I have decided to become an atheist (hypothetical)

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
As pointed out, that’s not God. At all. And few people actually made any such assertion.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
Hello ? “If we all do this thing, society will collapse, therefore we should have a rule against it” isn’t an argument ? And as well, he was speaking only of personal consequences, under the theory that an atheist is a sociopath.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
And he’s a criminal, and will suffer the punishment if caught.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
What’s “amusing” about it ? If someone announces that they are the ruthless enemy of everyone else - and that’s what he was claiming as his “atheist viewpoint” - they are a terrible person. It’s perfectly rational for people to be hostile to such an attitude.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Others mentioned empathy, but this is not a rational answer.
[/quote]
Yes, it is. Empathy is an important part of human judgement, and makes you less dangerous to others. A lack of empathy makes you less rational/intelligent ( due to an inability to understand others ), as well as dangerous.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
Of course I can. I can and do say that people following empathy tends to make the world better.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
And people who claim as you do that they owe nothing are parasites. Go and live as a hermit in some mountains, without tools except those you make by hand if you want to be free of society’s obligations. And again, if the majority of people took your attitude and managed to implement it, civilization would fall and most of humanity die.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
If true, so what ? Treating people as if they have rights makes society better for people in general. Treating people as if they have no rights only makes sense if you are sure you’ll never be a victim’s.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
No, you haven’t. Compassion and fairness and rights and so on are good ideas because of the results they have. Whether they have some “higher morality” behind them is irrelevant; if you somehow proved that “higher morality” opposed such ideas, then I’d reject that “higher morality”.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/quote]
False argument. Morality has nothing to do with God. You also are making the convenient unstated assumption that God and belief in him are positive moral forces, and that God has some right to say what is right and wrong.

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Just like every religion, in other words, except that their goddess actually exists. Civilized, moral behavior, as a prerequisite requires that one ignores or rejects the barbarous, amoral influences of religion. All religion is a devil’s bargain.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Don’t people like saying that there is no ‘single’ atheism? That atheism is as varied as individual atheists? If that is so, why is my argument considered a reflection upon all atheists?
[/QUOTE]
There is remarkable similarity among atheists on the matter of the existence of gods.

You keep trying to claim some sort of innocence by suggesting that you weren’t talking about a specific atheist, or were somehow talking about yourself. I would be just as deluded if I thought anyone would buy into a similar justification, were I to propose that “Christians are extremely stupid” or “I’ve decided to become a Christian, therefore I will be extremely stupid.”

Gee, why would anyone be upset? I was just talking about myself?

(The transparency of this argument (i.e. The-Rodney-Dangerfield-Caddyshack-“It looks good on you though”-Excuse) is such that I’d suggest you slide slowly away from it out of embarrassment.)

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Mswas, is there an objective basis for language?

It’s pretty obvious that the answer is no. The sounds we use to represent different words are arbitrary. The sound of a word is, however, constrained by the capabilities of the human vocal system. And meaning itself is determined by consensus. One person by himself can’t decide that “glory” means “there’s a knock down argument for you.”

Morals are like that.

There is no objective basis for morality. What a particular society considers good and evil is arbitrary. Those rules, however, are constrained by the capabilities of the human brain – our emotions, our innate understanding of fairness, our sense of empathy. Those rules are also determined by consensus. One person by himself can’t decide that killing is good.

If you’re willing to accept that language is a social construct, why is it so hard to accept that morals might be as well?
[/QUOTE]

Not difficult at all, as both are governed by the same sort of inculcation systems.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
There is remarkable similarity among atheists on the matter of the existence of gods.

You keep trying to claim some sort of innocence by suggesting that you weren’t talking about a specific atheist, or were somehow talking about yourself. I would be just as deluded if I thought anyone would buy into a similar justification, were I to propose that “Christians are extremely stupid” or “I’ve decided to become a Christian, therefore I will be extremely stupid.”

Gee, why would anyone be upset? I was just talking about myself?

(The transparency of this argument (i.e. The-Rodney-Dangerfield-Caddyshack-“It looks good on you though”-Excuse) is such that I’d suggest you slide slowly away from it out of embarrassment.)
[/QUOTE]

Well, it’s hard to refute that kind of logic.

