Atheism

[Elioenai26]

Not true.

An Atheist is one who rejects the belief in the existence of deities.

Ok. Thank you. I shall use this definition from here on out.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, yes, you did, several times.
I´m glad to hear, though, that this statement of yours was meant to communicate something else. Now I am wondering what this might be.

Please show me where I did.

 

[Elioenai26]

No one denies that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong - we just disagree that this sense comes from anything other than biology and culture. What more proof do you need than the fact that anything and everything has, somewhere, been morally permissible. Even the Christian churches, supposed bastions of God's unwavering morality, have condoned most things.

I am greatly encouraged to see that you are one of the few, if not the only one here who seems to have a general understanding of the existence of objective morality.

It is true that today, the debate centers not on "if" moral absolutes exists, but "how" they came to exist. This is where most atheists and theists are engaged in providing their respective views.

One word of advice with regards to the last portion of your post. We must be cautious of making all-encompassing statements about what a specific view condones, endorses or permits. It would be more correct to say that some people associated with the Christian church have condoned things which were morally wrong. And Christians on the other hand, must not say that all atheistic adherents have condoned or have agreed upon those things committed by immoral atheists. We cannot make all-inlcusive statements like that.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, theism is just as amoral as atheism is.
Not until a theist believes God to be the author of a certain set of moral prescriptions. Theism doesn´t make such a statement.

Theism indirectly affirms the existence of objective morality when it affirms that all that has come into being was created by an intelligent creator. The idea of morality exists and it exists because of the will of the Creator of the universe.

Way to miss the point. I´ll repeat it for you: Both atheism and the art of plumbing make no statements about morality, yet do not preclude the person from having a consistent moral view.

Just as theism inherently speaks of morality, so atheism inherently denies it. Therefore atheism does make statements on morality. They are deductive in nature. You deduce from the logical conclusions of the atheistic view that the idea of morality does not exist. This is making a statement on morality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I have said, and I shall repeat it again, is that atheism as a worldview is amoral. This simply means that the idea of morality has no place in the atheistic worldview.

You are deeply mistaken in this, but thank you for being clear.

It is still, however, an offensive position to take, and you should tread carefully if you want a productive discussion. Instead of telling atheists what is consistent with their atheism, you may want to ask them instead, and approach it from that angle. Otherwise, you'll just be perceived as talking down to people and telling them what is possible, when they might know better what is possible than you do.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

I find it quite ironic that men like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer understand more completely the logical outworkings of an atheistic worldview than many of the "enlightened thinkers" and new atheists of today. From the things that both of these men have said with regards to their atheistic worldview, they understand that amorality is living without adherence to morals. This was their justification for committing the rape and murder of young boys and women.

Not poisoning the well at all there, are you?

 

[quatona]

Theism indirectly affirms the existence of objective morality when it affirms that all that has come into being was created by an intelligent creator. The idea of morality exists and it exists because of the will of the Creator of the universe.

Not every theist believes that.

Just as theism inherently speaks of morality, so atheism inherently denies it. Therefore atheism does make statements on morality. They are deductive in nature. You deduce from the logical conclusions of the atheistic view that the idea of morality does not exist. This is making a statement on morality.

I´ll retreat from this thread. I am tired of you making up positions for me instead of listening to my actual views, opinions and statements.

However, it´s funny when you quote Dawkins on explaining the origins of morality in order to prove that Dawkins and atheists in general conclude that there is no morality.

 

[Elioenai26]

You are deeply mistaken in this, but thank you for being clear.

It is still, however, an offensive position to take, and you should tread carefully if you want a productive discussion. Instead of telling atheists what is consistent with their atheism, you may want to ask them instead, and approach it from that angle. Otherwise, you'll just be perceived as talking down to people and telling them what is possible, when they might know better what is possible than you do.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So you would disagree with Mr. Dawkins when he states that:

“there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

If this is not the view of the logical outworkings of an amoral view, then I do not know what is!

Maybe you are not an atheist then? Or maybe you are and want to have the best of both worlds? You want on the one hand to categorically and emphatically shout: There is no God or gods, and yet at the same time hold onto the idea of offense! Did not Nietzsche prove to us that this position is not tenable.

 

[quatona]

Please show me where I did.

You did it in the very first post towards me, I called you upon it and kindly asked you to abstain from it. Remember?

 

[Gadarene]

So you would disagree with Mr. Dawkins when he states that:

“there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

If this is not the view of the logical outworkings of an amoral view, then I do not know what is!

