Is There More to Atheism than Lack of Belief?

[Gadarene]

I find it quite interesting to see Atheists getting defensive when all that I'm saying is that they are equally irrational as the faithful are. And therein lies the root of the problem of "misconceiving atheism" - oftentimes, one has the feeling that Atheism is defined less by the lack of belief in God and more by the supposed superiority of "believing only for what there is evidence" (while not even being coherent enough to then throw morals overboard).

Maybe they react that way because- radical idea- you haven't demonstrated as such.

You became rather unconvincing when you just blew off empathy as rudimentary. I'm sure naturalistic morality will look unconvincing to you if you systematically disregard its fundaments.

Still not sure either where the irrationality is supposed to be coming in. All components of this system can at least be demonstrated to exist in some form, unlike your deity.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Maybe they react that way because- radical idea- you haven't demonstrated as such.

Or they don't want to admit it?

You became rather unconvincing when you just blew off empathy as rudimentary. I'm sure naturalistic morality will look unconvincing to you if you systematically disregard its fundaments.

From a naturalist viewpoint, any emotion is "rudimentary" as it merely serves the purpose of survival and procreation. Fear, pain, suffering, compassion, guilt, happiness are all explained away by noting that these are functional in the sense that they promote survival and sustained procreation.

It's not "disregarding" fundaments - it's merely taking them to a coherent level. Perhaps you should think of watching some lectures on the scientific method. (Not meant as an insult, but as a genuine recommendation.)

Still not sure either where the irrationality is supposed to be coming in. All components of this system can at least be demonstrated to exist in some form, unlike your deity.

Argument 1
(1.1) It cannot be demonstrated that an action is morally good or bad.
(1.2) There is no reason to believe that anything that cannot be demonstrated exists.
-----------------------------
There is no reason to believe that an action is morally good or bad.

Argument 2
(2.1) There is no reason to adhere to personal emotions if they do not serve the individual benefit.*
(2.2) Emotions might be the only thing keeping you from any action.
-----------------------------
There is no reason to refrain from any action if it's just personal emotion.
* = For example: overcoming fear and stepping into a roller coaster.

Argument 3
(3.1) = (2.2) It is irrational to refrain from any action if it's just personal emotion.
(3.2) Many atheists still refrain from some actions, thereby passing up opportunities and benefit, just because of personal emotion.
-----------------------------
Atheists who fulfill criteria (3.2) are irrational.

 

[Gadarene]

Or they don't want to admit it?

From a naturalist viewpoint, any emotion is "rudimentary" as it merely serves the purpose of survival and procreation. Fear, pain, suffering, compassion, guilt, happiness are all explained away by noting that these are functional in the sense that they promote survival and sustained procreation.

Which doesn't mean they aren't moral, so your attempt to explain them away to engineer your desired conclusion is laughably wrong. Sorry they weren't carved in tablets of stone and delivered from on high, but not all moral systems work that way. That doesn't mean they are incoherent just because they have a use other than stroking a deity's ego.

It's not "disregarding" fundaments - it's merely taking them to a coherent level. Perhaps you should think of watching some lectures on the scientific method. (Not meant as an insult, but as a genuine recommendation.)

It's blind assertion. Come lecture me when you have something other than that.

Argument 1

(1.1) It cannot be demonstrated that an action is morally good or bad.
(1.2) There is no reason to believe that anything that cannot be demonstrated exists.
-----------------------------
There is no reason to believe that an action is morally good or bad.

Why are we talking about "existence"? We are evaluating the morality of actions. They certainly exist as ideas, but not in any physical sense.

Argument 2

(2.1) There is no reason to adhere to personal emotions if they do not serve the individual benefit.*
(2.2) Emotions might be the only thing keeping you from any action.
-----------------------------
There is no reason to refrain from any action if it's just personal emotion.
* = For example: overcoming fear and stepping into a roller coaster.

2.1 - And you've simply dismissed things that would serve individual benefit that don't suit your argument - like a sense of empathy.

2.2 - Might? Well, good to see your argument is solid.

Argument 3

(3.1) = (2.2) It is irrational to refrain from any action if it's just personal emotion.
(3.2) Many atheists still refrain from some actions, thereby passing up opportunities and benefit, just because of personal emotion.
-----------------------------
Atheists who fulfill criteria (3.2) are irrational.

