I have decided to become an atheist (hypothetical)

[9thFloor]

[QUOTE=mswas]
As such, since God does not exist, I feel it is time to take stock of everything I ever thought I knew. The obvious place to start is:

Morality.

Well, atheists keep telling me that an atheist can be moral. But what is moral? Morality seems to me like a system designed to keep the proles in line. From what I can tell those who are in power are either in power based upon some social authority conferred upon them to be the custodians of some ancient structure based on a higher power, like the Pope or the President or a King. The Pope is supposed to be Christ’s vicar on Earth. George Washington swore his oath of office on the bible like a Freemason, and a King is supposed to be appointed by God. Since God is a bunch of BS, why should I bother with these arcane authority systems?

As an atheist I should be completely sovereign. There is no God, no higher power to answer to, all I need to do is stay on the right side of the herd mentality. Personal responsibility is merely a matter of understanding cause and effect. As long as I do not stand in the way of reactions that I trigger, I am being responsible. I will not have to face negative consequences. So the only real responsibility I have is to be very very smart. Any negative consequences I face will be in direct proportion to my inability to foresee the effect that I caused. If I get nailed by the effect of someone else or something else, so be it, that’s a force of nature.

Now, Love, this seems to be another piece of cockamamie BS. I see no evidence that any such thing exists. Besides, I’ve never really met anyone who could define it properly either. So what’s the point of this one? If like God, someone proves to me it exists, I’ll believe in it then. Otherwise it seems like two people just finding each other and mutually deciding that they are willing to cling to one another in the dark. Any positive benefit comes merely from sexual or security benefit. Merely endorphins.

The state. Well this is a bit trickier. Now, it’s a higher power of sorts, but it seems rather abstract. It’s a grand corporation of individuals who work toward a common purpose. Ok, so what do I owe this corporation? Well, I never signed any contract with it. So ultimately I owe it nothing. Those that get to the highest levels of power seem to understand that. The best course of action is to merely game the mechanisms within the state in order to use them to my benefit.

So now, with my newfound discovery, I feel no obligation to anyone or anything. All of the social institutions in my life were based off of some sort of pseudo-religious basis. A bunch of deluded fools clinging to one another because they cannot handle dying. Everyone really only out for themselves but willing to go through the motions of caring about one another in order to best facilitate getting what they want. At this point in history it seems like the mechanisms are in place for us to operate at a more enlightened and honest level, total atomization, where we all recognize that we are individuals with no obligations whatsoever.

I recognize that some might consider this sociopathic, and certainly it probably is by the strict definition, but I don’t really buy into the religion of psychology anymore either, more state sponsored control mechanisms. Sure I understand that there is a science underlying it, and power over others can be derived from it, but the notion of ‘mental illness’ is just a method of keeping the weak in line.

So, without resorting to any sort of emotional appeal whatsoever. Explain to me why I have any obligation not to rob, cheat, defraud, rape or murder you if I can get away with it. I’m willing to entertain these notions, if you make a good argument I will assimilate it into my new personal ethic as an atheist. Of course I realize that by having no obligation to you, you have no obligation to me either. I do not expect my behavior in any way to reflect on other atheists, but if it does, I do not really care, misplaced blame is always to my advantage. If being an atheist becomes politically unpopular at some point, I’ll just lie and pretend that my atheism was a phase.
[/QUOTE]

Pretty much agree with everything you said.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
You mean “A stubborn and rebellious son”, right? Because the “glutton/drunkard” business is part of the punishment, not the crime. Perhaps the most interesting about this situation is that it clearly refers to an individual young enough to be under the charge of his parents. (Though the fact that the charges for the crime are explicitly trumpted-up and falsified in the carrying out of them is pretty interesting too.)
[/quote]

:dubious: How can charges be trumped up in a hypothetical? And how are ‘glutton and drunkard’ punishments?

And yes. I think it’s reasonable for a stubborn and rebellious child to be allowed to live, grow up, and learn to mind as he got older, although I do concede that harsh punishment might be merited in the short-term. Adults, of course, would be forced by the usual economics of the situation to either do some work or be left to starve.

Well generally I would assume that if someone is a glutton and a drunkard they’ve probably had the opportunity to grow up.

Explain to me how this makes your little ‘high and mighty’ pretense anything other than a way to avoid answering arguments that are too difficult for you to counter? Because there doesn’t seem to be a consistent pattern of insult in the posts and posters you reject. Just a consistent pattern of hard-to-counter arguments.

