Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[Tone]

ethical systems erected by atheists

the role atheism plays in the exceptional acts of an atheist

Any examples?

 

[bèlla]

Much of Christianity is based on Greek thought. But, you are correct, it's not solely your choice of words that is indicative of atheism's base.

I was agnostic and nearly an atheist. They are correct. It is the absence of belief. Period. Nothing more or less.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Correct. And I didn't say that "IT" does, but what the discussion between Shermer and Smith involves---if you bothered to even touch upon it---is that SOME atheists, although not all, overstep themselves by not recognizing that their epistemological position, such as it is, does NOT lend itself to the support of a robust level of justification in providing either a universal nor a superlative kind of morality.

How would you possibly know the basis for an atheist's morality without asking them?

Or are you saying "sometimes when I speak with an atheist about morality....I disagree with them"?

Correct. Atheism itself cannot overreach; but any one atheist CAN! Even Shermer recognizes this.

Well then we aren't talking about an overreach of atheism. We're talking about the moral framework of whatever atheist you happen to be speaking with....

While we're making blatantly obvious statements....guess what? Sometimes when I speak with religious people about morality...I find their grasp of it to be overly simplistic, shallow, and wholly incapable of dealing with the complexities of real moral decisions.

Fun thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How would you possibly know the basis for an atheist's morality without asking them?

Or are you saying "sometimes when I speak with an atheist about morality....I disagree with them"?






Well then we aren't talking about an overreach of atheism. We're talking about the moral framework of whatever atheist you happen to be speaking with....

While we're making blatantly obvious statements....guess what? Sometimes when I speak with religious people about morality...I find their grasp of it to be overly simplistic, shallow, and wholly incapable of dealing with the complexities of real moral decisions.

Fun thread.

The fun fact is...atheists have NO objective moral NORTHSTAR. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking they ever could.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was agnostic and nearly an atheist. They are correct. It is the absence of belief. Period. Nothing more or less.

I appreciate you're showing up and placing a comment, LaBèlla, but even though atheism is "merely a lack of belief," that does prevent certain epistemological, metaphysical, and axiological 'feeds' into that person's moral matrix. I think we need to realize that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How would you possibly know the basis for an atheist's morality without asking them?

Or are you saying "sometimes when I speak with an atheist about morality....I disagree with them"?






Well then we aren't talking about an overreach of atheism. We're talking about the moral framework of whatever atheist you happen to be speaking with....

While we're making blatantly obvious statements....guess what? Sometimes when I speak with religious people about morality...I find their grasp of it to be overly simplistic, shallow, and wholly incapable of dealing with the complexities of real moral decisions.

Fun thread.

Deal with the content of Smith's book, or at least comment on what your friend Shermer has to say, OR get off my thread. These acts of dalliance you do where you just show up and try to turn the thesis back upon the head of your interlocutor with polemics and without actually engaging the content needs to stop.

And how would I know the approximate content in of any one atheist's head? I ask them or ... better yet, I listen to them, just like I do other people. [One doesn't have to watch t.v. shows like Mindhunters to become aware of the importance of doing so].

Don't forget, I went to college as a philosophy major and many of my professors and fellow students were atheists. So, I got dozens of earfuls about their 'various' points of view along the way. It was all interesting, of course, but at the end of the day, while my atheist cohorts were struggling to make B's and I was thankfully pulling A's in each of my classes but yet bearing an existential crisis of belief/unbelief of my own, I realized most of them could offer me "Nil" on how to live my life in any truly worthwhile fashion. And I suppose this observation of mine applies just as much to Hugh Hefner types as it does to any of Nietzche's followers ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sorry, I took you at your word when you said what we needed to know was in the first 10 to 15 minutes of the video. I watched far more than 2-3% of what you said was enough and heard nothing that even could be commented on.

