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

AvisG · Oct 19, 2019

Well, this was interesting and perhaps a fitting closure to this thread:

I had sent an email very similar to my original post here to Dr. Frank Turek, the high-profile apologist who has repeatedly asserted that atheists must “steal from God” to make moral claims because they have no legitimate foundation for such claims. Without such a foundation, they are simply voicing personal opinions.

Today, Turek used my email as the basis for his podcast. He began by saying that he “disagreed with almost everything” I had to say (get in line behind my wife, pal). I was all ears, interested to hear how a high-profile apologist and debater might shred my arguments.

I was dismayed. Not because Turek shredded my arguments but because of the shallowness of his responses.

In fact, he really just used the first paragraph of my email as a launching pad for the same spiel he gives on every college campus. There was no real engagement at all with what I had said. Shortly into the podcast, we were off on tangents like Christopher Hitchens.

This is a standard tactic in apologetics. It’s why William Lane Craig insists on going first in every debate. Apologists want to control the discussion so they aren’t caught off-guard and can give essentially the same spiel every time.

I had said that because an atheist doesn’t accept the existence of God, an atheist is simply going to say that a believer has moved “opinion” up one level. A believer is of the “opinion” God exists, but an atheist doesn’t share this opinion. The believer thus is appealing to an authority whose existence the atheist doesn’t recognize and then using this authority’s decrees as the foundation of his morality.

“NO, NO, NO!” Turek said. The appeal isn’t to God’s authority but to God’s goodness. God is by nature, by definition, good.

Does that make sense to you? How can anyone appeal to God’s goodness unless he or she acknowledges that God exists – which the atheist doesn’t? The atheist believes it’s merely the believer’s opinion that God exists and, secondarily, that God is good.

Turek’s argument seems to me circular, like people who urge the Bible is true because it says it’s true. God’s goodness as a basis for morality requires one to accept the premise that God exists.

The moral argument, Turek said, is “ontological,” not “epistemological”? Well, OK, I’d agree. The issue for an atheist is the ontological one as to whether there actually is a God whose goodness can serve as the foundation of morality. The atheist has concluded “No, there isn’t.”

It seems to me that what Turek is relying on is the so-called "moral argument" for God's existence. God's goodness is a proof of his existence. See Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
But "It seems clear that no version of the moral argument constitutes a 'proof' of God’s existence. Each version contains premises that many reasonable thinkers reject." (Same source.) Our atheist has considered the moral argument and found it unconvincing.

“BUT THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD BESIDES MORALITY,” Turek said. Certainly there are good arguments – we’ll assume the atheist has heard them too and found them unconvincing. The issue, however, isn’t the existence of God. The issue is whether an atheist can have a legitimate foundation for moral claims without God or must “steal” from a God in whom the atheist doesn’t believe.

I suggested in my original post several such bases that it seems to me an atheist might assert:

(1) Evolution, for entirely evolutionary purposes, has hard-wired into humans certain beliefs (e.g., an abhorrence of murder and rape) that are independent of individual opinions; those who resort to murder and rape are abnormal and not tolerated.

(2) A culture may, for purposes of maintaining order and harmony, reach a large majority consensus regarding certain behaviors. This consensus becomes a standard independent of individual opinions – those who violate the standard are not tolerated.

(3) Similar to (2), the sages of a culture may, through philosophical reflection and analysis, recognize a cluster of behaviors that promote individual and collective order, harmony and well-being; this becomes the morality of the culture and those who violate it are not tolerated.

It seems to me that (1)-(3), individually and collectively, provide objective bases for moral claims by those who don’t recognize the existence of God.

If one is going to define morality as requiring a “fixed standard that transcends human beliefs and opinions,” then of course one is going to need something like a God. But again, this is circular reasoning. Why must morality be defined in this way? What is inadequate about (1)-(3) as a foundation for morality?

“BUT A LIFE WITHOUT GOD HAS NO PURPOSE!” Turek said. Well, OK, say it has no ultimate purpose. It has only such purpose as an individual or a society gives it. What does this have to do with whether an atheist or an atheistic society can legitimately make moral claims?

It just seems to me that Turek’s arguments rely on circular reasoning and question-begging. If you define morality in such a way that it requires an acceptance of God and a fixed, transcendent standard that only something like a God can satisfy, if you define it in such a way that it serves as a proof of God's existence – well, duh, then you’re going to win the argument.

