about iron by ourselves.

which can be made into a scalpel. The scalpel can be used to murder someone or save a life.

Sure.

[anticonspiracy911]

you're missing the point here.. I'm not saying that.
I'm saying presumably you believe they deserve equal treatment, (as do I), yet this belief of yours can not be backed up by any 'external' empirical measurements or evidence.

the only 'evidence' will come from you internally examining your conscience about what is right and wrong.

And when did I say that morality was objective? Morality is subjective. So I really don't see your point here.

[plumjam]

Gibberish.

if you don't intuitively know what your own intuition is then I can't help you on that one


Then if I choose to not believe in him then that's OK then?
entirely up to you. God's in no hurry.


No, we humans found out about iron by ourselves.

lol :D
did we create iron ore?

[plumjam]

And when did I say that morality was objective? Morality is subjective. So I really don't see your point here.

morality is subjective, huh? so if I make up my own subjective morality which includes needing to murder your whole family for some reason, that would ultimately be no worse than your 'subjective' morality which says that members of my family should be treated fairly, and allowed to live out their lives?

[Pardalis]

if you don't intuitively know what your own intuition is then I can't help you on that one

So you can't define intuition.

Check.

entirely up to you. God's in no hurry.
Then it's OK to be an atheist/agnostic.

Check.

did we create iron ore?I didn't say that. I said we found out about how to use it ourselves, with no help from any god. It was there and we used it.

You don't know that it was created by god in the first place.

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]So you can't define intuition.

if you are so keen for a definition find it in an online dictionary.
I can see no relevance in the line you're taking.


Then it's OK to be an atheist/agnostic.
It's better that you have the free choice to decide what you want to believe, than it all be planted in you, like some robot.
The latter would rob all positions of meaning.

[Pardalis]

if you are so keen for a definition find it in an online dictionary.
I can see no relevance in the line you're taking.

Or is it maybe that your refusal to propose a definition has to do with the fact that the very definition of the word has nothing to do with objectivity?

:eusa_think:

It's better that you have the free choice to decide what you want to believe, than it all be planted in you, like some robot.
The latter would rob all positions of meaning.And the whole has no meaning at all.

[Roadtoad]

Aw.. Roadtoad, you spoilt the lovely restaurant ambience by descending into ad hominem.

Your evasion is duly noted.

[Lothian]

God set up the universe with meaning and directionality. Morality is directly derived from this meaning and directionality. That which is at odds with the meaning and directionality is immoral, that which is harmonious with the meaning and directionality is moral.Please can you tell me, following Gods meaning and directionality, the moral position that should be taken in respect of abortion, homosexuality, alcohol, masturbation, donations of blood, eating shellfish, suicide bombing, circumcision, the wearing of clothes made from two different materials, slavery & murder.

I want to compare that to the moral position without God.

Thanks in advance.

[Esperdome]

Roadtoad, I'm so envious of you. Hokulele is something else, isn't she? Too bad she's happily married. :p

[Roadtoad]

Word up, Esper. If her husband isn't aware of how wonderful she is, he doesn't deserve her.

[Pardalis]

Thou shall not covet your neighbor's wife. :p:D

[Tricky]

I just got back from the store. As it happens, I have a killer cold and I needed to pick up some medications. On my way our of the parking lot, I saw a man pushing his car. I didn't think twice about whether or not I felt "good enough" to help him. No matter how bad I felt, he was feeling worse. I stopped my car and hopped out. I pushed and he started the car (it was a straight shift). He got out and thanked me. If I'm any judge of appearances and accents, he was from some some Middle Eastern or Persian nation. As far as I know, he didn't know much English beyond "yes" and "thank you", but a smile is universal.

As I drove started to get into my car, I noticed the most gorgeous sunset over the Kroger parking lot. I stopped and snapped the picture below. Does it matter whether or not you ascribe its beauty to some god?

Such is an hour in the life of an immoral, materialistic atheist.

[KingMerv00]

This thread grew too quickly to read the whole thing but I want to say that Plumjam has absolutely to imagination.

