Do atheists "steal from God" when they make moral claims?

2PhiloVoid said:

I find it hard to believe that you can't dredge out a few basic assumptions that all of us human beings can, together, scrounge up. Of course, in saying this, and in line with the premise of this WHOLE thread such as it has become, I'm alluding to that 95% to 96% who are reasonably reasonable, or at least can be with some level of empathy for others.

Click to expand...

I think plenty of these "assumptions" (in other words: unquestioned positions or opinions) dont even have to be positions as such. They dont have to be held in consciousness. In fact, I think often they are not. Youre Christian attitude toward creeds and affirmations may be biasing you here.

Now, I'm not at all lauding the unexamined or life. I just think it happens a lot more that you think.

Moral Orel said:

I think it's pretty clear that you and Pascal are wrong that not caring about the things you've been talking about means a person suffers from "utter emotional despondency". There are a lot of reasons folks don't care about that stuff.

Click to expand...

Ok. Your qualification of the psychological factors playing into what Pascal and I may think is noted and logged. I'll still contend for this position in the future, but perhaps you can show me how I might revise my working definitions so that I don't end up making an A.A.S.S. out of myself, too, in the process.

I read that 194 you kept telling me to, and I counted a No True Scotsman, Argument From Incredulity, and a rather lengthy Strawman. It's a really poor argument, but you can understand my reluctance to put the effort into writing a bunch of detail about it with you, I hope.

Click to expand...

And where did you read this? You're not talking about the reduced quotation that @AvisG offered elsewhere, are you? As for the N.T.S., A.F.I, and a supposed Strawman, I'd really HAVE to have you lay it all out as to how, what, when, where and why you're saying this. Besides, surely you realize that sometimes these supposed fallacies actually do apply, right? It's not as if merely thinking that we've found an opposing argument that falls into one of these discernible patterns then AUTOMATICALLY means that they are discredited. That's not how all of this debate or finding fallacies works. And sometimes, what looks like an Ad Hominem actually does apply.

Then you should understand how silly it is for you to be throwing the term about as an Apologetic tool. If you don't think I should use it on myself, even though I have a degree in clinical psychology (just Associate's, yeah, yeah), and I know myself better than anyone else, you really shouldn't be using it for other folks. You probably noticed my comment later in the post was directed at you. I wasn't making any real attempt at an "expert opinion", it was simply illustrative of how easy it is to cast that net.

Click to expand...

I fully respect your degree, so don't think otherwise, and since you have it, I'm not about to simply sneeze it away. If you feel you've got some additional insights that I should take into account in my own assessment, I'd be more than happy to hear your view on all of this might come to bear.

You'll like Mitch a lot. And his jokes are great, but it's best when you hear them as opposed to reading them. Even when I tell them in real life I have to use Mitch's inflection because his delivery is so endearing.

Click to expand...

Alright, I'll look him up.

I mentioned Anthony Jeselnik earlier; don't look him up. I know you're no prude and all, but the odds of you stumbling on some of the few jokes that you're not going to just hate is pretty slim. He's famous for being one of the most dark comics ever.

Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks for the heads up.

durangodawood said:

I think plenty of these "assumptions" (in other words: unquestioned positions or opinions) dont even have to be positions as such. They dont have to be held in consciousness. In fact, I think often they are not. Youre Christian attitude toward creeds and affirmations may be biasing you here.

Now, I'm not at all lauding the unexamined or life. I just think it happens a lot more that you think.

Click to expand...

Or it may be that you're correct; I am biased, but not because I have an affinity for Christian ideas. It could instead be that I grew up in a dysfunctional home and family, so I'm not conditioned to be keen about trusting that "other people" really do have my own best interest and well-being in mind. And this in turn makes has left me open to feeling happy for all those people who have had great, functional, serene families in which they've grown up or have made happen.

So, there's all of that, too, which we may consider, durangodawood.

durangodawood said:

I think you under value our animal instincts that enable us to be in the world without holding conclusively to ideas and opinions

Click to expand...

I would agree that I probably do under value our animal instincts. I believe they are sufficient for their function, i.e. survival or prolonged existence. And, if life were mere existence, then that sufficiency would be enough. But, I simply can't accept that this life is mere existence. To be honest, I don't think anybody can. I know that is a sweeping statement, but the desire for meaning and purpose seems inherent to the human experience. If life were mere existence, wouldn't we simply exist? And yet, we don't simply exist. We love and want and create and laugh and recreate and...live.