But if the question is simply the neutral one “Can moral claims legitimately be something more than personal opinion, can they have an independent objective foundation, without reference to a fixed transcendent standard that requires a God?” – well, it seems to me that the answer is “Yes, they can.”

renniks · Oct 19, 2019

variant said:
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.

The trouble with doing the right thing for the wrong reason is that when push comes to shove and it longer benefits you to do the right thing, you will go with the convenient thing, even if it's wrong.

variant · Oct 19, 2019

renniks said:
The trouble with doing the right thing for the wrong reason is that when push comes to shove and it longer benefits you to do the right thing, you will go with the convenient thing, even if it's wrong.

It's simply not the wrong reason.

And, preach all you like, religious people have never demonstrated that they have any particularly good way of keeping people from doing "convenient yet wrong" things, often going so far as justifying them in the name of a God.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 19, 2019

Moral Orel said:
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".

Yes, I would continue to say that there is more than one kind of unbelief, but not simply because of what Pascal alone would say. No, I might bring in John Habgood as another voice and angle on this subject, and although I don't think he makes the same arguments as Pascal, he would make some distinction between one form of atheism and another. There are also some other, more mediate type of considerations likely closer to your own intuitions about all of this that, while not wholly coalescing with Pascal's experiences and observations of the atheistic elites of his own time, are briefly looked at by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (2007). Of course, you and I can look for more recent material to mediate all of this even more.

Reference
Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (2007). Atheists: A Psychological Profile. In M. Martin Editor, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (pp. 300-317). Cambridge University Press.

Habgood, John. (2000). Varieties of unbelief. London, UK: Darton, Longman & Todd.

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?

No, I haven't said that. I'm not a Calvinist. Pascal might have intuited something along that line being that he was a Catholic Jansenist, but as I've stated elsewhere, I only use Pascal as a initial springboard, not as my go to guide for my overall theological considerations.

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?

... not really. But there can always be the occasional psychological challenge that this or that person has congenitally. On the other hand, many folks are fairly fine in their birth, but then circumstances or that dreaded "F word" (i.e. Family) gets in the way of a person's healthy social, moral and religious development.

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.

I'm only concerned about that which Pascal is pointing out. But if you want to cite and sort others, sure, we can do that too if you're up for that kind of research. As always, I'm always willing to become even more educated on these things.

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.

Ok. So, let's set the record straight: you don't feel that you've ever, in any shape or form, been hyper-critical or unduly edgy in conversations on this here Christian Forum(s), correct? And you're not here to really cause trouble or casually "dash" Christianity to pieces, but rather you're here because you genuinely like the camaraderie and the potential to both learn from Christians and to be able to impart something useful and educational to them to help them think better and be better people, right?

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

I think that on some more minimal level, you and I are qualified to at minimum say some minimum of evaluative substance.

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.

I have incredulity? Really? That would be like me saying you have sociopathy ........

Moral Orel · Oct 19, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, I would continue to say that there is more than one kind of unbelief, but not simply because of what Pascal alone would say. No, I might bring in John Habgood as another voice and angle on this subject, and although I don't think he makes the same arguments as Pascal, he would make some distinction between one form of atheism and another. There are also some other, more mediate type of considerations likely closer to your own intuitions about all of this that, while not wholly coalescing with Pascal's experiences and observations of the atheistic elites of his own time, are briefly looked at by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (2007). Of course, you and I can look for more recent material to mediate all of this even more.

Why do you link sociopathy with skepticism then? Skepticism is active, not apathetic.

2PhiloVoid said:
Reference
Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (2007). Atheists: A Psychological Profile. In M. Martin Editor, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (pp. 300-317). Cambridge University Press.

Habgood, John. (2000). Varieties of unbelief. London, UK: Darton, Longman & Todd.

Does Ben have anything to say about a correlation between atheism and sociopathy? He would be qualified.

2PhiloVoid said:
No, I haven't said that. I'm not a Calvinist. Pascal might have intuited something along that line being that he was a Catholic Jansenist, but as I've stated elsewhere, I only use Pascal as a initial springboard, not as my go to guide for my overall theological considerations.

Hmmm... You've said that some are called, implying some are not, and that God has His hand in our epistemology.