... well, 8 minutes ISN'T 10-15. Be that as it may, I'm not sure you were paying attention to what Shermer was reading in minute 7. I mean, those few quotes alone set out some pointers to various directions in the layout of Smith's scheme of analysis. Here are the quotes Shermer made in minute 7:

“What I'm not claiming, what I am not arguing, is that atheism is wrong.”

“I'm not arguing that theism is right.”

“I'm not saying that atheist have no reason to act ethically.”

“I'm not suggesting that atheism leads to moral nihilism.”

“I'm not saying that science is incompatible with atheism.”

“I'm not saying that all people are somehow covertly religious.”

“And I'm not saying that secular people living in cultures cannot live happy, meaningful lives.”
​

And then, shortly later, Shermer and Smith get into what Smith IS saying ...

​

Of course, on my part, I can admit that I may tend to advocate much more than Christian Smith does that atheism can and often does truncate the moral process, at the least. I know that when I've consumed and utilized un-Christian frames of moral and ethical evaluation, I've shortchanged myself and other people along the way.

 

[bèlla]

I appreciate you're showing up and placing a comment, LaBèlla, but even though atheism is "merely a lack of belief," that does prevent certain epistemological, metaphysical, and axiological 'feeds' into that person's moral matrix. I think we need to realize that.

Were you an atheist? I think what is needed is to accept that people reach this point for different reasons and trying to put them in a box is pointless.

In fact, if you consider how I came to faith (in a Jewish synagogue) and my approach (God first; purpose driven)
it still falls outside the norm. I am atypical in many ways.

You’re trying to reason your way to an answer that is individual. And instead of accepting the responses you’ve been given by atheists you’re trying to convince them they’re wrong.

We should stop trying to force our concept of God and faith on others. We should cease to overreach and believe we’re the lone vessel in His arsenal. He has a lot. We should stop using silly arguments and machinations that are evident to rational minds.

We should learn to listen and stop asking questions with ready made answers in tow. We should be willing to admit our suspicions and conclusions are wrong. But that requires humility and grace.

We have a long way to go.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Were you an atheist? I think what is needed is to accept that people reach this point for different reasons and trying to put them in a box is pointless.

At certain moments of time, for all practical purposes, I've felt and thought in ways much like those that various atheist acquaintances have reported to me regarding how they have felt and thought. The major difference might be, I'll admit, is that I have bounced around quite a bit, which means I haven't dallied in any kind of committed way to a frame of mind involving one of various atheistic perspectives. On the other hand, I also haven't entertained the Fundamentalist Christian perspective, EITHER.

In fact, if you consider how I came to faith (in a Jewish synagogue) and my approach (God first; purpose driven)
it still falls outside the norm. I am atypical in many ways.

That's understandable. But this thread isn't focusing on "what atheism is" as much as what "atheism does morally." Did you read the OP, at least?

You’re trying to reason your way to an answer that is individual. And instead of accepting the responses you’ve been given by atheists you’re trying to convince them they’re wrong.

No, I am not, and if you'd take the time to investigate a bit more deeply, I think that someone as intelligent as yourself will see that I am not reasoning my own way to an answer. You need to recognize where this thread is starting before jumping in to offer your own contribution.

We should stop trying to force our concept of God and faith on others. We should cease to overreach and believe we’re the lone vessel in His arsenal. He has a lot. We should stop using silly arguments and machinations that are evident to rational minds.

As I've told a few others here, the focal point is on atheists, not Christians in this particular thread. You haven't engaged my mind; you haven't engaged that of either (atheist) Shermer or (Christian) Smith, so at this point your running aloof. Please don't do that here.

We should learn to listen and stop asking questions with ready made answers in tow. We should be willing to admit our suspicions and conclusions are wrong. But that requires humility and grace.

To anyone who is actually paying attention, I think they can see that I, as a philosopher, here and now, am definitely NOT running with "ready made answers in tow."

Please don't come here and play the polemical, stereotyping TRUMP card as some of the atheists do. I WILL take you to task for that.

We

have a long way to go.

Some of us do, anyway.