My contention is, in part, this idea that we can't escape this inherent need for these things, like meaning and purpose, that transcend mere existence. We want to make sense of the world we live in and we can't escape that. But, we don't have all the information we need. We are also inherently limited. So, what can we do?

If what I have said so far is right (and it very well might not be) then the only option we have is faith. I don't believe that it is only religious people that have faith. Humans have faith. We are going to have faith, i.e. trust in something, to help us make sense of the world and go forward. The usual term is "worldview" but it is so hackneyed I hate to use it. I don't believe humans can escape having some kind of faith.

durangodawood said:

I'm looking for that one assumption, at minimum, that I must hold to keep operating in the world, and I cant find it.

Click to expand...

That is what I am saying, as well. It is built into us to have that search.

FireDragon76 said:

The Christian hope of heaven, in contrast, is just too uncertain. But what is certain is that if we don't live in the present moment now, it will be gone forever.

Click to expand...

We definitely want certainty, but my position is no matter what we find that appears certain it still hinges on an act of faith. As a Christian, I would argue that nothing is lost in time, for all time is known by an ever-present God. But, that's what I have placed my faith in.

AvisG said:

I just finished The Idea of the World by Bernardo Kastrup, who is a genius of sorts. His position is that it is good old Idealism that best fits with quantum physics and avoids all the problems associated with materialism and dualism.

The gist, which is pretty much what I've always believed anyway, is that consciousness is the fundamental "stuff" of reality. "Our reality is God's dream," as the saying goes. Within the God-consciousness, individuals exist as separate little walled-off pockets of consciousness that experience the God-consciousness and generate their own "dreams."

All entirely consistent with Christianity as far as I can tell, although Kastrup notes the parallels with Buddhism and Platonism

Click to expand...

The first time I read Bishop Berkeley I immediately saw how his position solved a lot of problems associated with materialism (obviously, haha). To be, is to be perceived. if God is the one who perceives us, then...

I agree that idealism, in the Berekelian sense, seems very compatible with Christianity. Johnathan Edwards was another idealist (or so I would argue).

(You probably already know this) but currently pansychism is another metaphysical position that argues consciousness is fundamental to reality. It's more popular than one might think. Galen Strawson holds this position. I don't think it perfectly lines up with idealism, and probably not Christianity for that matter, but it is trying to capture that same idea that perception, or awareness, or experience is fundamental to reality. What is interesting is how it relates, or not, to physicalism.

AvisG said:

And yet, isn't it interesting what a large swath of Buddhism has felt compelled to "personalize" the whole thing. Tibetan Buddhism has as many deities as Hinduism. Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Devas, prayer wheels, oh my! See Buddhist deities - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Of course, Buddhism does not say we live in a cold, sterile universe, and I never implied that's what I believe.

I even have some past experience with Shin Buddhism, which is a form of Pure Land Buddhism. But I think their concept of "God" if you want to call it that, is more like how a modern Unitarian would approach this, than the typical Evangelical Christian. Yes, we can think of Reality as ultimately embracing us with wisdom and compassion in a personal way, and even finding a sense of grace in that, but it's a mistake to try to reify this concept too much as monotheists do, where their deity is more a projection of the human psyche than a vehicle meant to carry us to greater enlightenment, wisdom, and compassion.

The whole "impersonal ground of reality" thing to me just doesn't go anywhere. How is that any different from the common materialistic atheist position that the universe is simply an independent, self-existent entirety that requires no cause or explanation?

Click to expand...

Because Buddhism acknowledges a spiritual dimension, also, and doesn't engage in materialistic reductionism.

renniks said:

Well I certainly can't see how one can argue for morality, when the basis of everything they believe is survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

That's not true. Perhaps you should ask instead of assume.

renniks said:

Well I certainly can't see how one can argue for morality, when the basis of everything they believe is survival of the fittest. It would seem that the meanest and the most physically fit should naturally get most of the spoils, under such a system, and morality be damned.

Click to expand...

you know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive right?

AvisG said:

Wow, do my prayers have to be altruistic too??? Am I allowed to take a pee without agonizing over my motivations?

Of course I'm doing it out of an "internal desire" which I thereby "fulfill."

I don't think anyone, whether God or the Holy Spirit or some Christian authority figure, "put" the desire into me. I think it's simply a natural response to what I perceive to be blessings.

I really wouldn't have seen prayers of thanksgiving as having a moral dimension. I suppose petitionary prayer could be motivated by greed ("Why doesn't God want me to have a new Dodge truck?" my Philosophy of Religion professor used to ask), but it's hard for me to see prayers of thanksgiving as having any moral dimension.