2PhiloVoid said:
... not really. But there can always be the occasional psychological challenge that this or that person has congenitally. On the other hand, many folks are fairly fine in their birth, but then circumstances or that dreaded "F word" (i.e. Family) gets in the way of a person's healthy social, moral and religious development.

And what about those folks indoctrinated by their with unbelief who therefore have no care about an afterlife or God or Jesus? Does that mean that they lean to sociopathy? They haven't a care about the things you think are important, and they didn't try to look into it because they never believed it would ever bear any fruit. They seem to fall in line with the wrong kind of unbeliever you've defined, right? Why would it be unlikely that they developed healthy morals, empathy, normal emotions, etc?

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. So, let's set the record straight: you don't feel that you've ever, in any shape or form, been hyper-critical or unduly edgy in conversations on this here Christian Forum(s), correct? And you're not here to really cause trouble or casually "dash" Christianity to pieces, but rather you're here because you genuinely like the camaraderie and the potential to both learn from Christians and to be able to impart something useful and educational to them to help them think better and be better people, right?

Yes, let's set the record straight. I hang out almost exclusively in a handful of subforums, all of which are designed for debate. I don't think there is such thing as being "hyper-critical" in that context. Examining arguments and ideas down to the nitty-gritty details is appropriate.

I have on rare occasion been unduly edgy when I mistook someone's intentions. When other folks are snippy, I don't find my snippy responses to them to be "undue" even if it doesn't add to my argument in any way to be mean. It's fun.

I'm not here to cause trouble, I'm here to argue, which is the stated purpose of the subforums that I frequent. The Apologetics section is inside the "Outreach" section, but the rules are set forth as a debate. I'm only doing what participants in these sections are intended to do. I don't roam around to random areas of CF arguing with folks, though I do frequent the Jokes section regularly. Causing trouble would be acting in a manner not consistent with the rules of the forum.

I don't have any designs to tear down Christianity either, even if I attack specific portions of it. I don't really go into the threads about the historicity of the Gospels. If I wanted to actually persuade people that Christianity is false, that's the place to do it. I've picked on cvaney and IA in the Apologetics section for making bad arguments against theism. Heck, I had a featured thread where I defended the plausibility of being a Theo-Evo in which you participated.

And I keep telling you this, as I have so many times in the past, because you're a bad listener. I'm here to be challenged. I don't want to win with debate tactics, I want to win through superior use of logic, and that's what makes you want to call me a "deductive hack". Sometimes I'm wrong and I lose, it happens a lot actually. You've never beaten me because you always quit half-way.

Aside from the discussion I dropped because it's against the rules to argue that premarital sex isn't a sin, you've abandoned every single argument we've had, even in the PMs. You even abandoned the argument about Pascal's Wager we had in your thread on the topic. I see you abandon arguments with cvaney and NV as well. It's a pattern. If I dug in to Pascal with you again, I have strong evidence that a few posts from now you'll get frustrated and refuse to address what I've said.

2PhiloVoid said:
I think that on some more minimal level, you and I are qualified to at minimum say some minimum of evaluative substance.

No, we're not. We're qualified to research it and parrot what experts say.

2PhiloVoid said:
I have incredulity? Really? That would be like me saying you have sociopathy ........

Uh... Everyone has incredulity. No one believes everything. I just noted you using your incredulity on a topic as a premise, that's a fallacy. You don't get to equivocate that with diagnosing personality disorders.

And like I said before, when you heard me say, "I enjoy being cruel to rude people" you could respond with "That sounds sociopathic", and you'd have a valid point. It doesn't matter if you call me a sociopath as long as you do it for the right reasons.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 19, 2019

Moral Orel said:
Why do you link sociopathy with skepticism then? Skepticism is active, not apathetic.

Does Ben have anything to say about a correlation between atheism and sociopathy? He would be qualified.

Come to think of it, no he doesn't correlate these entities, nor does he show any studies that do. I'm also noticing that there isn't much in the way of any studies out there that link full blown sociopathy with religious unbelief. The closest think I've been able to find on that so far is [THIS]. But, I'll keep looking.

Hmmm... You've said that some are called, implying some are not, and that God has His hand in our epistemology.

I've said much more than this on the epistemic state any of us will have as we contemplate the nature of the Christian faith over the years here, Nick. Let's not reduce it down beyond measure.