He (she?) cant fathom or even accept that some people are actually happier as atheists. If he can't understand how I feel, fine. But he refuses to even acknowledge we think the way we do.

[Pardalis]

Notice how he keeps trying to put Darwin in the conversation?

[Tricky]

morality is subjective, huh? so if I make up my own subjective morality which includes needing to murder your whole family for some reason, that would ultimately be no worse than your 'subjective' morality which says that members of my family should be treated fairly, and allowed to live out their lives?
If you find your sister in a car with two other boys, would you be morally correct to kill her? Under some theistic systems, yes. Morality is subjective. We can give you as many examples as you like.

So while morality is subjective, laws aren't (within their jurisdiction). When a group of people decide that a certain morality is correct, they codify it into law. Murder is usually one of the moral things that is codified, but people disagree what "murder" actually is, which is why we have courts. The "correct morality" is decided by humans, not God.

[Esperdome]

Word up, Esper. If her husband isn't aware of how wonderful she is, he doesn't deserve her.

None of us do, [Wayne's World] We're not worthy, we're not worthy.[/Wayne's World]

[X]

So, then, the answer to everything Plumjam doesn't understand is "God"?

I'm still trying to work out if he's saying morality comes from god, atheism is theism, or if he's claiming that morality is an objective subjectivity.

At any rate, god(s) and religion are not required for morality.

Not believing in god has not hurt my morality one bit, and even back when I believed in god, or in the intermediate stage of believing in "something unknowable" because I wasn't even aware atheism was a position, I never credited god with my morality.
It came from human nature and society.
There is no void in my life to fill, I have no need to rely on the Bible or the Qur'an or whatever other book you may name to determine my ethics. Probably a good thing, because if God really did set out all morals way back in antiquity, and god is all-knowing and abslolute, then the morals cannot have changed over time, for it would make god no longer omniscient.

So, since you seem to believe all morality proves god because it comes from god: Can I buy your daughter?

ETA: I expanded this while RoadToad was quoting me. Just so you know why this post and his quote are different.

[Tricky]

morality is subjective, huh? so if I make up my own subjective morality which includes needing to murder your whole family for some reason, that would ultimately be no worse than your 'subjective' morality which says that members of my family should be treated fairly, and allowed to live out their lives?
If you find your sister in a car with two other boys, would you be morally correct to kill her? Under some theistic systems, yes. Morality is subjective. We can give you as many examples as you like.

So while morality is subjective, laws aren't (within their jurisdiction). When a group of people decide that a certain morality is correct, they codify it into law. Murder is usually one of the moral things that is codified, but people disagree what "murder" actually is, which is why we have courts. The "correct morality" is decided by humans, not God.

[anticonspiracy911]

morality is subjective, huh? so if I make up my own subjective morality which includes needing to murder your whole family for some reason, that would ultimately be no worse than your 'subjective' morality which says that members of my family should be treated fairly, and allowed to live out their lives?

Under the realm of broad terms such as 'murder' and 'theft' I'm sure you'll find that most humans agree that these are immoral acts. But when you get more detailed with the terms and situations you'll find that there is no such thing as absolute morality.

[Roadtoad]

;3374188']So, then, the answer to everything Plumjam doesn't understand is "God"?

I'm still trying to work out if he's saying morality comes from god, atheism is theism, or if he's claiming that morality is an objective subjectivity.

At any rate, god(s) and religion are not required for morality.

If you believe they are, then can I buy your daughter?

A valid point. If God and His Rule is absolute, is it right for us to have given up on slavery, as one example? And on what basis?

[Tricky]

As usual, Plumjam refuses to get it. Wrapped up in his own narcissistic realm, he bleats on about how the Atheist is either a waste of time and flesh, or how there is no further meaning for the Atheist's "pathetic" excuse for a life. It's condescending, and it's offensive.