Except these actions aren't just emotion.

Also - again - unlike your deity - emotions exist

And you're managing to be condescending and preachy. Bang-up job.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Which doesn't mean they aren't moral, so your attempt to explain them away to engineer your desired conclusion is laughably wrong. Sorry they weren't carved in tablets of stone and delivered from on high, but not all moral systems work that way. That doesn't mean they are incoherent just because they have a use other than stroking a deity's ego.

There is a difference between establishing a system based on politics (that is, to ensure coexistence between members of a society) and a system based on moral value.
The first is truly rational because it maximizes benefit for all members of society, and yet it is confined to the realms in which society actually plays a role or has an enforcer. That is to say, should you ever attain a position of power or independence where society has no means (or knowledge of the crime) to effectively sanction you, it would be very rational to act only on own benefit, ignoring the rules/traditions/laws.
The latter is wholly irrational because it presupposes that some actions are inherently good or inherently wrong. Whether one comes to that conclusion because one believes in a deity or not is irrelevant - both conclusions are irrational.

It's blind assertion. Come lecture me when you have something other than that.

Your arguments are based on wishful thinking. You suppose Christianity (or any other belief in a higher deity) is irrational, yet are unable to argue why you believe that it's wrong to rape a woman or rob a millionaire if you'd get away with it.
Atheists who claim to only believe in things for which there is solid evidence should have a fundamental knowledge in how science works. That is to say they should either educate themselves on the principles or (better yet) partake in research themselves.
Again, I don't want to be insulting, but from your argumentation (and lack of formal scientific understanding), I have a gut feeling that you have done neither.

Why are we talking about "existence"? We are evaluating the morality of actions. They certainly exist as ideas, but not in any physical sense.

The actions exist in a physical sense. The question is whether there is any evidence to believe the actions themselves have properties that would qualify as "good" or "bad".

2.1 - And you've simply dismissed things that would serve individual benefit that don't suit your argument - like a sense of empathy.

I am not saying it's always irrational not to rob a millionaire. It's sometimes irrational - and yet most Atheists will still not rob a millionaire even if it were rational.

You're trying to discredit an argument by arguing the cases that have been formally excluded. It would be like you saying: "Abortion isn't good if it's done when the baby is 38 weeks old, but before that it's fine" - and I answered "But you've ignored that some babies are 40 weeks old! It's totally unethical to kill a baby that's 40 weeks old!"

2.2 - Might? Well, good to see your argument is solid.

As I said, I am not saying that Atheists are universally irrational.
There are some instances in which a decision not to rob a millionaire are rational (he's got guns, security, the law on his side). And there are some instances in which it is not. And yet, most Atheists will argue that even in these instances, robbing the millionaire is wrong.

Except these actions aren't just emotion.

Also - again - unlike your deity - emotions exist

And you're managing to be condescending and preachy. Bang-up job.

All you're doing is repeating the mantra of "that doesn't apply to all situations" or "there are other reasons! I just don't want to tell them to you!".

With all due respect, all I'm doing is showing that it's as irrational to believe in a higher deity as it is to believe in atheist morality. I'm saying we're equals. You have your beliefs, I have mine.
The fact that you are clinging on to your supposed feeling of intellectual superiority is fascinating and sadly goes to show that some Atheists are rooted not in simply "not believing in God", but "believing in their own superiority". This might be the reason for some of the backlash the OP may be getting.

 

[Gadarene]

There is a difference between establishing a system based on politics (that is, to ensure coexistence between members of a society) and a system based on moral value.
The first is truly rational because it maximizes benefit for all members of society, and yet it is confined to the realms in which society actually plays a role or has an enforcer. That is to say, should you ever attain a position of power or independence where society has no means (or knowledge of the crime) to effectively sanction you, it would be very rational to act only on own benefit, ignoring the rules/traditions/laws.

I think this contains your root blunder, so I'm going to address this and not bother with the rest of your whiffle. There isn't a difference, because moral value can also be used to promote coexistence.

If you're ever in a position where society has no means of sanctioning you, then you are in a situation where you are alone. By definition when humans interact there is society.

In addition, why would one not cooperate in a situation where limited people are present? Why would you rape and/or murder someone who could potentially help you? Such a thing would be profoundly irrational from a survival point of view which is what this ultimately boils down to. Good and evil in this context are what respectively reinforce and destabilise human interaction. It is perfectly possible and coherent for morality to correlate with rationality in a naturalistic context.