And what about those folks indoctrinated by their with unbelief who therefore have no care about an afterlife or God or Jesus? Does that mean that they lean to sociopathy? They haven't a care about the things you think are important, and they didn't try to look into it because they never believed it would ever bear any fruit. They seem to fall in line with the wrong kind of unbeliever you've defined, right? Why would it be unlikely that they developed healthy morals, empathy, normal emotions, etc?

Those are some excellent questions, I'll give you that, Nick!

Yes, let's set the record straight. I hang out almost exclusively in a handful of subforums, all of which are designed for debate. I don't think there is such thing as being "hyper-critical" in that context. Examining arguments and ideas down to the nitty-gritty details is appropriate.

I have on rare occasion been unduly edgy when I mistook someone's intentions. When other folks are snippy, I don't find my snippy responses to them to be "undue" even if it doesn't add to my argument in any way to be mean. It's fun.

I'm not here to cause trouble, I'm here to argue, which is the stated purpose of the subforums that I frequent. The Apologetics section is inside the "Outreach" section, but the rules are set forth as a debate. I'm only doing what participants in these sections are intended to do. I don't roam around to random areas of CF arguing with folks, though I do frequent the Jokes section regularly. Causing trouble would be acting in a manner not consistent with the rules of the forum.

Alright, I'm glad we've got that settled. That sets you apart then from some of the other atheists here. Of course, I'm not sure how Pascal would have fully classified you as an unbeliever, but since I'm not a Jansenist as he was, I'll just assume that you're not sociopathic nor necessarily wanting to destroy the Christian faith by your presence here. ...of course, then again, I've never thought of you as being sociopathic, a little over reactive at times like me, but nothing too disconcerting.

I don't have any designs to tear down Christianity either, even if I attack specific portions of it. I don't really go into the threads about the historicity of the Gospels. If I wanted to actually persuade people that Christianity is false, that's the place to do it. I've picked on cvaney and IA in the Apologetics section for making bad arguments against theism. Heck, I had a featured thread where I defended the plausibility of being a Theo-Evo in which you participated.

Yes, that's true. You do have those things to your credit, I must say. And I wonder why other atheists can't follow suite with you on that?

And I keep telling you this, as I have so many times in the past, because you're a bad listener. I'm here to be challenged. I don't want to win with debate tactics, I want to win through superior use of logic, and that's what makes you want to call me a "deductive hack". Sometimes I'm wrong and I lose, it happens a lot actually. You've never beaten me because you always quit half-way.

No, I think you offered the term "deductive hack" for me to "use," if I remember right. There is the chance that I don't remember right since there is so many folks to try to remember here it does get a little mixy-wixy here and there.

Aside from the discussion I dropped because it's against the rules to argue that premarital sex isn't a sin, you've abandoned every single argument we've had, even in the PMs. You even abandoned the argument about Pascal's Wager we had in your thread on the topic. I see you abandon arguments with cvaney and NV as well. It's a pattern. If I dug in to Pascal with you again, I have strong evidence that a few posts from now you'll get frustrated and refuse to address what I've said.

I'm sorry if you feel that I've abandoned various discussions. Sometimes I do disconnect myself from an existing interlocution for one reason or another, some of which are that I get too many things going. So, for that I do apologize if you have felt left behind in some way.

No, we're not. We're qualified to research it and parrot what experts say.

I see. So, you don't count "parroting" as a minimal form of asserting a useful or authoritative point, because that is what I was implying?

Uh... Everyone has incredulity. No one believes everything. I just noted you using your incredulity on a topic as a premise, that's a fallacy. You don't get to equivocate that with diagnosing personality disorders.

Alright. I'm not sure I've understood your comment about my supposed incredulity. It was my understanding that you were insinuating that I am incredulous about the possibility that unbelief not being somehow connected to sociopathy. Is this not what you intended to mean?

And like I said before, when you heard me say, "I enjoy being cruel to rude people" you could respond with "That sounds sociopathic", and you'd have a valid point. It doesn't matter if you call me a sociopath as long as you do it for the right reasons.

Personally, I make a distinction between the term "sociopathy" as a full state of mind and the term "sociopath-ic" which to me could denote either a full blown sociopathy or just a tendency of some sort short of full sociopathy.

