Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[2PhiloVoid]

I read the link...

Surely you're not suggesting that someone needs to read an entire book to post on this thread? I think that would disqualify every post here....

Nope. I'm just wondering where on the continuum you are in evaluating the OP issue. I'm hoping that you're somewhat in sync with either Shermer or Smith in the video.

Smith actually says that atheism can produce substantive moral inclinations. So, there is that. However, he stops short of saying that atheists have really robust or good reasons by which to justify any insistence on considering their own ethical standards as "superlative" (although, that's not the word he actually uses, but it's the one that represents what I've already stated on this same issue in the past in other posts on CF. Of course, it should be no surprise that my view somewhat coincides with Smith's, but without any adherence to Roman Catholicism.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But Christians have creeds, or required beliefs, which are overreaches. No counterpart exists in atheism.

Christians often make Epistemic or Metaphysical overreaches, but this OP thread as discussed by both Shermer and Smith concentrates mostly on the Axiological, so maybe keep that in mind, NV.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What about creedless theists?

They're not Christians so I don't think it's even allowed to discuss their beliefs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope. I'm just wondering where on the continuum you are in evaluating the OP issue. I'm hoping that you're somewhat in sync with either Shermer or Smith in the video.

Smith actually says that atheism can produce substantive moral inclinations. So, there is that. However, he stops short of saying that atheists have really robust or good reasons by which to justify any insistence on considering their own ethical standards as "superlative" (although, that's not the word he actually uses, but it's the one that represents what I've already stated on this same issue in the past in other posts on CF. Of course, it should be no surprise that my view somewhat coincides with Smith's, but without any adherence to Roman Catholicism.)

Let's assume the worst claims about atheism in the book are true. I don't think they are....but let's pretend....

Does a lack of a moral or ethical standard mean that "atheism" is a false position? Of course not....atheism has nothing to do with morals or ethics.

Does science's lack of acknowledgement of it's limitations have any bearing on the truth of atheism? Nope....not even a little.

Does the fact that mankind frequently believes in irrational and superstitious things make atheism untrue? Of course not....what the majority of people "believe" is nothing but an argument from popularity.

So even if I assume the worst arguments about atheism are true....that still gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god. After all, I'd rather believe in the truth....even if it had bad consequences ...than a lie that has great consequences.

You wouldn't rather believe in the lie, would you?

 

[Tone]

Let's assume the worst claims about atheism in the book are true. I don't think they are....but let's pretend....

Does a lack of a moral or ethical standard mean that "atheism" is a false position? Of course not....atheism has nothing to do with morals or ethics.

Does the fact that mankind frequently believes in irrational and superstitious things make atheism untrue? Of course not....what the majority of people "believe" is nothing but an argument from popularity.

So even if I assume the worst arguments about atheism are true....that still gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god. After all, I'd rather believe in the truth....even if it had bad consequences ...than a lie that has great consequences.

You wouldn't rather believe in the lie, would you?

The point is that the book and the video aren't about the evils of atheism, rather, it is about the fact that there are no good reasons (from atheism) to uphold the morals/ethics that we enjoy today; say, if the majority of people wanted to kill off the 49%.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point is that the book and the video aren't about the evils of atheism, rather, it is about the fact that there are no good reasons (from atheism) to uphold the morals/ethics that we enjoy today; say, if the majority of people wanted to kill off the 49%.

And?

Ever heard of photosynthesis?

It's the process by which plants convert light into energy for growth and healing. There's no moral or ethical framework inherent in photosynthesis that tells men they shouldn't steal from their neighbors and rape women.

Of course, that shouldn't stop you from believing in photosynthesis because it's true and it accurately describes an aspect of reality.

 

[Tone]

And?

And I agree.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And I agree.

See above.

 

[Tone]

See above.

And you should too...if you are logically consistent. Do you agree...do you care? Why/why not?


*Oh I didn't see your edit...

 

[Ana the Ist]

And you should too...if you are logically consistent. Do you agree...do you care? Why/why not?

Do you agree that there's no inherent moral or ethical framework in photosynthesis?

Do you agree that has no bearing on the truth of photosynthesis and whether or not we should believe in photosynthesis?