All you're doing is presenting the tired "evolution implies social darwinism" that Christians usually promote, coupled with delusions of eloquence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Atheist is not the lack of belief in God. It involves an thought out decision you've made that there is no God. An atheist actively rejects the notion that God exists.

They are trying very hard to run away from that definition though.

It is great we have people here who are willing to take the time to go out of their way to tell us what we think and believe. How else would we know our own minds if we didn't have these kind souls telling us.

 

[KCfromNC]

Irrational in the sense that you are attributing any action with a parameter for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence of its existence.

You're confusing empiricism with rationalism.

From a naturalist point of view, there is no right or wrong

False.

Alas, belief in any type of moral value to any action could be argued away as "wishful thinking" or plain out "fantasy"

You'll have to show your work here.

In conclusion, if one believes in "good" or "bad", then one shouldn't look down upon the faith of others or deem it "irrational".

Why? There's good reason to think that morality exists and that some actions have different effects on people than others.

 

[Senator Cheese]

I think this contains your root blunder, so I'm going to address this and not bother with the rest of your whiffle. There isn't a difference, because moral value can also be used to promote coexistence.

If you're ever in a position where society has no means of sanctioning you, then you are in a situation where you are alone. By definition when humans interact there is society.

In addition, why would one not cooperate in a situation where limited people are present? Why would you rape and/or murder someone who could potentially help you? Such a thing would be profoundly irrational from a survival point of view which is what this ultimately boils down to. Good and evil in this context are what respectively reinforce and destabilise human interaction. It is perfectly possible and coherent for morality to correlate with rationality in a naturalistic context.

All you're doing is presenting the tired "evolution implies social darwinism" that Christians usually promote, coupled with delusions of eloquence.

While I respect that you have found the rest of my argumentation to have been solid, I am confident that we can also find a consensus on this particular subissue at hand.

You are failing to see that while you are correct in the sense that there are some situations to which your presumption ("It is rational to behave in a morally legitimate way") holds truth, this coincidental congruence of moral behavior and rationality does not apply to all situations.

There is a profound difference in having a moral stance that is derived from conviction/faith and having one that is derived solely from rational deduction. The latter can be altered/thrown overboard whenever a situation arises in which it is more rational to take personal benefit over doing what is right.

Political corruption, income disparity and favoritism are just some of the universal moral wrongdoings that arise from exactly this type of "rationality-derived" pseudomorality.
After all, we'll all agree that corruption is immoral so long as someone else does it, but if you yourself are the politician/executive who is the one to profit, why would you care to turn down the offer?

Either, you turn it down because you, for some illogical reason, choose to act on personal convictions in regards to morals - or, you do the "rational" thing and dismiss personal feelings as in the way of your own benefit.



It's not really rocket science, Gardarene.
You might not like it, but I am glad to know that you are not the type of person who acts selfish/rational, but someone who is as irrational as I am.

 

[Senator Cheese]

You're confusing empiricism with rationalism.

I'll stop here because I don't understand the difference.
I assumed that most Atheists reject faith because they "only believe in things for which there is evidence". The quotation marks denote a common argument I see here on CF.
I dubbed that "rationalism", but perhaps "empiricism" is a better word.

In either way, I demonstrated that one can't really follow that argumentation and believe in morals.

 

[quatona]

For one, you're misrepresenting faith-based morality: believers aren't projecting their morality into God, but accepting God's morality as a universal standard. (Although, to be fair, this point is minor and irrelevant to the discussion at hand).

Indeed it´s irrelevant, and on top it´s an empty assertion that requires substantion.

You might be aware that your feelings of compassion, guilt or conscience are just figments of your imagination/brain - so far, you're still rational.

I´m not sure why you insist on calling your feelings and your compassion "just" "figments". They are your feelings, and they are products of your brain.

The moment that you're acting on these imaginations and letting benefit slip, you're being irrational.

1. They are not imaginations, they are products, emanations.

2. I´m not seeing the irrationality in acting upon your feelings. Not any more than deciding what to eat based upon my preferences (be they taste, healthiness or whatever).