It’s not about being high and mighty. That’s your own insecurity. Refusing to argue with you doesn’t invalidate your argument, it simply says that we cannot agree on the terms of the debate, making the debate a pointless waste of time. It’s impossible to debate with people who are constantly challenging the terms of the debate. “Prove that Faith doesn’t mean what I am twisting it to mean.”, or “Prove that Christianity has any normative values.”

Some arguments are hard to counter because they are well formed and others are hard to counter because they are fatuous. Remember, I have never told Sentient Meat, Revenant Threshold, Pochacco, or Voyager that I would not argue with them about these topics. I’d never say that to Executive Atheists. It’s the ones that want to drag every argument into the gutter of, “Well what you believe is stupid anyway, so I am only going through the motions of pretending to respect you so I can ultimately tear you down with what I believe to be my incredible reasoning skills.”, that I refuse to argue with. If you’ll notice, I do on occasion respond to you, more often than I do Der Trihs. If you really want to take up the cause with him, then realize I’m not going to take you very seriously. He is guilty of everything he rails against. His arguments are all imperious proclamations. Now, the thing is, if you are going to claim a certain standard for yourself, claim the ideological high ground, then you’d better be able to walk the walk. He can’t. That’s why I ignore him. You aren’t automatically more reasonable by virtue of being an atheist. Here’s a place that Christianity is of benefit to you, ‘You’ll be known by your works.’

[mswas]

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Pretty much agree with everything you said.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Are you an atheist?

[mswas]

begbert2 I know a guy who thinks that all liberals are murderous insane, dragging down the culture, and Marxists. He debates as though this is the default condition of liberals. I blow him off when he goes deep into the gutter too. He makes the same exact argument that you are. The only difference is, no one who is even politically aligned with him chooses to defend him when you blow him off. None of the other ‘liberal atheists aren’t breeding and are causing the collapse of western society.’ will follow him to the, ‘You’re all irrational murderers’, place. Yet for some reason I am supposed to take the same argument from Der Trihs seriously? Why?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
begbert2 I know a guy who thinks that all liberals are murderous insane, dragging down the culture, and Marxists. He debates as though this is the default condition of liberals. I blow him off when he goes deep into the gutter too. He makes the same exact argument that you are. The only difference is, no one who is even politically aligned with him chooses to defend him when you blow him off. None of the other ‘liberal atheists aren’t breeding and are causing the collapse of western society.’ will follow him to the, ‘You’re all irrational murderers’, place. Yet for some reason I am supposed to take the same argument from Der Trihs seriously? Why?
[/QUOTE]
Because the guy you are speaking of is obviously wrong, while I’m obviously right. Religion IS stupid. It’s OBVIOUSLY stupid, which is why the believers tend to get angry when someone accurately compares their beliefs to such beliefs as Santa Claus , or otherwise point out how baseless their beleifs are - they have no good counterargument. There’s no difference in plausibility between Christianity or Hinduism and some ten person cult in a desert somewhere; only in political power. I’m just one of the few people who’s willing to point it out, bluntly, and put up with the ranting and raving and insults from the believers.

And, you keep using the same argument to avoid debating me and others regardless of what we say, regardless of how we happen to be arguing. You just * know * that I’m going to use a particular argument, which rather than refuting ( probably because you can’t ) you will simply run away from.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because the guy you are speaking of is obviously wrong, while I’m obviously right. Religion IS stupid.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, he thinks that about his position too.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=mswas]
begbert2 I know a guy who thinks that all liberals are murderous insane, dragging down the culture, and Marxists. He debates as though this is the default condition of liberals. I blow him off when he goes deep into the gutter too. He makes the same exact argument that you are. The only difference is, no one who is even politically aligned with him chooses to defend him when you blow him off. None of the other ‘liberal atheists aren’t breeding and are causing the collapse of western society.’ will follow him to the, ‘You’re all irrational murderers’, place. Yet for some reason I am supposed to take the same argument from Der Trihs seriously? Why?
[/QUOTE]
He makes arguments questioning the interpretation of the Abraham/Isaac situation as being the opposite of what it says, and arguments debting the moral necessity of murdering stubborn children in agrarian societies? Wow. That’s amazing, and…really, really unlikely.

This is why you should rebutt specific arguments - there are specific reasons to rebut specific arguments, and you can respond to the argument with the rebuttal. It’s even reasonable to respond to certian arguments with a short dismissive reply (as long as it simultaneously cuts the heart out of their position). However, when you begin to attack the arguer instead of the argument, you not only start flirting with the GD forum rules, but also your objection is not relevent to the argument you’re avoiding, and so you’re doing nothing but fleeing from the argument. And the fact you’re trying to draw attention to your nose in the air doesn’t hide the fact that your tail is between your legs.

