Godlessness and choice

[mindlight]

You are painting with too broad a brush. You say "[The atheist Democrat] will say it is all a matter of choice."

I disagree. It is not a matter of choice. It is about non-judgement and the "do-no-harm" principle. Atheists (in general) accept "alternate lifestyles" like homosexuality and transgenderism because they don't seem to be harming anyone else.

Not all moral decisions are a "matter of choice" for atheists. Notice how no atheist is supporting someone's choice to be a cannibal because cannibalism inherently harms others.

Your whole premise about "matter of choice" is false from the get go.

No liberals get round this one by speaking in terms of the inviolability of the individual. By extension the principle is I respect your choices except when they trample on those of others. But it is still about choice. Cannibalism is an interesting one cause here in Germany people have actually consented to be eaten. But that is regarded as someone who is not able to make clear choices and therefore a violation of choice per see.

You are dragging the Christian notion of "sin" into secularism.

More like secularism is doing its best to ignore it!

People absolutely have the right to judge my choices and put me in prison if my choices harm others (i.e. murder, rape, etc.). But if my choices/decisions/preferences do not harm anyone else, then what is there to judge?

But again the principle here is the inviolability of the individuals capacity to choose for themselves. Interestingly it is a principle that is in fact violated in the case of abortion as the childs choices are not respected.

Derail (this probably belongs in a different thread):

I will say something here which is probably not a very popular opinion among many progressives: transgenderism has all the characteristics of a mental illness and is classified as such by psychologists and psychiatrists. To me, encouraging a gender dysphoric person to embrace their transgenderism is the same as encouraging a schizophrenic to embrace their delusions and hallucinations as real or an alcoholic to embrace their alcoholism and drink more.

Understanding something scientifically as a mental illness does not mean that I am making any moral judgement of their lifestyle. For example, I do not judge someone as immoral for having schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. But I think society is approaching the hot button topic of transgenderism from the wrong perspective: one of moral hyper-inclusivity rather than scientific and medical evidence.

By the way #1: There are also other legitimate biological birth defects which complicate the conversation (e.g. when a baby is born without proper genitalia or when a baby is born with an XXY chromosome (Klinefelter), etc.)

Well we seem to agree on the broad science (facts are facts) . there are complicated and rare exceptions where the biology is really mixed up but generally as you say this is more akin to a mental illness than an actual state of being. But it raises questions as to how you judge someone is not making considered choices and when mental illness has warped their ability to choose to the point that we do not have to respect it. The principle you argue from here does not respect any absolute sense of right or wrong and still allows for judgment based on a reading of mental illness. The difference is that it is psychologists and doctors that take the place of priests in making this moral decision.

By the way #2: Homosexuality (the sexual preference for your own sex) is not the same thing and is less commonly accompanied by dysphoria. Homosexuality is a subjective preference rather than a claim of an objective state of being. Saying "I prefer dogs to cats" is different than saying "I am a dog". So homosexuality is emphatically not a mental illness.

A homosexual act is a choice just as a heterosexual one is a choice. Also some homosexuals are clearly mentally ill just as some heterosexuals are and their choices may be warped by that illness. But it is a different discussion than with transgenderism yes. The preference for relations with a member of ones own sex is not the thing that a Christian condemns as that may be deeply embedded in things outside of a persons control. What is wrong is when a person acts on those preferences. Again this a case when a Christian has an absolute standard that penalises them in some areas of their life and not in others where righteousness is effortless. While an atheist is only defining this in terms of the individuals situation , mental well being etc and their ability to make a choice that given that it is harmless to others is acceptable in their view.

I have no idea what you are saying or implying.

Clearly.

A couple things about this:

1) When abortion was illegal there was no government mandated statistics on abortion. All illegal abortions went unreported. So the "explosion" after Roe v Wade may be slightly over-inflated (although I do think that there was an overall increase).

2) The rate reached it peak in 1980 and has been dropping ever since as sex education and the availability of better birth control options become more and more popular. The rate has been halved since 1980. Abstinence-only education has never been shown to work effectively.

Because it is legal, women and girls have the ability to talk to doctors about it, get counselling and receive support as they struggle through a very difficult moral decision. Abortion is a complex moral topic and has been one for thousands of years.
.