Last night, I had dinner with two people from this board whom I enjoy reading and for whom I have nothing but deep respect. Normal Dude is a student at UC Davis, entering into the field of molecular biology, with an emphasis on neurological biochemistry, (hope I got that right!), while Hokulele works as a trainer in computers and computer science, particularly with the software her company produces. We're talking of people of accomplishment and courage, something which is increasingly rare in a society which seems to be leaning more and more towards slackers and egotists, people who try to use Fate as an excuse for everything from their own cowardice to their well entrenched bigotry.

As we talked, one thing kept coming up: There was so much that we did not know. At one point, Normal Dude mentioned that in one particular field, there was so much unknown to deal with, it was actually exciting. Hokulele answered that saying that in her astronomy classes, they'd point to something and say, "We don't know that that is." Her answer: "Cool!"

See, this is part of what it means to be not just an Atheist, but a Skeptic. You don't flee the unknown; you go towards it, hoping not only to learn from the familiar, but from the unexplained. Your goal isn't just to take pleasure in the unusual, but to ultimately find out if the Great and Terrible Oz is just some dude hiding behind the curtains in the throne room.

It's simply another way of saying that some of us take greater and greater pleasure in admitting what we do not know than in our insistence that we know more than we do. We have matured in our lives, and take joy in recognizing that there's so much more to do, and equally, so much more we have to offer as our lives progress. Frankly, I find there's greater joy and meaning in that than I ever did as a "saved, sanctified, and justified" Christian, secure in my "knowledge" that I would endure in Heaven once I died. In fact, I find that latter element sad, because ultimately, I would only find "meaning" in my life once I had died and could offer nothing more to society.

I find I can do great things in this current stage of my life. If there's an "Atheist Value" to be found, it's the knowledge that my time here is short, and that what benefit I can offer to society needs to be given today, and not set aside for later when I'm nothing more than a memory. While I am well aware of scores of Christian/religious charities, I'm also well aware of the vast number of them who suck down voluminous amounts of cash for "administrative expenses." (I should note that the Randi Foundation seems to operate pretty much on the cheap, but seems to deliver far more bang for the buck. And Randi's pretty open about how it's done.) There are a number of "atheist" and "humanist" entities engaged in the charitable, but they generally don't advertise themselves that way, and they aren't overly picky about who they bring in to help, demanding that they be competent rather than dogmatic.

Part of this also requires me to show the truth of religion, that for the most part, it's a lie. I won't accomplish much by assaulting people with facts and figures, much as I was when I was being "witnessed" to by believers years ago, prior to becoming a Christian. (I'm pretty certain that many people become believers if for no other reason than to get the proselytizers to just shut up, recognizing that once you say "Yes," they'll leave you alone and never talk to you again.) Instead, I have to live my life in a manner that's gracious, honest, and courageous. That's not easy; our society rewards the boor, the liar, the coward.

But there's value in doing this. I think of Metullus, of Girl6, of Terry, of Doubting Stephen, of JJ, of Zep, of other people on this board (and a number who have unfortunately left), who demonstrate there is a greater value, a greater reward for stepping out in boldness and declaring the realities of life, of living within those realities, and ultimately in reaching beyond them with our compassion, our intellect, our passion. The whole idea is to reach Beyond, and bring it into focus, to make it new, to make it real. That speaks of greater integrity than this continued bleat that we cannot do this, because this is God's territory.

If I remember the story of Adam and Eve correctly, they weren't evicted from Eden because they merely ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but because they chose knowing Good and Evil over Life. Had they chosen to eat from the Tree of Life instead, which they had never been forbidden to do, they would have been rewarded rather than damned. I look at Normal Dude's actions, I look at Lost Angeles's actions, I look at the actions of so many here, I see a quest not for knowing right and wrong, (which is ultimately meaningless), and I see Life.

It's Hokulele's declaration: "We don't know what it is? COOL!"

