You can’t always force yourself to believe something, any more than you can force yourself to be attracted to someone. I know- I’ve tried both, and the experience was quite similar.
I think mswas just proved a very interesting point. Atheists do believe in God in a manner of speaking. That is, those present do apparently believe in an objective right and wrong which cannot in any way, shape, or fashion be derived from nature.
Instead, the atheists on this board just spent a great deal of time telling him that that, in essence, it’s morally right to do some things and not others. Some of you tried to justify it by pretending your arguments were grounded in practicality. But in doing so you said nothing: he pre-acknowledged that engaging in certain behaviors might lead to unpleasant consequences.* That is not a valid argument, because it doesn’t argue anything. You can hardly say, “Don’t do X because Y will happen to you!” after your fellow has already accepted Y. If he doesn’t mind Y, or believes he can avoid Y, he has no reason to deal with it.
*I also found it amusing that half of you said that he ought to do avoid bad deeds because they would have bad consequences… and the other half said that he was a terrible person if only the fear of punishment kept him from doing bad things.
Others mentioned empathy, but this is not a rational answer. Empathy is a feeling which exists or does not, and has a certain amount of influence or not. But it is not a reason for doing anything except to the degree of its ifluence. It cannot be a valid reason for doing something unless you accept that Empathy guides us in doing the “right thing.” You cannot argue someone into following empathy based solely upon that feeling, especially as it may not exist in the same way or degree in that person. You cannot say, “Do this because you feel like it.” for empathy and not for other, less pleasant emotions unless you again accept that another, higher moral law says to follow one and not the other.
Others put forth the claim that “higher powers” such as family or the state. But these are not higher powers except in the sense of emotion or size. Emotional arguments we’ve dealt with under empathy. You may choose to do well by your family, for example, or country out of emotion. At the same time, you cannot claim that this is in any sense more right than those who likewise destroy their families or nations out of emotion, if emotion is your only guide.
But size likewise is not a valid argument. In fact, it’s so ridiculous I can’t even comprehend it. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t impact us: democrats by nature tend to accept the claims of the majority. But sze or number is not a moral principle.
Now, some of your seem to have the idea that we owe the “state” something. This is also untrue, but I agree it has some more validity in the sound of it. However, none of us asked (outside a few immigrants) to join this community. We are here whether we will it or no, and possibly could not join another. If it demands something of us under the claim that we “owe” it, we have a right to say, “When did I ask you to give me anything? You gave that of you own will.” It is no different than if a parent raised a child to adulthood and said, “Now you are strong: you will protect me and give me all I demand, even dying in my defense.” The young man or woman would laugh and leave. Just as we have the right to laugh at the claims of someone who demands service after a gift. Someone who gives you things for his or her own utility and then demands you labor, fight, and die for it if necessary is not a master, or a higher power, but a slave-owner.
A consideration which was not raised here is the concept that we each have Rights, and that harming a man harmed his Rights. But rights do not exist in nature in any form, only under the acceptance of human beings that others have rights.
Now, you may fairly say that none of my arguments show that these things are false, only that they are unpleasant, etc. This is correct, but I have shown that you cannot hold these beliefs without admitting the claims of a higher moral law, independant of any human action or opinion. And once you have done that, we are not arguing over whether or not God exists, but only what form he takes.
You may say that no God exists: very well, then, then I have no obligation or reason to do anything except my own whim or desire (including the desire not to avoid bad consequences) - and neither do you. You can hope to deter me from bad desires by making bad consequences: you may even choose to join together with other men in the hope of attaining some safety. You might say that “wrong” actions are those which harm the group: very well, but not all murders harm the group’s chances of survival, and anyway, the individual only will value the group to the extent they need it.
But you cannot rationally condemn me for my actions or have any pride in yours. You cannot rationally say that murder is wrong, only inconvenient to you. You can fear me, but you cannot be offended or hatred for me, except by abandoning all reason. And once you have done that, you have no further ability to even make the argument, or even to argue. You would have abandoned humanity itself. I would say that you have made yourself an animal, but animals lack pretense; they are what are made to be, neither more nor less. You, however, would have just made yourself less.