But, I'll tell you what, now that I've had some time to consider your points as they rub up against those of Pascal, I think I will reconsider my use of the term "sociopath-ic" in the acronym I've given to Pascal's argument about the nature of skeptical unbelief. Since it seems so charged with misunderstanding and the possibility that it could convey unnecessary insinuation that might hurt some people's feelings, I'll modify my acronym. I still like the acronym and I'll still use it, especially since it reminds of the idea of a "stubborn mule,"-----------which some of you atheists truly are---------------but I'll let the sociopathic term pass out of it completely. What do you think about that? (And don't tell me you don't care that I'm doing that

.)

Moral Orel · Oct 20, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Come to think of it, no he doesn't correlate these entities, nor does he show any studies that do. I'm also noticing that there isn't much in the way of any studies out there that link full blown sociopathy with religious unbelief. The closest think I've been able to find on that so far is [THIS]. But, I'll keep looking.

I see your "Atheists lack empathy" and raise you a "Theists lack compassion" with [THIS].

But seriously, we have to be careful about using articles that "explain" actual research. Take it all with a grain of salt. Journalists like to take a lot of artistic license to sell clicks, and phrase things differently than the researchers ever would.

I don't doubt that skeptics have diminished emotionality compared to theists. That isn't the same as the emotional numbness that you and Pascal are talking about, nor is it the same as not experiencing empathy in the way that psychopaths and sociopaths do.

My empathy is all screwed up, I know that. I get all emotional and tear up to sad movies, songs, tv shows, even the odd commercial. But if I see a weeping woman in real life, I don't "feel" anything about it. Generally, I'd like to get her to cheer up, but I get all analytical about how to achieve that. I blame drug-use for my own sobbing (that's a whole other story) but I know it didn't have anything to do with my lack of empathy; I've been that way for as long as I can remember.

2PhiloVoid said:
I've said much more than this on the epistemic state any of us will have as we contemplate the nature of the Christian faith over the years here, Nick. Let's not reduce it down beyond measure.

Sure, you aren't making it out to be as simple as God controlling our thoughts or anything, but those that aren't called are going to fall into your category of the wrong kind of unbeliever. Do you think that makes them sociopaths?

2PhiloVoid said:
Those are some excellent questions, I'll give you that, Nick!

Not excellent enough to be worthy of addressing, I guess...

2PhiloVoid said:
Alright, I'm glad we've got that settled. That sets you apart then from some of the other atheists here. Of course, I'm not sure how Pascal would have fully classified you as an unbeliever, but since I'm not a Jansenist as he was, I'll just assume that you're not sociopathic nor necessarily wanting to destroy the Christian faith by your presence here. ...of course, then again, I've never thought of you as being sociopathic, a little over reactive at times like me, but nothing too disconcerting.

Yes, that's true. You do have those things to your credit, I must say. And I wonder why other atheists can't follow suite with you on that?

We've been over all of this before, multiple times. I don't know why you keep questioning my motives for being here. It's still the same answer.

2PhiloVoid said:
No, I think you offered the term "deductive hack" for me to "use," if I remember right. There is the chance that I don't remember right since there is so many folks to try to remember here it does get a little mixy-wixy here and there.

Nope. You coined that term in our discussion about premarital sex, and I keep bringing it up as a reference to you dismissing my arguments out of hand. You just forgot that you coined it, so you don't see it as a reference but as a bit of sarcastic self-deprecation.

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm sorry if you feel that I've abandoned various discussions. Sometimes I do disconnect myself from an existing interlocution for one reason or another, some of which are that I get too many things going. So, for that I do apologize if you have felt left behind in some way.

Bologna.

2PhiloVoid said:
I see. So, you don't count "parroting" as a minimal form of asserting a useful or authoritative point, because that is what I was implying?

Parroting isn't us actually saying something. Just linking to someone else saying something. If that's what you were implying, then I guess we agree, but you didn't phrase it in a way that included and was exclusive to appealing to a proper authority on the subject.

2PhiloVoid said:
Alright. I'm not sure I've understood your comment about my supposed incredulity. It was my understanding that you were insinuating that I am incredulous about the possibility that unbelief not being somehow connected to sociopathy. Is this not what you intended to mean?

You're incredulous that other folks don't feel the way you do ("it doesn't make sense" you said). You conclude that they must feel nothing because they don't feel the same way you do.