Click to expand...

My apologies. I should have been replying to Rennik’s assertion about the altruism of praising God.

Again, apologies.

Moral Orel said:

Ya know what's fitter than the roughest, toughest, meanest feller in the whole county? A hunerd modestly fit folk all working together. That's the basis of all morality.

Click to expand...

It's quite amazing that some people don't understand that civilization (and thus civility and morality) is a fitness plus even after thousands of years of it.

Heck, evolutionary theory could sing the praises of religion in terms of fitness benefits but the religious often don't quite get the memo.

renniks said:

What species isn't social? Coyotes are social. They still have no problem killing each other over food if there's not enough.

Click to expand...

Humans kill each other all the time too, we've come to understand it's not the best way to build a society.

One way we've come up with to try to convince people not to kill each other and work together is called religion.

The Atheist is committed to think that religious ideas are factually incorrect, not that the aim to build society's that work is wrong.

variant said:

Humans kill each other all the time too, we've come to understand it's not the best way to build a society.

One way we've come up with to try to convince people not to kill each other and work together is called religion.

The Atheist is committed to think that religious ideas are factually incorrect, not that the aim to build society's that work is wrong.

Click to expand...

Again, that's not morality, it's just doing what is expedient. I can make a logical case for not being a scumbag, but if I only follow it because it benefits me, I'm still a scumbag. If I do what is best for you, Because I truly care, that is morality.

renniks said:

Again, that's not morality, it's just doing what is expedient. I can make a logical case for not being a scumbag, but if I only follow it because it benefits me, I'm still a scumbag. If I do what is best for you, Because I truly care, that is morality.

Click to expand...

If I help to build a better world for everyone based upon the best information available, because I want people to flourish, I am not being a scum bag, sorry.

If you think so you've got some weird definitions.

The reason it IS morality is because you do it based upon a value system. There's no reason to help people unless you value them.

To value something you merely need to act upon it.

God's aren't required, they would be ideas regardless of if they exist.

All actual Gods would add to the system is some sort of (external) enforcement mechanism of specific values, people enforce their values all the time regardless.

Since your God's are invisible and un-testable they are hard to call standards.

Reality always pushes back against our aims, so it is the ultimate enforcement.

2PhiloVoid said:

Ok. Your qualification of the psychological factors playing into what Pascal and I may think is noted and logged. I'll still contend for this position in the future, but perhaps you can show me how I might revise my working definitions so that I don't end up making an A.A.S.S. out of myself, too, in the process.

Click to expand...

Do you have a good reason to contend for such a position that sociopathy and unbelief are linked though, really? Because it sounds like the argument you and Pascal are putting out there is just, "I and a whole lotta other people really really care deeply about this stuff, so people that don't must be cold-unfeeling-robots to not care!". I mean, if you can be an atheist and not be a sociopath, and you can be a Christian and be a sociopath, I think the link you're trying to create is clearly not there. You should try to find some positive evidence for it. You got any research that compares diagnoses of sociopathy/psychopathy/narcissism and religious views?

2PhiloVoid said:

And where did you read this? You're not talking about the reduced quotation that @AvisG offered elsewhere, are you? As for the N.T.S., A.F.I, and a supposed Strawman, I'd really HAVE to have you lay it all out as to how, what, when, where and why you're saying this. Besides, surely you realize that sometimes these supposed fallacies actually do apply, right? It's not as if merely thinking that we've found an opposing argument that falls into one of these discernible patterns then AUTOMATICALLY means that they are discredited. That's not how all of this debate or finding fallacies works. And sometimes, what looks like an Ad Hominem actually does apply.

Click to expand...

Pensées - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
I know I don't get to say I spotted a bunch of fallacies and claim victory, but you've given me good reason to think digging in won't be a fruitful endeavor.

2PhiloVoid said:

I fully respect your degree, so don't think otherwise, and since you have it, I'm not about to simply sneeze it away. If you feel you've got some additional insights that I should take into account in my own assessment, I'd be more than happy to hear your view on all of this might come to bear.

Click to expand...

I'm just making the point that if you think I'm not qualified to diagnose myself, then who the heck are you to diagnose other people?

Moral Orel said:

I'm just making the point that if you think I'm not qualified to diagnose myself, then who the heck are you to diagnose other people?

Click to expand...

Diagnosing people you don't like with serious psychological conditions over the internet... What could possibly go wrong.

Moral Orel said:

Do you have a good reason to contend for such a position that sociopathy and unbelief are linked though, really?