3.I´m also not seeing how acting on my compassion necessarily means "letting benefits slip" - unless you are superimposing your very shallow understanding of "benefit" upon my statements.

That is, of course, going by the naturalist definition of "rationality".

Could you please provide the naturalist definition of "rationality", along with the source?
On another note, why would you expect me to work from this definition (provided it exists at all)?

Finally, you didn´t address my point: the difference in "irrationality" between acting upon the products of my brain (fully knowing they are the products of my brain) and postulating an external entity without evidence are obvious.

I find it quite interesting to see Atheists getting defensive when all that I'm saying is that they are equally irrational as the faithful are.

I find it quite interesting that you file our attempts to correct your misconceptions about our ideas under "getting defensive".
Sure, you would like them to be left unaddressed...but discussions don´t work that way.

And therein lies the root of the problem of "misconceiving atheism" - oftentimes, one has the feeling that Atheism is defined less by the lack of belief in God and more by the supposed superiority of "believing only for what there is evidence" (while not even being coherent enough to then throw morals overboard).

Again, I believe that my moral ideas are emanations of my brain. Are you really saying that there isn´t sufficient evidence for this notion?

 

[Gadarene]

While I respect that you have found the rest of my argumentation to have been solid

You are failing to see that while you are correct in the sense that there are some situations to which your presumption ("It is rational to behave in a morally legitimate way")

Stop right there.

Please indicate where I said anything like that.

holds truth, this coincidental congruence of moral behavior and rationality does not apply to all situations.

Not coincidental at all - it is to do with survival, which you have ignored.

There is a profound difference in having a moral stance that is derived from conviction/faith and having one that is derived solely from rational deduction. The latter can be altered/thrown overboard whenever a situation arises in which it is more rational to take personal benefit over doing what is right.

Political corruption, income disparity and favoritism are just some of the universal moral wrongdoings that arise from exactly this type of "rationality-derived" pseudomorality.

And yet we have laws and programs against all of such things, that are justified without needing to appeal to skydaddy.

Amazing, huh?

After all, we'll all agree that corruption is immoral so long as someone else does it, but if you yourself are the politician/executive who is the one to profit, why would you care to turn down the offer?

Either, you turn it down because you, for some illogical reason, choose to act on personal convictions in regards to morals - or, you do the "rational" thing and dismiss personal feelings as in the way of your own benefit.

Is this seriously the sort of reasoning you want to put forward?

Because in a society the odds aren't small that you'll get into trouble for it. Or because you think it is better for everyone (including, note, YOURSELF) to live in a society that is more transparent than corrupted.

What is necessarily rational about something that not only carries with significant personal risk but also degrades society overall? It might seem to make sense for immediate short term benefit, but longer term the odds are not so good, both for yourself and for society.

It's not really rocket science, Gardarene.

Gadarene. I'm sure you can at least read.

No, that would imply your ideas had some kind of complexity. As it is, they are laughably insubstantial.

You might not like it, but I am glad to know that you are not the type of person who acts selfish/rational, but someone who is as irrational as I am.

We're done here. I am not going to waste more of my time on someone this intellectually dishonest who repeatedly misquotes my position, then smarms while posting complete bollocks - and then claims he's not trying to insult me.

 

[Gadarene]

Again, I believe that my moral ideas are emanations of my brain. Are you really saying that there isn´t sufficient evidence for this notion?

Indeed - we aren't claiming they're anything more than that, unlike those who deify theirs.

This doesn't mean there aren't objective components to our moral system either.

 

[Senator Cheese]

And yet we have laws and programs against all of such things, that are justified without needing to appeal to skydaddy.

Morality does not only consist of rules, but following those rules aswell.

Because in a society the odds aren't small that you'll get into trouble for it. Or because you think it is better for everyone (including, note, YOURSELF) to live in a society that is more transparent than corrupted.

Seeing as how omnipresent income disparities, corruption, favoritism and greed are in our society, the "trouble" obviously does not seem to be a strong deterrent.

What is necessarily rational about something that not only carries with significant personal risk but also degrades society overall? It might seem to make sense for immediate short term benefit, but longer term the odds are not so good, both for yourself and for society.

Sure, it's better. But then again, I'll get away with the transgression or it won't really cause a system collapse because everyone else is doing it and has been doing it for centuries! The point remains: it's irrational. Good, but irrational.