You could have a civilization, even a pleasant and enjoyable one, under this rule. But it would resemble nothing so much as 1984 in spirit if not practice. Courage mocked, cowardice lauded; fruitless honesty a joke, cunning theft a virtue (then again, given the number of popular heist movies…); loyalty laughed at, wise treachery admired. You may accept that deal: it may be true regardless of the consequences, but I do not believe it.
If you are a fan of DnD, you might say it resembled the Drow. Well enough, and remember the Drow were civilized, too. They had temples it was true, but their religion was a devil’s bargain with the blackest-of-black-hearted monsters: necessary power for willing cruelty.
I wanted to agree with this: if you are an atheist, you might believe you can control your life, or do not control your life, or possibly have some control over your life (though even the periods and degree of control might be random).
The fear of punishment from God. Not just punishment in general. His stance seems to be that if we don’t think there’s an Almighty hovering over our heads, we have no trouble with immoral and illegal acts. Apparently earth-based authority is just a mirage.
What is this? Straw man week? This is the second time in a couple of days that we have had a long time poster submit utter drivel, based on a complete misrepresentation of reality as a point of “debate.” It is not even good theistic reasoning, looking more like the stuff that would get broadcast on a fundie pep rally than an actual theological discussion.
I don’t know why you decided to clutter up GD with this stuff, mswas, but you should reallyt be ashamed to have your username associated with the OP. It does not even make tepid parody.
And this is silly, as well. Whenever some atheist attempts to disparage spiritual belief as a decision or choice to engage in silliness, that poster is met, (rightly, in my opinion), with challenges from believers who point out that they are compelled to their belief by their life experiences. It makes no sense to try to attack an atheist position by suddenly claiming that atheists have more choice in the matter than do believers.
Emphasis mine. Yes it can.
Well, that was why I apologized.
However, I’m still concerned that mswas, as others have noted, posted this as thinly-veiled argumentative bait. Every one of his points has been repeatedly denounced in previous threads.
If mswas wasn’t a board regular, but instead a guest, what would the immediate assumption be upon reading the OP?
Agreed. I don’t not do bad things because I intrinsically know it’s wrong to do so- I refuse to do them because I don’t want them done to me.
If there’s some cosmic force that teaches us right from wrong, why do parents have to teach their children to share, and that it’s bad to hit other children?
Same as it was here: that it’s a big steaming pile of proselytization. It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. That post deserved the response it got, and I’m kinda surprised people bothered to refute it at all.
This is redefining the word to the point that it loses all meaning. By the same coin, I could say theists don’t believe in God, in a manner of speaking, because they buy food at the store instead of praying for it to appear on the table. For the sake of intelligibility, let’s skip it.
You’re not wrong, and neither is mswas, that there is no objective proof for any particular kind of morality. I didn’t know that was a relevation, but there you have it.
People are objecting to a lot of different things in this thread, but let me offer this complaint, which I think is unique: mswas is linking together a lot of things that are not connected at all, and saying theism makes them all meaningful and they have none for atheists. That ends up painting atheists as a bunch of amoral sociopaths. While atheists may not have a concrete basis for their morality any more than theists do, they are not less moral.
I mean, look over the OP again. What does belief in God have to do with psychology? With respect for the government? The answer is nothing. Without respect for the Big-A Authority, I guess, mswas thinks people can’t have respect for any authority. It doesn’t make any sense. The Bible, far as I know, offers no opinion on psychology, and religious people often have very strong moral objections to their governments. He also blurs the line between governments and ‘social institutions’ of morality in a bizarre way.
I don’t - believe in objective right and wrong, that is
Unless you can convince him that he is mistaken - that Y is unavoidable.
Well, no, empathy is an emotion - so what? Are you contending that all arguments for atheism must be rational ones?
I, for one, wasn’t using it to explain how mswas should act - for all I know, mswas is, indeed, a sociopath and doesn’t feel empathy. I was using it to explain why I act as I do.
It’s not size, but power, that matters when it comes to Society’s influence. How this is any different for any argument for the superiority of a deity I don’t know.
That’s certainly not my stance - I say that freely giving to Society is mutually beneficial. But “States” come and go. We owe them nothing - what we give (taxes mostly), is under coercion.