[smiling_bandit]

[QUOTE=Marley23]
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.
[/quote]

My point is that essentially everyone believes in a right and wrong which are above their personal preference. Even those who nakedly pursue power and wealth generally go after some quasi-morality which enables them to do so and feel it acceptable, even a positive good. (Ayn Rand, late Antebellum slaveowners). Ultimately, this thing, this right and wrong is your God. I believe that his is a real force, with specific aims and personality. Other people don’t. But they listen to it nonetheless.

Overall, most people are better than their beliefs, which is a very good thing, because they hold some very bad beliefs. Those people wqho are worse than their beliefs are either very bad or hold very high standards, and often both. Didn’t the Communists believe in all kinds of wonderful things? Yes, indeed. A spoiled Saint is sweeter to Satan.

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.

Well, that’s possible. I have a hard time following a lot of mswas writes. I sort of lost him about halfway. I actually got a lot more edification out of those arguing against him than anything else.

If you are right, then I supose I’m the anti-mswas. I suppose everyone does think this things are meaningful, though I think atheists are misinterpreting the source whence they get their meaning. Nature obviates all meaning. A thing is or it is not, and the question “How shall we then live?” is merely a one of personal taste or instinct. Nature is fundamentally random, without meaning, with any order being a temporary abberation which will emerge and vanish without import. In nature, and solely under nature, our existence is meaningless.

Our reason, though derived in part from nature, is fundamentally irrational. Yes, I know I just contradicted that sentence with itself. Reason may be limited by nature, by our senses and native intellect, but it is ultimately the thing whcih seperates us from nature. I consider reason a wide concept here: humor is an aspect of it. Animals do not laugh or crack jokes, although they can play. But a real joke relies not even so much on communication (which all animals have to a greater or lesser degree) but upon rational inferences which are proved wrong, or observations which we process in a certain way.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
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.
[/QUOTE]
This is a similarly ill-formed premise to many others that I’ve seen you make, such as your argument against Dawkins’ proposition of a survival benefit to children who generally follow the commands of their parents. (For the observers, ITR champion suggested that this proposition would be disproved if any child anywhere ever did not follow their parent’s command.)

Similarly here, nobody has claimed that an atheist will be universally and perpetually empathetic and “moral”. As most researchers in moral, cognitive, or even general human development (and in fact, most thinking people) will tell you, we are all layer cakes. That is to say that a person may be categorized in the highest stage of Kohlberg’s system of sociomoral development, but may still nevertheless tell someone else that they are full of shit.

I cannot believe that you honestly think that any atheist proposed such infallability or omni-empathy, just like I cannot believe that you really felt that Dawkins was suggesting that all children always follow their parents’ commands. Either you knowingly like to employ obviously faulty premises for some reason, or you also have a severe lack of perspective taking ability.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Well, it’s hard to refute that kind of logic.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently so.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Apparently so.
[/QUOTE]

So my arguing that as a result of abandoning my moral foundation, I have decided to question the very basis of all morals, and include the possibility of allowing that I become a sociopath due to the lack of behavioral constraints previously applied by my cultural institutions, this somehow reflects upon you, and your feelings deserve to be exalted to such a state that I should be more careful about what I do lest I offend your feelings?

Sounds kind of solipsistic to me, as I wasn’t ever talking about you.

[Czarcasm]

[QUOTE=mswas]
So my arguing that as a result of abandoning my moral foundation, I have decided to question the very basis of all morals, and include the possibility of allowing that I become a sociopath due to the lack of behavioral constraints previously applied by my cultural institutions, this somehow reflects upon you, and your feelings deserve to be exalted to such a state that I should be more careful about what I do lest I offend your feelings?

Sounds kind of solipsistic to me, as I wasn’t ever talking about you.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s go down that road, shall we? Is it your premise that, absent God, you would most likely become some sort of nihilistic sociopath, because you lack any sort of internal morals and/or ethics, acquired (at least by most others, if not you) over a lifetime of interaction with others, to guide you?

[Lightnin]

[QUOTE=mswas]
So my arguing that as a result of abandoning my moral foundation, I have decided to question the very basis of all morals, and include the possibility of allowing that I become a sociopath due to the lack of behavioral constraints previously applied by my cultural institutions, this somehow reflects upon you, and your feelings deserve to be exalted to such a state that I should be more careful about what I do lest I offend your feelings?