Now, it’s fair to note that the question of precisely how demonic the christian god is, is itself a digression from any significant point in the thread. So I shall abandon that argument with only the note that it seems clear that whatever morality can be found in the christain religion, was injected separately, as the culture evolved, and copied from the culture into the religion as it went. This position is backed by the fact that the bible presents a drastically different moral code than its modern proponents ascribe to, which shows that change came from somewhere.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Yeah, he thinks that about his position too.
[/QUOTE]
So ? He’s factually incorrect, I’m not. I say there’s no evidence whatsoever for God beyond the baseless, contradictory claims of the believers. I say there’s no rational reason to take God more seriously than Santa Claus. Prove me wrong.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
So ? He’s factually incorrect, I’m not. I say there’s no evidence whatsoever for God beyond the baseless, contradictory claims of the believers. I say there’s no rational reason to take God more seriously than Santa Claus. Prove me wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I’d be very much interested in a compelling rational argument for taking (flavor X of) God more seriously than Santa Claus. I can’t recall ever seen such an argument. (Aside from Pascal’s wager and other speculation-based threats, that is.) So I’ll second that request for such an argument, though perhaps in another thread.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
So ? He’s factually incorrect, I’m not. I say there’s no evidence whatsoever for God beyond the baseless, contradictory claims of the believers. I say there’s no rational reason to take God more seriously than Santa Claus. Prove me wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Well it’s good that you’ve settled the whole God question. The rest of us haven’t achieved your level of enlightenment your grace.

Do you have a newsletter?

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Well it’s good that you’ve settled the whole God question. The rest of us haven’t achieved your level of enlightenment your grace.

Do you have a newsletter?
[/QUOTE]

I suggest you can only do this sort of thing so many times (by my rough count, this is your seventh or eighth in this thread) before it looks like capîtulation.

You’ll never make it as an atheist.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I suggest you can only do this sort of thing so many times (by my rough count, this is your seventh or eighth in this thread) before it looks like capîtulation.

You’ll never make it as an atheist.
[/QUOTE]

I am an atheist, I just believe in one more God than you do. ;p

So if someone is an idiot before, and they are still an idiot later, then it’s capitulation if I am consistent in thinking they are an idiot?

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=mswas]
So if someone is an idiot before, and they are still an idiot later, then it’s capitulation if I am consistent in thinking they are an idiot?
[/QUOTE]

Well, you may be skating into mod-warning territory, there (or at least right on the border), but your feelings about Der Trihs aside, he raised a perfectly valid question: why is belief in Santa Claus given less respect than belief in God? For that matter, how do you feel about belief in Zeus? Zeus was worshipped quite sincerely by millions of people over hundred of years. There no element of childish whimsy about Zeus (as with Santa) or derision (as with invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters). How is belief in God any more reasonable than belief in Zeus? What evidence, if any, favours one over the other?

If Zeus is not sufficiently diginified in your view to be compared to God, I’m sure I can find another example.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Well it’s good that you’ve settled the whole God question. The rest of us haven’t achieved your level of enlightenment your grace.

Do you have a newsletter?
[/QUOTE]
No. Do you have an actual reply, to me or begbert2 ? Or are you going to keep dancing around, doing anything but responding to people’s questions ?

And it doesn’t take any “enlightenment” to settle the “God question”, any more than it takes “enlightenment” to disbelieve in Santa Claus. Religion is blatantly silly; the fact that’s it’s so popular doesn’t make it any less so. That, of course, is the real reason you didn’t answer my challenge; because admit it or not, you know you don’t have any rational reason to hold belief in God as more plausible than belief in Santa Claus. Or the Tooth Fairy, or any number of other beliefs that no rational, educated adult takes seriously.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I am an atheist, I just believe in one more God than you do. ;p

[/QUOTE]
You can’t be an atheist if you believe in any gods. The opposite statement you are mocking makes a point about the flawed reasoning of the monotheists; your statement makes no point at all.

[begbert2]

Allow me to clarify what I’d most like you to reply to, in the context of this thread. (though I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing a good rebuttal to the Santa Claus argument (beside “it offends me!”, I mean.)

@me

Now, it’s fair to note that the question of precisely how demonic the christian god is, [or even the question of whether religions are based in reality at all], is itself a digression from any significant point in the thread. So I shall abandon that argument with only the note that it seems clear that whatever morality can be found in the christain religion, was injected separately, as the culture evolved, and copied from the culture into the religion as it went. This position is backed by the fact that the bible presents a drastically different moral code than its modern proponents ascribe to, which shows that change came from somewhere.