What's next for me? Finishing my own education, and becoming a Marine Engineer. I'll probably be in my 60's, but I'm pretty sure if I can still draw breath, I can contribute to bettering people's lives. And rather than doing so because it gives some mystical deity a nice warm feeling about me, I can do so because it's based wholly on the facts, that the effects of my efforts can be measured, can be replicated, can be seen, and that ultimately, will outlast all the memory of me from centuries on. My service to the world ought to be seen from its evidence and benefits, and not from the chance memory of people bowing before an altar whose significance fades from the cruelty and misery it has inspired for centuries.

That's the difference between you and me, Plumjam. I want to serve. You want to be serviced. It's the difference between love and sex, between creation and masturbation.
Nominated!

It is a shame this thread is blowing by so fast that many great posts get lost in the whirlwind. But of course, Roadtoad makes the rest of us look like duffers.

[plumjam]

Or is it maybe that your refusal to propose a definition has to do with the fact that the very definition of the word has nothing to do with objectivity?
:rolleyes:
so likewise individual visual perception has nothing to do with objectivity


:eusa_think:

And the whole has no meaning at all.

so you accept that your life also has no meaning at all, and if you're going to be consistent you should live according to that realisation

[joobz]

I can't believe how fast this thread has moved.
Just to chime in with my own opiniated opinion...

I find the concept that you need a god for morality a bit lazy and immature. A person given a list of rules to follow and are told that they are moral because god said so. It makes it easy for the person to absolve themselves of any responsibility in deciding what is or isn't a moral action.

If it is detemined later that "god's morality" wasn't really moral*, not only is it impossible to convince the people who trust god for thier morality but also they take no responsibility for being wrong. It was god who they put their trust into.

On the other hand, a person who determines their own morality and doesn't appeal to authority for answers takes a huge risk. They know that no one but themselves are responsible for their own actions. If they do "right" or "Wrong", they can't beg to the mysterious authority to protect them or take the blame. It is only that individual who is the ultimate authority of thier actions.


*Slavery, racism, feudalism, sexism, genocide, torture,...

[plumjam]

Your evasion is duly noted.

when I'm having so many responses to make, I'm afraid those who descend in their first post into ad hominem are not going to receive a full reply

[Yeah_Right]

As for me, I don't think others are going to hell for their beliefs, that sounds rather positive to imo.

[plumjam]

Please can you tell me, following Gods meaning and directionality, the moral position that should be taken in respect of abortion, homosexuality, alcohol, masturbation, donations of blood, eating shellfish, suicide bombing, circumcision, the wearing of clothes made from two different materials, slavery & murder.

I want to compare that to the moral position without God.

Thanks in advance.

Each of those issues would deserve at least a thread each.
Luckily you have access to your own conscience. This allows you to try to perceive what is right and wrong in each issue, and weigh up the balance of competing claims.
Maybe unfortunately for you in this context it also means you have to do the work, rather than having me do it for you. ;)

[plumjam]

Such is an hour in the life of an immoral, materialistic atheist.

Did I ever characterise you as such?

[plumjam]

Notice how he keeps trying to put Darwin in the conversation?

No doubt I'll keep doing so. For tens of millions of people in the 20th Century this basic moral wrong-turn cost them their lives.
Hopefully that won't happen again.

[leadcork]

Athiest values? How about the Golden Rule? Works for everybody else....

[leadcork]

Mother Nature, please make my fingers work: "Atheist".

[plumjam]

If you find your sister in a car with two other boys, would you be morally correct to kill her?
If she was trying to murder both of them, I might.

Under some theistic systems, yes.
If such a system exists my conscience, and yours, tells us that's wrong. This is a clue to the objectivity of it. That a theist and atheist agree.
I would like to know the identity of the person who brought such a system into play. Such a person I would not pay much attention to when they are making moral claims.
I wouldn't allow a visually impaired person to be my 'guide-dog'.


Morality is subjective. We can give you as many examples as you like.
feel free

So while morality is subjective, laws aren't (within their jurisdiction). When a group of people decide that a certain morality is correct, they codify it into law. Murder is usually one of the moral things that is codified, but people disagree what "murder" actually is, which is why we have courts. The "correct morality" is decided by humans, not God.
gee whizz, so you are saying that sometimes people get things wrong.