Answer those two questions and I'll answer yours.

 

[Tone]

And?

Ever heard of photosynthesis?

It's the process by which plants convert light into energy for growth and healing. There's no moral or ethical framework inherent in photosynthesis that tells men they shouldn't steal from their neighbors and rape women.

Of course, that shouldn't stop you from believing in photosynthesis because it's true and it accurately describes an aspect of reality.

If they had neighbors and women, there would be a framework...I mean, there is a framework in place that is conducive to their mode of existence...as there is for all of creation.

 

[Tone]

Do you agree that there's no inherent moral or ethical framework in photosynthesis?

Do you agree that has no bearing on the truth of photosynthesis and whether or not we should believe in photosynthesis?

Answer those two questions and I'll answer yours.

See Above^

*A "process" sounds like a framework...

 

[Ana the Ist]

If they had neighbors and women, there would be a framework...

Who is "they"? I'm talking about photosynthesis here....the process by which plants turn sunlight into energy.

Do you agree that the concept of photosynthesis has no moral or ethical framework?

 

[Ana the Ist]

See Above^

*...A "process" sounds like a framework...

Then explain the morality and ethics inherent in photosynthesis.

 

[Tone]

Who is "they"? I'm talking about photosynthesis here....the process by which plants turn sunlight into energy.

Do you agree that the concept of photosynthesis has no moral or ethical framework?

"They" is plants and photosynthesis definitely sounds like a framework. I think that they may very well have a certain moral responsibility to do what they do, but being as they are not sentient (as far as we know), and we haven't tapped into their frequency...we can only theorize about how they operate, for now.

 

[Tone]

Then explain the morality and ethics inherent in photosynthesis.

Well "photosynthesis" is simply an accepted explanation devised by humans, to better understand the nature of plants. Are you saying that Christianity is the same (for humans, of course)?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"They" is plants and photosynthesis definitely sounds like a framework.

Photosynthesis is an electrochemical process. It's just a description of a fact of reality. It's like breathing. There's no morality or ethics involved.

I think that they may very well have a certain moral responsibility to do what they do, but being as they are not sentient (as far as we know), and we haven't tapped into their frequency...we can only theorize about how they operate, for now.

You seem to be struggling with this so I'll try again....do you know what rain is? The word we use to describe water falling from the sky? Ever heard of it?

Is there a moral or ethical framework inherent in rain?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well "photosynthesis" is simply an accepted explanation devised by humans, to better understand the nature of plants. Are you saying that Christianity is the same?

No....I'm saying atheism is the same.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Nothing more. Photosynthesis is an answer to a question about reality that asks "How does sunlight affect plants?" Atheism is an answer to the question "Does god exist?"

That's all it is.

 

[Tone]

Photosynthesis is an electrochemical process. It's just a description of a fact of reality. It's like breathing. There's no morality or ethics involved.

So...in other words...it's a framework...?

You seem to be struggling with this so I'll try again....do you know what rain is? The word we use to describe water falling from the sky? Ever heard of it?

Is there a moral or ethical framework inherent in rain?

There may or may not be.

 

[zippy2006]

Let's assume the worst claims about atheism in the book are true. I don't think they are....but let's pretend....

Does a lack of a moral or ethical standard mean that "atheism" is a false position? Of course not....atheism has nothing to do with morals or ethics.

Does science's lack of acknowledgement of it's limitations have any bearing on the truth of atheism? Nope....not even a little.

Does the fact that mankind frequently believes in irrational and superstitious things make atheism untrue? Of course not....what the majority of people "believe" is nothing but an argument from popularity.

So even if I assume the worst arguments about atheism are true....that still gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god. After all, I'd rather believe in the truth....even if it had bad consequences ...than a lie that has great consequences.

You wouldn't rather believe in the lie, would you?

Shermer quotes Smith's book at 6:55, "I am not arguing that atheism is wrong. I am not arguing that theism is right. I am not saying that atheists have no reason to behave ethically. I am not suggesting that atheism leads to moral nihilism. I am not saying that science is incompatible with atheism. I am not suggesting that all people are somehow covertly religious. And I am not saying that secular people and cultures cannot live happy, meaningful lives."