If it wasn’t raised, why are you addressing it as though it was an argument? That’s the definition of a strawman.
You’ve shown no such thing
What’s “rationally” got to do with it?
semantics, when the “you” is all of Society, then inconvenient = wrong
This is a non-argument - you can’t reason your way to hate and offense anyway, they’re emotions. And we could hate you for or be offended by your stated antisocial tendencies
I, for one, do not define my humanity by my reasoning ability alone. Empathy for other humans ranks high up there as a characteristic.
How is there anything that can make someone other than what they are?
Less? By* not *behaving like an emotionless robot?
…ERROR…DOES NOT COMPUTE…
1984 wasn’t so bad. Sure, we still had Apartheid, but there were some good bands…
Oh, you mean the book? The one about a society where they tried to outlaw Love and other wasted emotions (retaining only hate)? Isn’t that the emotionless, rational paradise you were just advocating, not the empathic society we were castigating mswas for skipping over?
How does any of that arise out of what we’ve said (as opposed to mswas’s strawman Athetopia, that is)
The Drow sounded like typical theists to me. How that’s supposed to reflect badly on us atheists, I don’t know.
mswas’s argument seems to be that without belief in God, there is no rational basis for morality.
Actually, I grant that. What mswas and others don’t seem to realize, however, is that with belief in God, there is no rational basis for morality.
-FrL-
Okay, it’s clear that some folks do not have a background in philosophy. Lemme see if my B.A. is still any use:
Morality. From whence comes morality? From God? Let’s think about that. Let’s suppose right actions are right, and wrong actions are wrong, because God says so. That means that rightness and wrongness are purely the will of God, correct? “Thou shalt not kill,” means killing is wrong. So, in the abstract, what if God had said, “Thou shalt kill babies in the streets”? Would that be the right thing to do, just because God said so?
I know what you’re thinking. “But God would never say anything like that!” Well, why not? If God is the sole source of all morality, and there’s nothing compelling him one way or another, then morality is solely based on God’s whim, and there’s no reason he couldn’t say that. And killing babies in the street would thus be the right and just thing to do. Praise be to God, now crawl for your little lives!
Yeah, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense for any idea we have of what God is supposed to be. It appears, then, that there is some reason that killing babies in the streets is wrong, and God was just passing along the information to us. Now, that being the case, can we figure out that reason, without bringing God into it?
Thence cometh atheist morality. The idea that right is right because God says so is called “Divine Command Theory,” and is considered pretty shallow by modern thinkers; the view today is more along the line of, “God’s decree does not make that which is right; rather, that which is right comports with the will of God.” For more on what makes right things right, start with John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” and Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative.” Start with Utilitarianism and Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
Unless, of course, you’re not genuinely interested in educating yourself and just want to mock people who aren’t like you.
It would be the same for me either way - typical common ignorance of atheism. Just because the OP is not a guest does not mean he or she has necessarily paid attention to previous threads about atheism. I don’t read every thread on the board, or even visit every forum. I assume others do not as well.
Are you honestly asserting that the majority of posts by atheists in this forum are moral and empathetic? In most cases, at least for those identifying themselves as atheists, they are not. Try reading this thread and for each post, record whether it’s primarily devoted to addressing what mswas said or primarily devoted to insulting him. Then tally the numbers in each category and see what you get.
“IT’S A TRAP!!” /Akbar
I agree that if previously, you have been basing your entire belief system on one particular tenet, for example a particular religion, that realizing that that basis is flawed would likely cause one to rexamine all of the other beliefs that they held. A similar thing happens when people come out of the closet - realizing that there is nothing wrong with their own homosexuality will often cause people to examine other beliefs they have held about sexuality such as monogamy, promiscuity, marriage, etc. But just because you reexamine all of your beliefs doesn’t mean that all of them have to change. Many of your old beliefs may still work for you. In the case of religion, for example, there are many Jewish atheists who still carry on many of their traditions because although they do not believe in God per se, they still find value in being a part of a community and common culture.
Morality is just any system by which one determines what morals they follow. While many systems of morality are based on religious texts, or authority, or authority rooted in religious dogma, there are plenty of moral systems that are based on emotion or rationality or philosophy or logic or pure self-interest.