[Pardalis]

:rolleyes:
so likewise individual visual perception has nothing to do with objectivity

Who said anything about individual visual perception?

You started saying "inside" evidence (intuition) is equally objective than "outside" evidence (what we can perceive with our senses).

What we perceive with our senses can be corroborated by different means. What does this say about "intuition"?

so you accept that your life also has no meaning at all, and if you're going to be consistent you should live according to that realisationMy life has meaning to me.

ETA: And you have no business telling me what to do with my own life.

No doubt I'll keep doing so. For tens of millions of people in the 20th Century this basic moral wrong-turn cost them their lives.
Hopefully that won't happen again.

Darwinism is a scientific theory that doesn't have anything to do with morals or ideology. Heck, it doesn't even have anything to do with atheism per se.

ETA: and btw, the theory of evolution helped a great deal in the advance of science and medicine.

What about the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Islamic terrorism? You're not going to convince me that religion is the way to go, it has quite a crappy track record.

[Roadtoad]

when I'm having so many responses to make, I'm afraid those who descend in their first post into ad hominem are not going to receive a full reply

And your idea of what constitutes an ad hom attack is, at the very least, curious.

Like I said: Evasion noted.

[joobz]

gee whizz, so you are saying that sometimes people get things wrong.
Yup, they do. And they sometimes get it right. But in both cases, it has nothing to do with god. It's all their own.

[plumjam]

Athiest values? How about the Golden Rule? Works for everybody else....

There is nothing at all in the atheist/ exclusive materialist world view that in any way can justify the golden rule.
We are just animals trying to survive and pass on our genes. With such an understanding of life, rather than apply the golden rule, it would be much 'better' and more logical if all men became serial rapists.
It would likewise be 'better' if instead of applying the golden rule all 'burdens on society' such as the mentally handicapped, the senile, and the terminally ill were gotten rid of immediately.

The fact that we find the above abhorrent is because in practice we actually put more faith in our moral intuition and conscience than we do in the logical consequences of exclusive materialism.

We know, intuitively, that there is something very wrong about exclusive materialism.

[Pardalis]

Again, define "intuition".

[Married2aWooster]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity. (1),(2)

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?(3)
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?(4)
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?(5)
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.
Fatally flawed assumptions needed to logically follow your post:
1) Proselytism and/or collective action are normal components of atheism - Do I really need to explain this?
2) Typical atheists view typical theists as stupid. - The only trait atheists share is a lack of belief in a divinity.
3) Theists inherently have good behaviors. - History records differently
4) See #1
5) See #1

Addressing the specific questions is rather moot given this perspective, isn't it?

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]Who said anything about individual visual perception?
I mentioned it at least a couple of times with the chair example, and the kid being murdered example.


What we perceive with our senses can be corroborated by different means.
No. It can only be corroborated via the senses.


What does this say about "intuition"? just the same, intuitions can only be corroborated by other intuitions, your own or those of other people

My life has meaning to me.subjective meaning, which, absent of a link to objective meaning, is literally meaningless.

ETA: And you have no business telling me what to do with my own life.
:D how was I doing that?


Darwinism is a scientific theory that doesn't have anything to do with morals or ideology. Heck, it doesn't even have anything to do with atheism per se.
It's the founding principle of a whole world view, the evolutionary paradigm. It's everywhere in education, academia and the media. When it attempted to assert itself in the field of morality it was several more times disastrous than any religious abuses in the past. So gladly we have now (been forced to) returned back to theistic morality, even if it is not explicitly named that way by those involved.
It's now called Universal Human Rights. Of course no empirical evidence can support these rights; it's a spiritual view of man, rather than an exclusive materialist one.

ETA: and btw, the theory of evolution helped a great deal in the advance of science and medicine.how?

What about the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Islamic terrorism? You're not going to convince me that religion is the way to go, it has quite a crappy track record.
yes, people get things wrong. But when the spiritual view of man was subtracted from morality people got things several times more wrong.