I hear what you're saying, but have you by chance seen any of the rest of the dialogue here in this thread overall?

 

[bèlla]

At certain moments of time, for all practical purposes, I've felt and thought as various atheist acquaintances have reported to me as to how they have felt and thought.

I have lived that place. It wasn’t a fanciful notion I fluttered around in my head before flitting to the next. And I’ve practiced many faiths and studied far more.

My perspective isn’t founded on head knowledge, other opinions, or something I’ve read. I write from time in the trenches. It’s more authentic and better than parroting.

I haven't dallied in any kind of committed way to a frame of mind involving one of various atheistic perspectives.

That is evident in your choice of words. The ‘entertainment’ you mentioned is clear as well. There’s a noticeable absence of tooth that’s born from experience.

Please don't come here and play the polemical, stereotyping TRUMP card as some of the atheists do. I WILL take you to task for that.

You responded to something I posted to another. You haven’t taken me to task. You’ve forgotten grace and tact in your response. And that is unacceptable. Enjoy your discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have lived that place. It wasn’t a fanciful notion I fluttered around in my head before flitting to the next. And I’ve practiced many faiths and studied far more.

My perspective isn’t founded on head knowledge, other opinions, or something I’ve read. I write from time in the trenches. It’s more authentic and better than parroting.



That is evident in your choice of words. The ‘entertainment’ you mentioned is clear as well. There’s a noticeable absence of tooth that’s born from experience.



You responded to something I posted to another. You haven’t taken me to task. You’ve forgotten grace and tact in your response. And that is unacceptable. Enjoy your discussion.

... you should 'listen' to yourself, but from the angle of another person. Guess how you "come across" in your own way, LaBèlla? You sound like a 'know it all'.....................................as well. Just like me. Of course, we both know that sounding like one who knows it all and actually "being" one who knows it all are two different things, ontologically speaking.

What I'd like to inform you about is that despite my college degrees, I make no pretense (or claim) about "knowing it all"; at the same time, I don't pander to either side of the political spectrum in what is considered to be 'proper decorum,' nor will I succumb to pandering to various notions of false humility that a number of Christians (and sometimes folks on the Left) foist upon those of us who've done some academic work. The only path I'm attempting to kow-tow to is that of Christ, however imperfectly I may do so, and however ensconced my own vision of this path may be within Pascalian and Kierkegaardian terms. If you don't like this type of Christianity, well then, you don't like it. So be it.

Again. Do you have anything to comment on about the OP, particularly on what either Shermer or Smith have to say in the video? If not on the OP video, then you can chill on the following one:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, there are no moral/ethical frameworks in atheism...yeah, that's kind of the whole point of this thread. I agree.

Actually, I might go so far as to say that the point of this thread is merely to state that atheists have limitations to their own epistemic position in recognizing, framing and applying their moral intuitions. But this isn't to say that because they are atheists that they then have 'no' ethical intuitions by which to create moral frameworks. From a Christian point of view, and in line with what Smith asserts, I'd have to further assert that atheists can be moral in a limited way because they, like everyone else, are born with the imprint of the 'Image of God.' This is the case even if atheists don't recognize it or if they're instead Ex-Christians who no longer value the concept.

The upshot of this is that atheists' intuitional (and spiritual) limitations will thereby also limit their capacity to exert themselves to value and perhaps practice morality in a superlative, Christ-like way. It will also mean that they don't have any solid justification to promote Universal Human Rights in a way that goes beyond mere consequentialism, and it this very last bit which is something Smith states as a part of his thesis in his book.

 

[keith99]

Ok I've made it to about minute 22. So far I think more people would find some meat if they started at about minute 7, starting with the statement about what he is not saying.

One question Smith asked is why spend resources on the bottom 30% or so instead of only the top 70%. Somewhat implied is spending resources equally across all people. I disagree with that as a moral imperative. It is outright foolishness, it comes from the same roots as thinking that dividing the pie should be the focus not gathering more fruit and making more pies. What I see as moral is for the efforts of the larger group to be focused on using resources wisely, to use them to make the most pies. Considering human nature that includes giving those who produced more a greater share of the results of their labor.