Do you have a response to this?

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, you may be skating into mod-warning territory, there (or at least right on the border), but your feelings about Der Trihs aside, he raised a perfectly valid question: why is belief in Santa Claus given less respect than belief in God? For that matter, how do you feel about belief in Zeus? Zeus was worshipped quite sincerely by millions of people over hundred of years. There no element of childish whimsy about Zeus (as with Santa) or derision (as with invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters). How is belief in God any more reasonable than belief in Zeus? What evidence, if any, favours one over the other?

If Zeus is not sufficiently diginified in your view to be compared to God, I’m sure I can find another example.
[/QUOTE]

As I’ve said, I am not going to debate the merits of belief. I will discuss the impact of religion, but I won’t discuss the merits of belief. So, you all think I am avoiding a good point. I think I am avoiding a lot of ‘nuh uh’, ‘uh huh’.

Though as a little teaser for you. I think that Zeus represents a real primal force of nature, which they personified in their system back in the day, and is no less relevant as a God than any other view of God, as lightning, and thus the God of lightning, is one of the purest expressions of the archetype, ‘Power’ that there is. Belief in Zeus is valid within its cultural milieu.

As far as Santa goes, Santa was never considered a diety, but a supernatural being. However, as Santa Claus as we think of him was basically invented by Coca Cola within the last century, and we as parents know that when Santa brings gifts for hte children its really us bringing the gifts for the children. It’s not a big mystery, we can see the levers behind the Santa myth.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=mswas]
As I’ve said, I am not going to debate the merits of belief. I will discuss the impact of religion, but I won’t discuss the merits of belief. So, you all think I am avoiding a good point. I think I am avoiding a lot of ‘nuh uh’, ‘uh huh’.
[/quote]

Certainly religion had and still has an impact, but literacy is far more commonplace now than in decades past and disease isn’t seen as a product of sin, but of microbes, and insurance companies don’t set their rates on who’s been cursed by witches, but by mundane demographics. While religion once served to try to explain various aspects of life, we’ve built up a better, more consistent set of explanations derived through the study of biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology, among others, and while each of these fields still has (and always will have) fuzzy areas around the fringes that are still debated, the bulk is extremely useful for not only studying existing phenomena, but predicting future phenomena, hugely more so than any number of biblical prophets even under the most generous of interpretations.

Personally, I think it’s time for religion to move permanently off center stage. It served a purpose, but we can now say “thank you” and move on, as we did with geocentrism.

Though as a little teaser for you. I think that Zeus represents a real primal force of nature, which they personified in their system back in the day, and is no less relevant as a God than any other view of God, as lightning, and thus the God of lightning, is one of the purest expressions of the archetype, ‘Power’ that there is. Belief in Zeus is valid within its cultural milieu.

I don’t care about your interpretations of Zeus, merely asking why belief in Zeus is not to be taken as seriously as belief in God. Or should it? And if the cultural milieu that worshipped Zeus is no more, what happens when or if the cultural milieu that worhips God is also no more? Could this happen? What does that say about the existence of God. If it can’t happen, why not?

It’s not a big mystery, we can see the levers behind the Santa myth.

What mystery implicity exists behind the levers of God? Is anything happening here that can’t be explained as the actions of men?

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Personally, I think it’s time for religion to move permanently off center stage. It served a purpose, but we can now say “thank you” and move on, as we did with geocentrism.
[/quote]

To each their own.

I don’t care about your interpretations of Zeus, merely asking why belief in Zeus is not to be taken as seriously as belief in God. Or should it? And if the cultural milieu that worshipped Zeus is no more, what happens when or if the cultural milieu that worhips God is also no more? Could this happen? What does that say about the existence of God. If it can’t happen, why not?

It’s not my interpretation of Zeus, a lot has been written on the topic. There is considerable debate about the level to which the ancient Greeks actually literally thought the Gods were people. As you have already shown that you ‘don’t care’ what I have to say on the topic, there is nothing for me to say. You want me to just repeat your opinion back to you. I’m not going to do it, sorry.

What mystery implicity exists behind the levers of God? Is anything happening here that can’t be explained as the actions of men?

If I knew it wouldn’t be a mystery would it?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
If I knew it wouldn’t be a mystery would it?
[/QUOTE]
The argument, obviously, is that there IS no mystery.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The argument, obviously, is that there IS no mystery.
[/QUOTE]

Congratulations on solving all mysteries!