2PhiloVoid said:
Personally, I make a distinction between the term "sociopathy" as a full state of mind and the term "sociopath-ic" which to me could denote either a full blown sociopathy or just a tendency of some sort short of full sociopathy.

But, I'll tell you what, now that I've had some time to consider your points as they rub up against those of Pascal, I think I will reconsider my use of the term "sociopath-ic" in the acronym I've given to Pascal's argument about the nature of skeptical unbelief. Since it seems so charged with misunderstanding and the possibility that it could convey unnecessary insinuation that might hurt some people's feelings, I'll modify my acronym. I still like the acronym and I'll still use it, especially since it reminds of the idea of a "stubborn mule,"-----------which some of you atheists truly are---------------but I'll let the sociopathic term pass out of it completely. What do you think about that? (And don't tell me you don't care that I'm doing that .)

I don't know what to think of that because I'm not sure what you're actually doing. What does A.A.S.S. stand for if you're letting the "sociopathic" slip away but you're going to keep using the initials?

holo · Oct 20, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Sometimes I do disconnect myself from an existing interlocution

Come on, man...

This made me LOL

Or perchance the previous sentence would have been more appropriately articulated in the following manner (though it might strike the reader as a redundantly elongated elaboration of what could arguably be postulated to be a rather obvious state of affairs): Your particular wording of this tidbit of insight into your own demeanor had the practical, and very real, effect of begetting mirth in my day.

FireDragon76 · Oct 20, 2019

AvisG said:
(3) Similar to (2), the sages of a culture may, through philosophical reflection and analysis, recognize a cluster of behaviors that promote individual and collective order, harmony and well-being; this becomes the morality of the culture and those who violate it are not tolerated.

This is exactly the perspective I would take as well, one of natural law rather than divine command.

If one is going to define morality as requiring a “fixed standard that transcends human beliefs and opinions,” then of course one is going to need something like a God. But again, this is circular reasoning. Why must morality be defined in this way? What is inadequate about (1)-(3) as a foundation for morality?

Excellent objection. It's really not inadequate. It's only inadequate for people that want to talk about things in the abstract and never deal with the real world as it actually exists.

“BUT A LIFE WITHOUT GOD HAS NO PURPOSE!” Turek said. Well, OK, say it has no ultimate purpose. It has only such purpose as an individual or a society gives it. What does this have to do with whether an atheist or an atheistic society can legitimately make moral claims?

The whole "Life without God has no purpose" thing rings hollow when you consider that many forms of Christianity are potentially even more lacking in that department once you look under the hood.

FireDragon76 · Oct 20, 2019

Moral Orel said:
I see your "Atheists lack empathy" and raise you a "Theists lack compassion" with [THIS].

The whole Masterpiece cake bakery discussion here some time ago was proof enough that whole "atheists lack empathy" thing rings hollow. Giving or supporting something because you think it is "the right thing to do" is potentially different from actually having compassion and taking somebody else's perspective. In fact, often times religious peoples notions of the Good can constrain their compassion.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 20, 2019

holo said:
Come on, man...

This made me LOL

Or perchance the previous sentence would have been more appropriately articulated in the following manner (though it might strike the reader as a redundantly elongated elaboration of what could arguably be postulated to be a rather obvious state of affairs): Your particular wording of this tidbit of insight into your own demeanor had the practical, and very real, effect of begetting mirth in my day.

It just makes my neurotransmitter receptors all ionized when relaying the stimuli about your newly heightened dopamine and serotonin levels......and whatever else folks like @Moral Orel might need to tell us about the overall process of our own respective instances of mirth.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 20, 2019

Moral Orel said:
I see your "Atheists lack empathy" and raise you a "Theists lack compassion" with [THIS].

The findings of Social Psychology are always so interesting, aren't they? ^_^

(...and thanks for the article, Moral. I'll tuck it away for safe keeping as a reminder that maybe I'll have to mediate at least some of my understanding of Pascal's #194 and #195.)

But seriously, we have to be careful about using articles that "explain" actual research. Take it all with a grain of salt. Journalists like to take a lot of artistic license to sell clicks, and phrase things differently than the researchers ever would.

Yes, I agree. I've taken research design classes, so I'm still somewhat familiar with all of that, as long as my memory will hold out.