[plumjam]

Fatally flawed assumptions needed to logically follow your post:
1) Proselytism and/or collective action are normal components of atheism - Do I really need to explain this?
2) Typical atheists view typical theists as stupid. - The only trait atheists share is a lack of belief in a divinity.
3) Theists inherently have good behaviors. - History records differently
4) See #1
5) See #1

Addressing the specific questions is rather moot given this perspective, isn't it?

Thanks Prof.
That made no sense at all.

[Married2aWooster]

Thanks Prof.
That made no sense at all.

Makes us even.

[plumjam]

Makes us even.

see? you too have a spiritual view of man ;)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Did no one else follow up mr jam's suggestion that answers to the Universe and everything else were to be found in the works of Meher Baba?

I did; and respectfully suggest that mr jam might consider following The Avatar's example and maintain silence for 44 years.

He was born into a Zoroastrian family of Persian descent. He was educated in Poona and attended Deccan College there, where at the age of 19 he met an aged Muslim woman, Hazrat Babjan, the first of five "perfect masters" (spiritually enlightened or "God-realized" persons) who over the next seven years helped him find his own spiritual identity. That identity, Meher Baba said, was as the Avatar of this age, interpreting that Vedantic term to mean the periodic incarnation of God in human form. He placed himself among such universal religious figures as Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed. " I am the same Ancient One come again into your midst," he told his disciples, declaring that all major religions are revelations of "that One Reality which is God."

Meher Baba's cosmology may be summarized as follows: the goal of all life is to realize the absolute oneness of God, from whom the universe emanated as a result of the whim of unconscious divinity to know itself as conscious divinity. In pursuit of consciousness, evolution of forms occurs in seven stages: stone or metal, vegetable, worm, fish, bird, animal, and human. Every individualized soul must experience all these forms in order to gain full consciousness. Once consciousness is attained, the burden of impressions accumulated in these forms prevents the soul from realizing its identity with God. To gain this realization the individual must traverse an inward spiritual path, eliminating all false impressions of individuality and eventuating in the knowledge of the "real self" as God.
http://www.lovestreetbookstore.com/whois.htm

Now that is perfectly clear isn't it? :snicker:

Though I suppose we could ask how he knows any of this nonsense to have any foundation what-so-ever in reality.

Or to express things sicinctly -- how did he know he was right? Which I think is where this thread started.

And I have still not have seen anyone give an answer.

[CapelDodger]

Atheist values? How about the Golden Rule? Works for everybody else....

It certainly works for me. I don't aspire to sainthood, or expect it of others, but I try not to do harm. That's my default rule.

If other people choose different rules I'll respond accordingly. After all, they chose the rules. Can I help it if I love it :) ?

[anticonspiracy911]

So Plumjam, let me ask you this: is your faith based solely on comfort or truth?

[plumjam]

Did no one else follow up mr jam's suggestion that answers to the Universe and everything else were to be found in the works of Meher Baba?

I did; and respectfully suggest that mr jam might consider following The Avatar's example and maintain silence for 44 years.


http://www.lovestreetbookstore.com/whois.htm

Now that is perfectly clear isn't it? :snicker:

Though I suppose we could ask how he knows any of this nonsense to have any foundation what-so-ever in reality.

Or to express things sicinctly -- how did he know he was right? Which I think is where this thread started.

And I have still not have seen anyone give an answer.

:D

I am.
He used an alphabet board and I'm using the keyboard.

[Olowkow]

There is nothing at all in the atheist/ exclusive materialist world view that in any way can justify the golden rule.
We are just animals trying to survive and pass on our genes. With such an understanding of life, rather than apply the golden rule, it would be much 'better' and more logical if all men became serial rapists.


Now he's an expert on how atheists think. How original! :idea:

It is revealing to me how a person's mind works when he equates "rapists" with some ideal of male behavior. You don't get it, rape is about violence and domination, not sex. You are insulting, sir, to both religious and non-religious people alike who are just trying to find their way through life by doing the best they can with their philosophy. No one needs your absurd indictments.