Click to expand...

The more correctly identified contention, and one that is honed in upon the specific semantic temper that Pascal is pointing to, is that a certain KIND of unbelief, although not all unbelief which could be universally cited, is evidently a manifestation of some inner psychological incongruity as expressed in a unjustified and dysfunctional form of human apathy. Sure, there are all kinds of reasons and all kinds of emotional conditions that may cause a person to be apathetic to religion in general or to the value of survival over death, but this isn't to say that all of those various reasons are simply passable as "normative" states of apathy.

So, even though you're attempting to give me some push back here to make me reformulate or clarify my position, and I think you should to some extent, this doesn't mean that what Pascal is actually saying and meaning is what you have thus far understood him to mean.

Because it sounds like the argument you and Pascal are putting out there is just, "I and a whole lotta other people really really care deeply about this stuff, so people that don't must be cold-unfeeling-robots to not care!". I mean, if you can be an atheist and not be a sociopath, and you can be a Christian and be a sociopath, I think the link you're trying to create is clearly not there. You should try to find some positive evidence for it. You got any research that compares diagnoses of sociopathy/psychopathy/narcissism and religious views?

Click to expand...

I heartily agree, but why is it that various folks here tend to shy away from much if not most of anything I might offer as evidence? I get tired of the old ploy of being told with firm imperative, "Show me the evidence!," but then when I try to even begin to offer what I think is the first step of evidence, it is usually shot down and instantly discarded as just so much used toilet paper. And then, you atheists turn around and demand that I listen to you.

Now, don't get me wrong; I could be misinterpreting the signals for discussion that you atheists are actually giving me, and I do realize that this could indeed be a possibility. But, then, being that this is a Christian forum, not ONLY a public forum, I'm at great pains to understand further how the ethics and perceived morality of an atheist, especially of the more acerbic kind, plays into their choice and what often remains as an unspoken 'goal' to show up on a site such as this and proceed to persistently here since it's obvious that there is so much that is ideologically at odds with his/her (usually "his") skeptical inclinations. See where I'm going with all of this? I'm trying to take a "bigger picture" view here than some ultra-simple one where I as 2PhiloVoid am simply trying to "figure out" what makes my acquaintance "tick" in his disbelief. ........ so on your part, it may very well be that you don't qualify as the worst kind of unbeliever that Pascal calls out in his Pensees (i.e. in writing #194 and #195, among others).

Pensées - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
I know I don't get to say I spotted a bunch of fallacies and claim victory, but you've given me good reason to think digging in won't be a fruitful endeavor.

Click to expand...

Being that Pascal is rather older school, I can understand your tendency to feel this way, but to me, this kind of sounds like a kind of cop-out, not that you're lazy or anything. But your expressing this in this way reminds of why I decided to throw out teaching as a profession. And so, watch WOULD pique your interest. Should I pull my copy of "Readings in Philosophy of Psychology: Volume One" (ed. Ned Block) off of my shelf and say that I'll ADD this to my religiously inclined and philosophically tinged critique of the atheist mind as a further reason by which to discuss all of this with you?

I'm just making the point that if you think I'm not qualified to diagnose myself, then who the heck are you to diagnose other people?

Click to expand...

I'm sure I'm not professionally qualified, IF by qualified professionally we mean that it specifically takes a degree and certification in Psychiatry to be allowed in our society with doctrinal and legal force to make a diagnosis. But if we were to instead mean that I, as a person with a M.S. degree in the Social Sciences and a B.A. Philosophy/Social Philosophy, might still have the acumen that is equal to, at the least, of another person who has an Associate's degree in Psychology itself, then yes, I'd say that I have something, and that Pascal has something, substantive, even if not exhaustive and final, to say about the possible relation between some form of unbelief and extreme, unjustified apathy toward religion.

Does this make sense? See, here's the thing. I know your capable of discussing and researching topics; so am I. What I'm wondering is why be some folks are so vehemently opposed to either desiring to find some antidote to Life after Death and/or the Christian faith? It makes no sense to me, nor to Pascal, nor to Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or to a whole host of other voices for the last 2,000 years.

However, with all of that said, I'm all ears, as long as the decibel level remains under a certain threshold.

2PhiloVoid said:

The more correctly identified contention, and one that is honed in upon the specific semantic temper that Pascal is pointing to, is that a certain KIND of unbelief, although not all unbelief which could be universally cited, is evidently a manifestation of some inner psychological incongruity as expressed in a unjustified and dysfunctional form of human apathy. Sure, there are all kinds of reasons and all kinds of emotional conditions that may cause a person to be apathetic to religion in general or to the value of survival over death, but this isn't to say that all of those various reasons are simply passable as "normative" states of apathy.