I don't doubt that skeptics have diminished emotionality compared to theists. That isn't the same as the emotional numbness that you and Pascal are talking about, nor is it the same as not experiencing empathy in the way that psychopaths and sociopaths do.

Well, let's not paint Pascal with broad strokes here since you and I haven't actually even culled out from him specific portions of his statements as they sit within their contexts.

My empathy is all screwed up, I know that. I get all emotional and tear up to sad movies, songs, tv shows, even the odd commercial. But if I see a weeping woman in real life, I don't "feel" anything about it. Generally, I'd like to get her to cheer up, but I get all analytical about how to achieve that. I blame drug-use for my own sobbing (that's a whole other story) but I know it didn't have anything to do with my lack of empathy; I've been that way for as long as I can remember.

I'm sorry you've had to face some challenges in this regard. Thank you for your transparency and willingness to share that little bit about yourself. I'm sure it's been difficult to deal with.

Sure, you aren't making it out to be as simple as God controlling our thoughts or anything, but those that aren't called are going to fall into your category of the wrong kind of unbeliever. Do you think that makes them sociopaths?

No, they may not be sociopaths, but like Pascal, I do think there is some kind of disturbance that affects all of our brains as we try to hash our way through this often morbid and ugly social world. Some of it may be the effects upon us of an uninvited guest as well..... (Think about a really robust version of Halloween, except in this version, every day is Halloween).

Not excellent enough to be worthy of addressing, I guess...

Nick, do yourself a favor and stop whinning, dude. I'm a busy guy. I'm trying to spread myself out to talk to a lot of people. But if you'd like to pick a topic and have us do some deeper study, research, discussion and debate on it, just tell me and I'll see what I can do to devote a bit more time to that specific topic. Some topics, though, I've already found just don't have endpoints..................

We've been over all of this before, multiple times. I don't know why you keep questioning my motives for being here. It's still the same answer.

Ok. I believe you. I'll drop that line of inquiry. Done.

Nope. You coined that term in our discussion about premarital sex, and I keep bringing it up as a reference to you dismissing my arguments out of hand. You just forgot that you coined it, so you don't see it as a reference but as a bit of sarcastic self-deprecation.

Ok. I'm going to have to find the post where that term was discussed and see who brought it up first and how it was done. I might have been me, but at the moment, my memory isn't hitting those brain cells.

Bologna.

No, it's not bologna, it's chicken salad.

Parroting isn't us actually saying something. Just linking to someone else saying something. If that's what you were implying, then I guess we agree, but you didn't phrase it in a way that included and was exclusive to appealing to a proper authority on the subject.

Yes, if you have an Associate's degree in Psychology, then you have an Associate's degree in Psychology, and no one is going to take that away from you. It still means something in the everyday affairs of human knowledge and human scientific theory. So, don't sell yourself short. God knows our world loves to push that envelope and I for one ain't going to allow it to do so.

You're incredulous that other folks don't feel the way you do ("it doesn't make sense" you said). You conclude that they must feel nothing because they don't feel the same way you do.

On this, please from this point, DON'T try to assess fully my level of credulity or incredulity regarding my assessments of other people. But as far as what Pascal said in #194 about how some folks just don't care about their impending deaths and how that can them play out in the social interactions of life as we each approach our own inescapable manifestation of mortality, I do to agree with him.

I don't know what to think of that because I'm not sure what you're actually doing. What does A.A.S.S. stand for if you're letting the "sociopathic" slip away but you're going to keep using the initials?

Earlier, I had it designated as Pascal's Argument Against Sociopathic Skepticism, but now, after considering your valuable input, I'm thinking it needs to be toned down in its semantic value and just be Pascal's...........Argument Against Sarcastic Skepticism

depositphotos_13950354-stock-illustration-cartoon-stubborn-mule.jpg

Moral Orel · Oct 20, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm sorry you've had to face some challenges in this regard. Thank you for your transparency and willingness to share that little bit about yourself. I'm sure it's been difficult to deal with.

Challenges? Nah. I'm good enough at reading people to have sympathy where the empathy department is left wanting, and ya know? I think that might be better in a lot of regards. When my wife bursts into tears, empathy would have me wailing right along with her. Sympathy, though, lets me understand why she's sad and what can be done to fix it. I can't focus on solving problems if I'm sad myself.