Sounds kind of solipsistic to me, as I wasn’t ever talking about you.
[/QUOTE]

So why didn’t you start a thread entitled, “I have decided to become a sociopath (hypothetical)”?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=mswas]
So my arguing that as a result of abandoning my moral foundation, I have decided to question the very basis of all morals, and include the possibility of allowing that I become a sociopath due to the lack of behavioral constraints previously applied by my cultural institutions, this somehow reflects upon you, and your feelings deserve to be exalted to such a state that I should be more careful about what I do lest I offend your feelings?

Sounds kind of solipsistic to me, as I wasn’t ever talking about you.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, it may simply be reflective of individual differences in perspective-taking ability. I have the capacity to imagine that if I were to suggest that some group of people possessed some undesirable trait, other people might take offense. This ability prevents me from doing so, either directly or indirectly, and then wussing out when called upon it by batting my eyes and saying “But I was only talking about myself.”

Perhaps you simply lack this capacity to put yourself in others’ shoes. I can see why you would then fear slipping into psychopathy if not for God keeping you in line.

[The_Hamster_King]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Not difficult at all, as both are governed by the same sort of inculcation systems.
[/QUOTE]
So what’s the problem then?

Do atheists speak a random babble because they no longer believe that words have an absolute meaning?

Do atheists attempt to buy chewing gum with random scraps of paper because dollar bills do not have some God-given inherent value?

Like language and money, morals are socially determined. Why does this bother you?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
As for whether or not deriving morality from God is any more logical, that’s irrelevant. The notion that God gives you morals isn’t subject to rationality, it doesn’t matter.
[/QUOTE]
Of course it matters. If you are without rationality obeying rules laid down for you by an imaginary God, or rather what other people told you he said, then you are the sociopath you claim atheists are. If you are still listening to those others, you are a weapon in their hands; if you are not, then you are out of control and likely to indulge every whim and desire. After all, as God is imaginary or silent, morality derived from God, without even rationality applied to it or it’s consequences is purely arbitrary and subject to random change. You could decide tomorrow that eating babies is God’s Will.

Morality that supposedly comes from God is just coming from you, or from other human beings. And it’s completely baseless, having nothing to do with compassion or empathy or consequences; it isn’t really morality at all.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
So what’s the problem then?

Do atheists speak a random babble because they no longer believe that words have an absolute meaning?

Do atheists attempt to buy chewing gum with random scraps of paper because dollar bills do not have some God-given inherent value?

Like language and money, morals are socially determined. Why does this bother you?
[/QUOTE]

No, and that’s not the point. The point is an examination of the value of all things as the guiding first principle of my prior existance has been eradicated.

Hentor and Czarcasm The problem here is one of the accepted dogma. Sometimes you guys argue that atheists are not a group, and now you are arguing that there is some sort of group identity that goes beyond simply. “I don’t believe in God.” So which is it? Are atheists a group with a common moral and ethical identity or are they defined purely individually, their only common union being the lack of belief in something? (Sort of ironic that they are united by the lack of belief in something.)

I am saying that becoming a sociopath is a legitimate response to atheism as there is no unifying factor outside of that. Unlike a religion where there are more unifying themes than simply believing in God. A shared moral and cultural background unites the religious.

I made no comment about ‘all’ atheists, and that, not my OP is the main strawman in this thread.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Don’t people like saying that there is no ‘single’ atheism? That atheism is as varied as individual atheists?
[/QUOTE]

Well, then why’d you start this thread? Any repercussions of you deciding to become an atheist, including your own personal definition of what an atheist is, are as much a matter of personal taste as your favourite movies.

If that is so, why is my argument considered a reflection upon all atheists?

It looks like your own personal definition of what an atheist is varies considerably from the personal definitions of others.
Actually, whether atheism was a monoblock and you were wrong about it, or atheism is a scattered individual thing and people disagreed with you, I guess the result would be the same. What were you expecting?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
I am saying that becoming a sociopath is a legitimate response to atheism as there is no unifying factor outside of that.
[/quote]
Only if you are already a sociopath; an attitude that religion encourages and enables. If eliminating religion from yourself makes you a sociopath, then you were always a sociopath. Just a sociopath who believed in a lot of silly nonsense.