That quote - in context - refers to the lack of teleology inherent in the nature of the universe. That's all. It is not a statement on morals.

 

[madaz]

Recently I have become fascinated by Atheism and Atheistic philosophy.
I want to ask you guys (the Atheist community here) what should Christians know about Atheism?

Kia ora Matariki Im a kiwi Atheist residing in Australia. I will do my best to answer your questions.

Are you a weak Atheist or strong Atheist in your terms of views?

I'm a mid to strong Atheist, I once was zealous but have calmed down as I have got older.

What are your opinions on strong Atheism or weak Atheism?

In my opinion, to assert that deities do NOT exist (strong Atheism) is almost as absurd as asserting that deities do exist. (theism) so the best position for theists to assert is that deities could possibly exist.
In my opinion it is very unlikely that deities exist. If I am given a convincing argument based on empiricism and/or logical reasoning
I will alter my position.

What are your opinions on Religion?

I believe religion is a culturally significant part of history as human beings. Religious charities account for 40% of aid in Africa so there is good work attributable to religious people however I also believe religion divides us as humans.

What are your opinions on some of the more famous figures in Atheism today? E.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Micheal Shermer, Stephen Hawkings, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris.

I admire Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Barker etc and I have also had the privilege of meeting some of them.

Have you ever experienced any discrimination for being an Atheist?

Yes I have experienced discrimination for being an Atheist. I do not wish to elaborate other than it was from family members.

 

[Skavau]

“there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

Where's your source for this quote? It looks like a merging of several things that Dawkins has said.

Maybe you are not an atheist then? Or maybe you are and want to have the best of both worlds? You want on the one hand to categorically and emphatically shout: There is no God or gods, and yet at the same time hold onto the idea of offense! Did not Nietzsche prove to us that this position is not tenable.

You accepted on this thread, not very long ago at all that:

"An Atheist is one who rejects the belief in the existence of deities."

You said: " Ok. Thank you. I shall use this definition from here on out."

Why are you reverting back to the old fallacious definition?

 

[madaz]

Originally Posted by Elioenai26
"What I have said, and I shall repeat it again, is that atheism as a worldview is amoral. This simply means that the idea of morality has no place in the atheistic worldview."

I find this statement very offensive!!! It is untrue and slanderous.

An Atheist is simply one who rejects the belief in the existence of deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So you would disagree with Mr. Dawkins when he states that:

“there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

I would need to see the context behind that quote to know for certain. I'm not going to respond to an edited snippet.

But, yes, I disagree with the view that we are merely "machines for propagating DNA", and that the concepts of good and evil have no application to human life. I find that view overly reductionistic, and atheism certainly does not require reductionism.

BTW, I am not influenced by Mr. Dawkins on philosophical issues at all. Honestly, he is barely a blip on my radar screen. I don't particularly care what he thinks about anything.

Maybe you are not an atheist then?

I absolutely am an atheist, and I utterly reject any authority that you may believe that you have to tell me what is philosophically possible to a godless worldview.

Please stop that. It is unbecoming of you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

[/color]

This is the general view of atheists on morality. That there is no objective morality. All is subjective. This is in keeping with the atheistic worldview. I commend you for being brave enough to say it.

First of all, I’ve heard this claim soooo many times often by Christians so let me clear this up once and for all; THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ATHEIST WORLD VIEW!!!
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, I never said there is no objective morality; I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. My exact words were “some people’s (weather theist or atheist)moral values are objective, others are subjective”

I know a man who was born in the 1940’s and he was raised to be what is often called “a racist” and a “homophobe”. When the 1970’s came along his surroundings changed as did his point of view concerning races thus he no longer believed his race was superior to other races; that everybody was equal but he continued to believe homosexuality was a perversion. When the 1990’s came along the same thing happened and he gradually became more accepting of homosexuals. He is an example of “subjective morality” if his morality were objective, he would still be a racist and would still think homosexuality is a perversion. Using this example I think it would be foolish to assume that only Christians can think this way; don’t you agree? If not please explain.

In every society, no matter what its cultural underpinnings are, there is a code of "oughtness." I.e. this ought to be done or this ought not to be done. While the specifics may vary from culture to culture, in each case, those specifics are rooted in a prior set of beliefs as to what ought to be.
These in turn, are related to what they consider to be a person's essential nature and purpose.