2PhiloVoid said:
Nick, do yourself a favor and stop ~~whinning~~ winning, dude.

Fixed that typo for you. And no, I can't stop. I'm just that talented.

2PhiloVoid said:
Earlier, I had it designated as Pascal's Argument Against Sociopathic Skepticism, but now, after considering your valuable input, I'm thinking it needs to be toned down in its semantic value and just be Pascal's...........Argument Against Sarcastic Skepticism

Eh... I don't see it. How about "Stolid"? Generally it means "emotionless" which is a better fit, but it derives from a word meaning "stupid" so you get that negativity in there that you want too. And icing on the cake: it isn't in common parlance, so it might just get people to crack open a book, like you're always trying to get the rest of us to do. Okay, let's face it, folks are going to Google it, but it's something.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 21, 2019

Moral Orel said:
Challenges? Nah. I'm good enough at reading people to have sympathy where the empathy department is left wanting, and ya know? I think that might be better in a lot of regards. When my wife bursts into tears, empathy would have me wailing right along with her. Sympathy, though, lets me understand why she's sad and what can be done to fix it. I can't focus on solving problems if I'm sad myself.

...Have you seen that funny video where the 'wife' has a metaphorical nail in her head and the husband is offering to 'take it out'?

Fixed that typo for you. And no, I can't stop. I'm just that talented.

Ah.

Eh... I don't see it. How about "Stolid"? Generally it means "emotionless" which is a better fit, but it derives from a word meaning "stupid" so you get that negativity in there that you want too. And icing on the cake: it isn't in common parlance, so it might just get people to crack open a book, like you're always trying to get the rest of us to do. Okay, let's face it, folks are going to Google it, but it's something.

I must say that your choice of words is most impressive, and I do rather think "stolid" could very well be a major contender for the semantic correction I'm seeking to make in my acronym. But at the same time, don't you think that the term "Scottish" might be a wee bit more apt than would be "stolid"? ^_^

.....and with "Scottish," well............there's all of the extra punch of bringing with its use the additional connotation of Positivism and Verificationism that play such a central role in so much modern atheism and skepticism these days. I mean, no true scotsman would be anything other than a Positivist, right? ^_^

durangodawood · Oct 21, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
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.

Wow, thats pretty neat that you can feel happy for people who had a very healthy childhood. Maybe thats partly why I'm not inclined to theism: I dont feel a need for a personally "ally" to fill in for love-deficits from childhood. Otoh, as a single adult, I'm starting to feel a desire for an ally for other reasons.

But thats all somewhat afield from the question I was getting at: if there isnt at least one necessary assumption, then how can we say we all need assumptions to go through life? And so, whats an example of a necessary assumption?

2PhiloVoid · Oct 21, 2019

durangodawood said:
Wow, thats pretty neat that you can feel happy for people who had a very healthy childhood. Maybe thats partly why I'm not inclined to theism: I dont feel a need for a personally "ally" to fill in for love-deficits from childhood. Otoh, as a single adult, I'm starting to feel a desire for an ally for other reasons.

But thats all somewhat afield from the question I was getting at: if there isnt at least one necessary assumption, then how can we say we all need assumptions to go through life? And so, whats an example of a necessary assumption?

I gave you one. Pain hurts! Isn't that enough for you?

durangodawood · Oct 21, 2019

public hermit said:
.....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?

I would say we typically have an inherent desire for meaning and purpose, but not a need. My experience tells me people can get along without those two, sometimes for a long time.

What we can do in the absence of meaning and purpose is to carry on propelled by cultural and social momentum. Go with the flow of other people who may hold to meanings. Or do the movements the culture prescribes to fulfill the purposes the live 'in the culture'. Doesnt mean you personally share those purposes or meanings. Its simply the mode of existence that creates the least friction in life.

durangodawood · Oct 21, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I gave you one. Pain hurts! Isn't that enough for you?

Thats not an assumption. Thats an experience.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 21, 2019

durangodawood said:
Thats not an assumption. Thats an experience.

It's not if I'm not talking necessarily about my own pain.

durangodawood · Oct 21, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
It's not if I'm not talking necessarily about my own pain.

Not sure I understand. 'Pain hurts' isnt an experience for you? In that regard I think you'd be unique in the world.

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

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

former Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Dis Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Dis Member

Dis Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Dis Member

Similar threads