If anything, giving up religion is likely to make someone less sociopathic, as they are more likely to be thinking about real people and not imaginary things like God and souls.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Of course it matters. If you are without rationality obeying rules laid down for you by an imaginary God, or rather what other people told you he said, then you are the sociopath you claim atheists are. If you are still listening to those others, you are a weapon in their hands; if you are not, then you are out of control and likely to indulge every whim and desire. After all, as God is imaginary or silent, morality derived from God, without even rationality applied to it or it’s consequences is purely arbitrary and subject to random change. You could decide tomorrow that eating babies is God’s Will.
[/quote]

I didn’t claim that Atheists are sociopaths. And you are wrong here. If the culture shares the same edicts from God, then there is a unifying theme that can be discussed and measured. The origin of such beliefs are not subject to rational inquiry, or at least do not fall apart if shown to be irrational.

So, by your logic, there really is no reason not to eat babies. Whether God tells me to, or if as an atheist I just decide I want to know what a baby tastes like. It is merely social conditioning. How am I not a weapon in the hands of whoever is deciding the moral conditioning even without God?

Morality that supposedly comes from God is just coming from you, or from other human beings. And it’s completely baseless, having nothing to do with compassion or empathy or consequences; it isn’t really morality at all.

You seem to be arguing for some sort of objective morality. How does one determine what is morally objective? You act as though it’s some sort of genetic imperative. If I can defy it and others can defy it, clearly it’s not a genetic imperative for everyone. If it’s not an imperative for everyone, then maybe it is right and good for some of us to be sociopaths.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

Actually, whether atheism was a monoblock and you were wrong about it, or atheism is a scattered individual thing and people disagreed with you, I guess the result would be the same. What were you expecting?
[/QUOTE]

70% hystrionics and 30% thoughtful responses. Which is about what I got.

[Marley23]

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
My point is that essentially everyone believes in a right and wrong which are above their personal preference. Even those who nakedly pursue power and wealth generally go after some quasi-morality which enables them to do so and feel it acceptable, even a positive good. (Ayn Rand, late Antebellum slaveowners). Ultimately, this thing, this right and wrong is your God. I believe that his is a real force, with specific aims and personality. Other people don’t. But they listen to it nonetheless.
[/quote]

You can call it your God if you want. I prefer to call it my surfboard. Sure, people get really confused when they call it that because they think I’m talking about something used in surfing, but…

Well, that’s possible. I have a hard time following a lot of mswas writes. I sort of lost him about halfway. I actually got a lot more edification out of those arguing against him than anything else.

Likewise.

Our reason, though derived in part from nature, is fundamentally irrational. Yes, I know I just contradicted that sentence with itself.

No, that makes sense to me.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=mswas]
I didn’t claim that Atheists are sociopaths.
[/quote]
Of course you did; that was the obvious thrust of your post. It’s the standard “Anyone who doesn’t believe in God is an evil monster and enemy of all humanity” propaganda the believers spout all the time.

[QUOTE=mswas]
And you are wrong here. If the culture shares the same edicts from God, then there is a unifying theme that can be discussed and measured.
[/quote]
Except they don’t, because there is no God. Instead, they have arbitrary assertions with no connection to reality, which can be changed randomly at any time.

[QUOTE=mswas]
So, by your logic, there really is no reason not to eat babies. Whether God tells me to, or if as an atheist I just decide I want to know what a baby tastes like. It is merely social conditioning.
[/quote]
No, it’s a matter of what’s better for humanity. Of what serves people, in general, better.

[QUOTE=mswas]
How am I not a weapon in the hands of whoever is deciding the moral conditioning even without God?
[/quote]
Because justifications like “Doing thus and so makes life better” allow you to judge your actions by objective reality. Basing your “morality” on God does not. If you base your “morality” on god, you don’t actually have any morality at all; just orders. Orders that are detached from reality.

[QUOTE=mswas]
You seem to be arguing for some sort of objective morality.
[/quote]
No, I’m saying I don’t care if there is one or not. I care about the effects of morality on people.