So, even though you're attempting to give me some push back here to make me reformulate or clarify my position, and I think you should to some extent, this doesn't mean that what Pascal is actually saying and meaning is what you have thus far understood him to mean.

Click to expand...

Are there really more than one kind of unbelief according to you and Pascal though? He says that he doesn't believe anyone has truly looked into Christianity and walked away feeling it's false, and you link sociopathy and skepticism (skepticism ain't apathy). That's the "No True Scotsman". If you think that anyone who truly tries to gain faith in Christianity will be successful, then you think that anyone who isn't successful never truly tried. The Bible says "seek and you shall find" so y'all say to yourselves, "Well then anyone who never found, never truly sought".

How about we look at it from a completely different angle. You've said before that it isn't your job to put a desire in people's hearts, that's God's arena, right? Do you think that if God hasn't put that specific desire in, that means he screwed them up in other antisocial ways as well?

2PhiloVoid said:

I heartily agree, but why is it that various folks here tend to shy away from much if not most of anything I might offer as evidence? I get tired of the old ploy of being told with firm imperative, "Show me the evidence!," but then when I try to even begin to offer what I think is the first step of evidence, it is usually shot down and instantly discarded as just so much used toilet paper. And then, you atheists turn around and demand that I listen to you.

Now, don't get me wrong; I could be misinterpreting the signals for discussion that you atheists are actually giving me, and I do realize that this could indeed be a possibility. But, then, being that this is a Christian forum, not ONLY a public forum, I'm at great pains to understand further how the ethics and perceived morality of an atheist, especially of the more acerbic kind, plays into their choice and what often remains as an unspoken 'goal' to show up on a site such as this and proceed to persistently here since it's obvious that there is so much that is ideologically at odds with his/her (usually "his") skeptical inclinations. See where I'm going with all of this? I'm trying to take a "bigger picture" view here than some ultra-simple one where I as 2PhiloVoid am simply trying to "figure out" what makes my acquaintance "tick" in his disbelief. ........ so on your part, it may very well be that you don't qualify as the worst kind of unbeliever that Pascal calls out in his Pensees (i.e. in writing #194 and #195, among others).

Click to expand...

There's a fine line between taking the big picture and reducing a discussion to loosely tied together musings. This quoted section crossed that line a long time ago. We're talking about sociopathy and which kind(s) of unbelief are linked to it.

2PhiloVoid said:

Being that Pascal is rather older school, I can understand your tendency to feel this way, but to me, this kind of sounds like a kind of cop-out, not that you're lazy or anything. But your expressing this in this way reminds of why I decided to throw out teaching as a profession. And so, watch WOULD pique your interest. Should I pull my copy of "Readings in Philosophy of Psychology: Volume One" (ed. Ned Block) off of my shelf and say that I'll ADD this to my religiously inclined and philosophically tinged critique of the atheist mind as a further reason by which to discuss all of this with you?

Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with Pascal; it's got everything to do with your track record of getting frustrated with me being hyper-critical and dropping conversations mid-way. I wouldn't be saying any of this to Silmarian, for example.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm sure I'm not professionally qualified, IF by qualified professionally we mean that it specifically takes a degree and certification in Psychiatry to be allowed in our society with doctrinal and legal force to make a diagnosis. But if we were to instead mean that I, as a person with a M.S. degree in the Social Sciences and a B.A. Philosophy/Social Philosophy, might still have the acumen that is equal to, at the least, of another person who has an Associate's degree in Psychology itself, then yes, I'd say that I have something, and that Pascal has something, substantive, even if not exhaustive and final, to say about the possible relation between some form of unbelief and extreme, unjustified apathy toward religion.

Click to expand...

No, none of us is qualified to give something substantive to say about a possible relation between apathy toward religion and antisocial behavior.

2PhiloVoid said:

Does this make sense? See, here's the thing. I know your capable of discussing and researching topics; so am I. What I'm wondering is why be some folks are so vehemently opposed to either desiring to find some antidote to Life after Death and/or the Christian faith? It makes no sense to me, nor to Pascal, nor to Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or to a whole host of other voices for the last 2,000 years.

Click to expand...

You'll have to get out of your perceptual box that Christianity must be true to understand. Your incredulity is noted, but it isn't a basis to make conclusions over.