This is not related to religion or lack of religion. Many people follow religion purely out of self-interest, i.e. they believe that if they don’t follow God, they will burn in hell or whatever. Those people might as atheists then act “good” out of pure interest to stay out of jail or whatever. Other people might as religious folk act not out of fear of hell but out of love for God - as atheists they would act not out of fear of jail but because they genuinely care about other people.
“Love” is a broad word that can refer to many different phenomena. You can break it down into endorphins and us being evolutionarily built to be social creatures combined with the social and cultural memes that have attached themselves to it. But that doesn’t fundamentally change the value of experiencing it. There’s nothing in the Bible about cars, and you can break a car down into it’s component parts and say there is nothing mystical about it, it’s just internal combustion, but it still takes you from here to there, and it can still be an amazing experience. In fact, if you know a lot about cars and how they work, the can often be even more enjoyable.
I don’t think one’s view of the state is related to religion unless one lives in a theocracy. You don’t owe the state anything. But it’s to everyone’s advantage to work towards improving a state’s flaws and upholding a state’s beneficial aspects. Like any other social contract, it only works if most people continue to honor it. No one thinks that God created money, or that little green pieces of paper inherently are anything than a grouping of atoms, but we all agree to do commerce with them because it’s easier than the barter system.
It’s true you don’t have an obligation to anyone or anything. But it’s to your benefit not to be too sociopathic since you share your world with other people. And beyond it being in your own self-interest, it may also be something that you happen to value. But not all institutions have a pseudo-religious basis. There are plenty of institutional values that are based on common sense, rationality, philosophy, logic, social contracts, and the common good.
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.
There’s two broad categories of mental illness, that which harms yourself and that which harms society or others. Treating the former can’t be said to be purely for authoritative reasons. The latter of course has often been corrupted by authoritative reasons, but it isn’t necessarily so.
You don’t have any obligation. But it’s in your own self-interest. Both because you avoid the consequences of antisocial behavior, and also because you help to create a world in which it’s more likely to have good experiences more often. And beyond the pragmatic concerns, there’s no reason to completely devalue appeal to emotion. Emotions are a large part of the human experience. You could become completely emotionless, but so too could you stop eating and breathing. God won’t care if you stop eating, but I think when you start to get hungry, you’ll eat something. Likewise, those endorphins may just be chemicals floating around in your robot brain, but it still feels nice to have them.
To recap: pragmatically it’s in your self-interest not to be antisocial both to avoid the consequences and also to reap the benefits. Generally it benefits you to honor social contracts. Game theory proves this out. There was also a mathematical paper (see the movie A Beautiful Mind) that gave good evidence that generally the choice with the maximum benefit for an individual in the long term is the choice that benefits everyone involved.
Biologically speaking, humans are social creatures. Our chemistry is built around social bonding. Neurologically we have mirror neurons that guide us towards imagining things from others’ perspectives. And emotions are part of the human experience.
And strictly speaking, self-interest isn’t any more “real” than being socially conscious. If it’s somehow fake to feel good about helping others and valuing the common good, it’s logically just as equally “fake” to have feelings of joy about gaining extra power or food or sex or whatever through antisocial means.
Ultimately what you choose to value shapes what experiences you have. What kind of experiences do you want to have. What actions or behavior will limit or expand the range of experiences you can have?
I agree with you completely, but neither are you forced to believe anything. That’s why there is a very large number of things I don’t know enough about to either believe or not believe. A lot of things the jury is still out on as far as I am concerned. One doesn’t have to beleve in God nor not believe in God. They are called agnostics, and a position that is very logical if one is unsure.
I think the main issue here is taking responsibility for what you believe, your actions and deeds. I still believe I don’t know everything about this world I live in and I am willing to respect others views and beliefs that differ from mine. There is little respect for opposing beliefs on this board in my opinion.
Note: this part should have been in quotes from the OP.
‘jerk’, ‘asshole’, ‘degenerate’, I haven’t been around GD in a while, the rules regarding direct insults must have changed.
Reading the thread though, this is like Burning Man.