But I'm also a techie and a numbers geek who actually understands evolution. Unlike most (both Christian and not) I am quite aware that a trait considered by the vast majority of people to be bad may in fact be very good, perhaps more so for the group than the individual. Sickle cell is a great example. It is recessive and when it is expressed deadly without modern medicine (and still quite bad with modern medicine). BUT so is malaria and it turns out that being heterozygous for sickle cell offers considerable resistance to malaria. What was thought to be bad, an inferior trait, in fact could be vital to the tribe. It is becoming apparent that many of those on the autism spectrum while social disasters may have a different but quite rational way of seeing things. It will not surprise me in the least if we see an autie at least as part of a team that wins a Nobel prize in Physics or Chemistry. But 20 years ago all such would be thrown on the scrap heap.

Thus I find it reasonable to spend resources on those that seem to be the dregs, perhaps not a lot, but enough to give them a chance. A rational reason that allows for expending a lot of resources on someone who has a good chance of giving back to the community, not by charity but by being productive. What is called Social Darwinism is in fact closer to the opposite of its name, it is first deciding what is good and culling the 'bad' based on pre conceptions and bias.

 

[keith99]

Actually, I might go so far as to say that the point of this thread is merely to state that atheists have limitations to their own epistemic position in recognizing, framing and applying their moral intuitions. But this isn't to say that because they are atheists that they then have 'no' ethical intuitions by which to create moral frameworks. From a Christian point of view, I'd have to assert that atheist can be moral in a limited way because they, like everyone else, are born with the imprint of the 'Image of God.' This is the case even if atheists don't recognize it, or if they're instead Ex-Christians who no longer value the concept.

The upshot of this is that atheists' intuitional (and spiritual) limitations will thereby also limit their capacity to exert themselves to value and perhaps practice morality in a superlative, Christ-like way. It will also mean that they don't have any solid justification to promote Universal Human Rights in a way that goes beyond mere consequentialism.

Perhaps, but they also have absolutely no grounds to force their morality upon others just because it is the will of God. My opinion is that the limitations of atheistic morality are in fact a good thing, not a bad one. If I abuse those I consider outsiders I have to recognize that I am at best morally neutral, a theist has no such limit and can view the destruction of other cultures and people as not just a positive thing but an exemplary thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps, but they also have absolutely no grounds to force their morality upon others just because it is the will of God. My opinion is that the limitations of atheistic morality are in fact a good thing, not a bad one. If I abuse those I consider outsiders I have to recognize that I am at best morally neutral, a theist has no such limit and can view the destruction of other cultures and people as not just a positive thing but an exemplary thing.

I'm not going to speak for so-called "Theists" generally, but I will say that it's clear enough from what we find in the New Testament that abusing outsiders ... is a no-no in Christ's Book of morality. While I will concede that there is an aspect of the Christian faith that could be made out to be a form of 'abuse'--i.e. the act of applying the Great Commission--the only way this can really be abuse is for the whole of the New Testament contexts to be ignored. Of course, some Christians do ignore the contexts and thereby abuse their privileges, but this would not be the fault of the assertive command of the Great Commision itself, since there are limits provided by Christ and His Apostles by which Christians are commanded to abide. Loving one's enemies, being one; being willing to leave the party when rejected and disengaging those who reject the Gospel as another. There is no mandate in the New Testament for Christians to "TAKE POWER, TAKE CONTROL!!!" .... yeah. That's not there. And why? Because the morality of Christ's commission and other commands is intended to set those who would be Christian on superlative ways and byways of social interaction. Abuse isn't one of those superlative qualities......obviously.