A quick look at your bible and it appears that even your God’s morality has changed. Look at what Jesus instructed in Luke 6:28 vs what God instructed in Numbers 32:17-18. Look at what Jesus instructed in Luke 19:30-34 vs what God instructed via the 8th commandment (thou shalt not steal)
As an atheist I can make bold statements such as rape is wrong! Stealing is wrong! Murder is wrong! Because I don’t have to defend anybody behavior but my own. So how can a Christian proclaim that morality is objective and then attempt to justify the atrocities of Moses, Joshua, or Saul, and call them righteous men of God? Please explain

Ken

 

[Elioenai26]

Where's your source for this quote? It looks like a merging of several things that Dawkins has said.

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic, 1996), 133, and Richard Dawkins, “The Ultraviolet Garden,” Lecture 4 of 7 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1992),

You accepted on this thread, not very long ago at all that:

"An Atheist is one who rejects the belief in the existence of deities."

You said: " Ok. Thank you. I shall use this definition from here on out."

Why are you reverting back to the old fallacious definition?

Fallacious definition as in?????

 

[Ken-1122]

An atheist would not say that he worships a non-existent God.

I wasn’t talking about an atheist, I am talking about theists who worship a different God than your own. Do you believe Vinishu, or Ahura Mazda exist?

Nor would he be able to soundly give a defense for any moral objectives.

I give defense on moral objectives all the time! If you disagree I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Atheists who understand their position say this. It is the logical conclusion of their beliefs. Ask Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris, who are well known atheists. They will try to convince you that morals are simply a by-product of evolutionary processes or give some other theory as to why humans possess an inherent sense of "oughtness."

I am not familiar with the views of these men and it would be unfair to assume my opinions mirror theirs so they should not even be a part of this conversation. Again; if you wanna know what I believe; ask me.

Ken

 

[Skavau]

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic, 1996), 133, and Richard Dawkins, “The Ultraviolet Garden,” Lecture 4 of 7 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1992),

When I googled the quotation all I could find was:

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
— Richard Dawkins, ibid.

Which was slightly different than your quote.

I googled again with "River out of Eden" and got this:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. River out of Eden (1995) p.133

Fallacious definition as in?????

You said to Eudaimonist:

Maybe you are not an atheist then? Or maybe you are and want to have the best of both worlds? You want on the one hand to categorically and emphatically shout: There is no God or gods

Yet you had accepted prior that the definition of atheism does not require someone to assert that there is "no God or gods" here.

 

[Elioenai26]

I will no longer be addressing those who have been keeping up with the discussion with regards to the theistic argument from morality. If anyone who is new to the thread would like to discuss it, I welcome the opportunity to do so!

As it is has been observed, no logical argument has been espoused by any atheist here with regards to refuting the premises proposed in the primary post on this topic. The burden remains upon you all to offer a logical negation to presmise one and build a sound and logically valid argument which reaches a conclusion opposite of the one stated. Until this happens, the argument stands as being true.

I have supplied you all several times with an adequate definition of what an acceptable premise is according to contemporary philisophical scholarship and so far no one has been able to show with sufficient evidence why premise one of the moral argument is false. Until you can, premise one is to be taken as true. If it so clearly evident to you all that premise one is not true, then simply reword it however you wish and try to come up with a sound refutation.

One problem here is that far from being in agreement on what atheism is, the majority of you cannot even agree on what objective morals are. The existence of said morals is even in question to many of you.

Opinions have their place, but not in logical argument.

If you would be successful in your defense of atheism, I would suggest the following:

1. Come to some type of general consensus on what atheism is and its ramifications for life.

2. Come to some type of consensus on what objective moral values are and whether or not they exist.

3. Attempt to develop some type of argument to refute the present one and thereby show it to be false.

4. Admit that atheism is a worldview and that it is a belief system. It is an affirmation of the non-existence of a God or gods. This ought not to be confused with agnosticism, which claims not to know. This assertion cannot be empirically verified and proven with mathematical certainty which therefore makes it a belief, i.e something that you believe to be true.

5. Understand that when you postualte the non-existence of a God or gods, you are committing what is referred to as an absolute negation which is self-contradictory. For, to sustain this belief, you must demonstrate that you possess infinite knowledge, which is the same as saying: "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge." !!!

It must also be taken into account that this argument is just one of several arguments for theism. If anyone is interested, I have several other arguments for theism that are useful in showing that theism is the more plausible worldview as opposed to atheism. I shall begin with the cosmological argument from contingency and proceed from there.

 

[Gadarene]

What utter rubbish.