It appears to me that you may have never actually had an honest one on one conversation with an atheist, let alone anyone who thinks differently from yourself. If you have, I am guessing that you are meek and smiling in person, not the total boor that you have represented yourself to be in this forum. You could learn a lot from people here, but you never will.

[Tricky]

If she was trying to murder both of them, I might.
No. Just sitting. Or maybe kissing. But under Sharia law (a theist concept) she has dishonored the family and a family member is within his right to kill her.

If such a system exists my conscience, and yours, tells us that's wrong. This is a clue to the objectivity of it. That a theist and atheist agree.
But not all theists agree. Their morality is based on the "word of God", yet it differs from yours. Thus, religion-based morality is not objective. (To save time, this is where you use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.)

I would like to know the identity of the person who brought such a system into play. Such a person I would not pay much attention to when they are making moral claims.
God. Or to be more correct, a man imagining there is a God and he knows what God wants. Just as you do.

I wouldn't allow a visually impaired person to be my 'guide-dog'.
You might if you were walking through a pitch black room. It's all relative.

feel free.
Okay. In some varieties of Shinto they believe that the soul arrives some time after birth, and so abortion and even infanticide are condoned.

Cannibalism is moral under some African religions. (Although this shouldn't bother you since many of your religion practice ritualized cannibalism.)

We can do this all day, but it is quite clear from these few examples that theism does not imply an objective moral code. It is very much subjective.

gee whizz, so you are saying that sometimes people get things wrong.
I'm saying that the defintion of "wrong" changes with time and location. History and anthropology make this quite clear.

While I suspect my verson of morality would have a lot in common with yours due to cultural influences, I would be a fool to insist that my version is objective. That does not mean though that I won't defend my moral code, to the point of fighting for it if it came to that. I obviously think its right or I wouldn't hold it. That doesn't mean I can't recognize the possibility of being wrong. I have changed my moral position many times in my life as I came to different understandings.

[Pardalis]

I mentioned it at least a couple of times with the chair example, and the kid being murdered example.

No, that's not what you said.

No. It can only be corroborated via the senses.And that makes no sense, according to your own premise. (see below)

just the same, intuitions can only be corroborated by other intuitions, your own or those of other peopleIt's not the same. It's still not objective data.

You seem to have lost track of your own argument. Let's backtrack a little.

There are all different forms of evidence. Typically people here are only willing to accept 'external' measurable physical data as evidence.

And how is "internal" evidence "objective"?

:confused:because just as my internal visual perceptions refer to an 'external' 'objective' reality, likewise do my internal moral intuitions refer to an 'external' 'objective' moral reality

Again, how can you compare physical data to "intuition"?

subjective meaning, which, absent of a link to objective meaning, is literally meaningless.Yes, of course it's subjective, it's my life. I don't give a **** about what you think of my life.

When it attempted to assert itself in the field of morality it was several more times disastrous than any religious abuses in the past.It didn't and it doesn't. The theory holds up pretty well to the evidence, what certain groups of people have decided to do and misinterpret it has nothing to do with the scientific validity and applications of the theory itself.

So gladly we have now (been forced to) returned back to theistic morality,No we don't.

It's now called Universal Human Rights. And what about abortion, gay rights and women's rights? Aren't Islam and Christianity for example in complete contradiction with human rights?

Of course no empirical evidence can support these rights; it's a spiritual view of man, rather than an exclusive materialist one.No it's not, it's in complete concordance with humanistic values.

how?Oh please...

yes, people get things wrong. But when the spiritual view of man was subtracted from morality people got things several times more wrong.Moving the goalposts again, when religion is wrong people are to blame, and when religion gets it right, god is responsible... :rolleyes:

That's not being objective.

As Joobz said:
Yup, they do. And they sometimes get it right. But in both cases, it has nothing to do with god. It's all their own.