For the atheist, it might be a different story, depending on whether the atheist decides to be a Pacifist for Peace or a commandeering Communist, and in the case of an atheist, there are no additional guidelines or contexts by which he'll need to feel compelled to obey his 'better nature.' We'll all just have to hope to God that he'll be inclined to wrestle with any sociopathic tendencies he might otherwise have. And hope to God, we do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok I've made it to about minute 22. So far I think more people would find some meat if they started at about minute 7, starting with the statement about what he is not saying.

In that case, I have to commend you for giving it an additional few minutes of your time and thought, and please know that I do appreciate this. You've done more already than a number of other atheistic posters here on this thread. Thank you!

One question Smith asked is why spend resources on the bottom 30% or so instead of only the top 70%. Somewhat implied is spending resources equally across all people. I disagree with that as a moral imperative. It is outright foolishness, it comes from the same roots as thinking that dividing the pie should be the focus not gathering more fruit and making more pies. What I see as moral is for the efforts of the larger group to be focused on using resources wisely, to use them to make the most pies. Considering human nature that includes giving those who produced more a greater share of the results of their labor.

Alright. That could be something for us to think over. At what minute mark is that in the video?

But I'm also a techie and a numbers geek who actually understands evolution. Unlike most (both Christian and not) I am quite aware that a trait considered by the vast majority of people to be bad may in fact be very good, perhaps more so for the group than the individual. Sickle cell is a great example. It is recessive and when it is expressed deadly without modern medicine (and still quite bad with modern medicine). BUT so is malaria and it turns out that being heterozygous for sickle cell offers considerable resistance to malaria. What was thought to be bad, an inferior trait, in fact could be vital to the tribe. It is becoming apparent that many of those on the autism spectrum while social disasters may have a different but quite rational way of seeing things. It will not surprise me in the least if we see an autie at least as part of a team that wins a Nobel prize in Physics or Chemistry. But 20 years ago all such would be thrown on the scrap heap.

Yes, I'm familiar with these issues, and I do think there is value to the diversity program. Everyone, whatever their abilities, should be generally valued as fellow human beings.

Thus I find it reasonable to spend resources on those that seem to be the dregs, perhaps not a lot, but enough to give them a chance. A rational reason that allows for expending a lot of resources on someone who has a good chance of giving back to the community, not by charity but by being productive. What is called Social Darwinism is in fact closer to the opposite of its name, it is first deciding what is good and culling the 'bad' based on pre conceptions and bias.

Well, I understand what you're getting at, but as a Christian, I have a hard time extricating what you're saying from the likes of Herbert Spencer or latter Eugenics advocates of the early 20th century.

 

[Tone]

I was agnostic and nearly an atheist. They are correct. It is the absence of belief. Period. Nothing more or less.

Yes, but this is not what I'm questioning. I want to understand what exactly is it that atheists base their morals upon...what "framework"? Because, one doesn't have to believe in something (the Bible) to be influenced by it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The fun fact is...atheists have NO objective moral NORTHSTAR. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking they ever could.

Why not?

Morals don't have to be objective regardless...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I appreciate you're showing up and placing a comment, LaBèlla, but even though atheism is "merely a lack of belief," that does prevent certain epistemological, metaphysical, and axiological 'feeds' into that person's moral matrix. I think we need to realize that.

Lol metaphysical?

 

[bèlla]

Yes, but this is not what I'm questioning. I want to understand what exactly is it that atheists' base their morals upon...what "framework"? Because, one doesn't have to believe in something to be influenced by it.

You believe their framework was based on religion?

I am not an atheist but admit that faith and etiquette hold equal sway in my life. But when I didn’t believe my moral compass was wholly influenced by manners and deportment.

Some people have a sense of ethical propriety. I walked a fine line and never transgressed certain principles. I chalk up my perspective to conditioning and a clear understanding of risk and its pitfalls. Call it self-preservation or survival of the fittest. That instinct guided my actions and influenced my behavior.

As you can see it wasn’t one thing. It was a combination of ideals that contributed to the whole.