No, that would imply your ideas had some kind of complexity. As it is, they are laughably insubstantial.
We're done here. I am not going to waste more of my time on someone this intellectually dishonest who repeatedly misquotes my position, then smarms while posting complete bollocks - and then claims he's not trying to insult me.

I have not misquoted your position.
From all of your posts, you enter into discussions on a high horse of supposed intellectual supremacy, ridiculing and mocking the Christian faith while obviously (as was demonstrated in this thread) holding beliefs that are as irrational from a formal scientific viewpoint as faith in God allmighty himself.

When someone calls out your ignorance and hipocrisy, you act as though you weren't treated fairly because one consequently applies the scientific method to debunk your claims.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: it was never my intention to insult you. Either you did not understand the argumentation (which, as I said, can be difficult if you haven't familiarized yourself with the way scientific research is conducted - this is nothing to be ashamed of) or you deliberately or unconsciously ignored or misrepresented the statements herein.

Either way, I can't say I'll miss you from the discussion.
All the best to you and have a blessed Sunday. Thank you for trying to contribute.

 

[Gadarene]

Morality does not only consist of rules, but following those rules aswell.

Yeeees. Which is an argument against your system as well.

The difference is, there is less room for error - if any at all - where an omnipotent and omniscient deity is involved.

Seeing as how omnipresent income disparities, corruption, favoritism and greed are in our society, the "trouble" obviously does not seem to be a strong deterrent.

Sure, it's better. But then again, I'll get away with the transgression or it won't really cause a system collapse because everyone else is doing it and has been doing it for centuries! The point remains: it's irrational. Good, but irrational.

Where did I say the system was perfect? And if these systems were not in place it would be worse. It depends if your definition of rationality is one which thinks short-term profit is more sensible than long-term benefit. If you're going to defend that in a situation which isn't about your immediate survival, then you're not really using a definition of "rationality" that most people would recognise.

But I notice you've slipped from trying to defend your claim that it's irrational and have slyly changed tack to pointing out the system is imperfect instead, so I think I'll just leave that speak for itself.

I have not misquoted your position.

You repeatedly have in all the places I pointed out.

From all of your posts, you enter into discussions on a high horse of supposed intellectual supremacy, ridiculing and mocking the Christian faith while obviously (as was demonstrated in this thread) holding beliefs that are as irrational from a formal scientific viewpoint as faith in God allmighty himself.

Are you a respawn of Elioenai? Because it's been quite a while since I've encountered this much arrogance coupled with this much incompetence

When someone calls out your ignorance and hipocrisy, you act as though you weren't treated fairly because one consequently applies the scientific method to debunk your claims.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: it was never my intention to insult you. Either you did not understand the argumentation (which, as I said, can be difficult if you haven't familiarized yourself with the way scientific research is conducted - this is nothing to be ashamed of)

You realise that "scientific method" is separate from "debate", right? You haven't presented a jot of science, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. And then you presume to lecture people on it

or you deliberately or unconsciously ignored or misrepresented the statements herein.

Pot, meet kettle.

Keep up the entertainment, champ

 

[bhsmte]

I'll stop here because I don't understand the difference.
I assumed that most Atheists reject faith because they "only believe in things for which there is evidence". The quotation marks denote a common argument I see here on CF.
I dubbed that "rationalism", but perhaps "empiricism" is a better word.

In either way, I demonstrated that one can't really follow that argumentation and believe in morals.

I don't believe you have demonstrated much, except not making much sense.

 

[Inkfingers]

Is there more to Atheism than lack of belief?

There are two kinds of Atheism:
* Active atheism, which is the belief that there are no gods.
and
* Passive atheism, which is simply the lack of a belief in gods.

There is also anti-theism, which is not only atheistic but is actively opposed to the belief in God and seeks to undermine and if possible destroy it. For this category, think of everyone's favourite biologist Mr Dawkins.

 

[Gadarene]

There really is no way to be called a negative atheist without the prefix totally sucking.

Negative, weak, passive - meh

How about 'typical atheist' instead

 

[Received]

Gadarene, stop being so negative.

 

[Gadarene]

Gadarene, stop being so negative.

I don't think I am being negative, I simply see no reason to think I'm not being negative

 

[Inkfingers]

There really is no way to be called a negative atheist without the prefix totally sucking.

Bless.