[plumjam]

So Plumjam, let me ask you this: is your faith based solely on comfort or truth?

why do you hate America so much?

[Empress]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

I'm not certain I understand the point of this post. I realized I was an athiest when I was about 12 or 13 despite being raised in a religious home. Yet, I don't think I've done anything differently from any of my siblings, despite the fact that I'm the sole athiest. Well, except not attending religious services, obviously.

I've given as much time and money to the needy as any of them. I've never tried to convert anyone to my lack of religous views. I've simply gone through my life trying to make the world better whenever possible. If I see a need, I attempt to fill it. After all, I believe this life is all we have. I want my life, and everyone else's, to be the best possible. Don't theists want the same?

[anticonspiracy911]

why do you hate America so much?

That doesn't answer my question.

And while you take the time to answer my question, have a good read at the following link: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyIntNoRB.HTM

[Pardalis]

Plum, you still have to define "intuition", in order to know what it is exactly, so we can measure it and appreciate it.

[plumjam]

Now he's an expert on how atheists think. How original! :idea:

It is revealing to me how a person's mind works when he equates "rapists" with some ideal of male behavior. You don't get it, rape is about violence and domination, not sex. You are insulting, sir, to both religious and non-religious people alike who are just trying to find their way through life by doing the best they can with their philosophy. No one needs your absurd indictments.

It appears to me that you may have never actually had an honest one on one conversation with an atheist, let alone anyone who thinks differently from yourself. If you have, I am guessing that you are meek and smiling in person, not the total boor that you have represented yourself to be in this forum. You could learn a lot from people here, but you never will.

well, you'll be familiar with the genius idea of the 'selfish gene'.. and if there's no objective morality what is stopping someone who believes in that kind of materialist theology coming along and encouraging all men to be serial rapists?

remember, if there's no objective morality, that system is exactly equally as 'good' as any other.

[anticonspiracy911]

well, you'll be familiar with the genius idea of the 'selfish gene'.. and if there's no objective morality what is stopping someone who believes in that kind of materialist theology coming along and encouraging all men to be serial rapists?

remember, if there's no objective morality, that system is exactly equally as 'good' as any other.
I'm afraid you're confusing the argument of subjective morality with relativism.

[plumjam]

Plum, you still have to define "intuition", in order to know what it is exactly, so we can measure it and appreciate it.

jeez, the record has stuck.

test it in your own experience... think of a paedophile raping and killing a child, .. that feeling inside of you which tells you that his actions are wrong, that is your moral intuition.
It really isn't difficult.

[Ryokan]

jeez, the record has stuck.

test it in your own experience... think of a paedophile raping and killing a child, .. that feeling inside of you which tells you that his actions are wrong, that is your moral intuition.
It really isn't difficult.

Allright.

Now think about gay marriage. What does your moral compass tell you?

[anticonspiracy911]

jeez, the record has stuck.

test it in your own experience... think of a paedophile raping and killing a child, .. that feeling inside of you which tells you that his actions are wrong, that is your moral intuition.
It really isn't difficult.

Ahhh now you're preaching subjective morality. I thought you were against this?

[Pardalis]

Plum, that's still not a definition.

[plumjam]

That doesn't answer my question.

And while you take the time to answer my question, have a good read at the following link: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyIntNoRB.HTM

I won't be answering the question due to it containing false embedded assumptions.

[plumjam]

Allright.

Now think about gay marriage. What does your moral compass tell you?

Ryokan, you seem charming enough, but I'm afraid we've only just met, dear.

[anticonspiracy911]

I won't be answering the question due to it containing false embedded assumptions.

Well what else could you be basing your faith on other than those two possibilities?

[Pardalis]

I won't be answering the question due to it containing false embedded assumptions.

Gee, I guess we can close this thread then... :rolleyes:

[plumjam]

Ahhh now you're preaching subjective morality. I thought you were against this?

I've explained this at least twice already.
Your visual perception is likewise an internal experience referring to 'objective external truths'. Moral intuition is like that too.