We both appear glad the rate has been coming down since 1980. Also I think providing sex education is better than the risk of encouraging immoral lifestyles since we are all human. In fact Christian women would benefit from hearing the painful stories of women who have had abortions and been haunted by them ever since. But alto often Counselling seems to be focused on excusing a woman's choice to kill her child rather than managing the choice to keep it and then perhaps give it up for adoption if she really cannot provide for it.

There is nothing here that challenges the assumption that ultimately the mothers choice and individuality is what is respected above all else.

 

[Uber Genius]

Most of the godless people I meet today (including agnostics and atheists in that) consider science and choice as the pillars of reality. Science defines how we look at the world and assess the validity of truth claims and choice is the basis for morality and law. I accept that there are other kinds of godless people out there. In the past we had Marxists who had an historical ideological understanding of the evolution of society based on economics. Also Nietzsche had an atheistic world view based on the will to power. Freud argued that our psychology and particularly views on sex determined our understandings of reality. But these previous forms of atheism have mainly been refuted, discredited and overthrown and today the majority of godless people phrase their godlessness in terms of the principles of scientific authority and choice.

The view of science held is that of an old universe, spontaneous emergence of life and macro evolution. It is a bleak and brutal vision of nature in which mass extinctions and biological processes have led to oblivion for many species while allowing others to thrive and survive. Reality is painful and choices determined by biological circumstance.

The view of choice held implies that each person has the freedom to choose their own way and that the basis of morality is to respect these choices. Reasonably they may argue that murder violates another persons freedom, intolerance violates his freedom etc. They may also argue that if I am gay I should be allowed to marry another gay person, if I want to die then I should be able to have euthanasia, if I do not want this baby then I should be able to kill it before it is born.

I have 3 main issues with this godless understanding of choice.

1) It seems to contradict the scientific appraisal of reality as being somehow determined by environment, evolution and circumstance.

2) It is rather selective in what it chooses e.g. the mother choice of her own personal convenience over that of the life of her child.

3) It has no ultimate authoritative foundation that does not change.

In essence can the idea of choice be justified if this high view of science is maintained. Why are the choices accepted by godless people so selective in terms of what is acceptable and what not. With what authority that survives any kind of serious scrutiny can these choices be justified

Are all who don't hold your views no matter what they be "godless?"

This is just an appeal to emotion. It is fallacious and manipulative, can we have a pro/con discussion without demonizing all who don't hold your view?

 

[mindlight]

Are all who don't hold your views no matter what they be "godless?"

This is just an appeal to emotion. It is fallacious and manipulative, can we have a pro/con discussion without demonizing all who don't hold your view?

The version of choice and version of science held by many atheists contradict each other. That is a clear matter of logic.

It is not just my view. It has to do with whether a person is putting God at the centre of their lives or themselves.

 

[quatona]

But again the principle here is the inviolability of the individuals capacity to choose for themselves. Interestingly it is a principle that is in fact violated in the case of abortion as the childs choices are not respected.

The choices of fetusses seem to be extremely limited, anyway. Plus, it´s hard to get a statement from them.

 

[anonymous person]

Inductive reasoning. People have always made up supernatural reasons for what wasn't understood. Things like diseases, weather, earthquakes, eclipses, and many other events were once thought to be the work of god's, or spirits, or the like. But as our knowledge improved, we now know that all these are perfectly natural phenomena. A supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. So why should I believe anything supernatural ever has happened, or will happen?

Why do you think that being able to explain something in naturalistic terms precludes that something from being the result of a supernatural cause?

Sure, the shifting of the tectonic plates beneath the surface of the earth causes the earth to quake, but this explanation in no way proves that a supernatural cause of such an event cannot exist.

Sure, my custom built gaming rig named Deep Blue can run every game available at the highest settings with no lag but being able to explain how its components and software enable it to do this in no way proves that I, its builder and designer cannot exist!

I am wholly other than Deep Blue. I transcend it in numerous ways. I am greater than it. It is not me and I am not it.

Henry Ford was not the Model T, Bill Gates is not Microsoft Windows, da Vinci was not the Mona Lisa.

Your reasoning as to why supernatural causes cannot exist is as fallacious as the reasoning that says none of these people can exist because their effects can be explained by understanding how their constituents work.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you have no concept of good or evil you will go wherever your heart leads you whether through the gas chambers of Auschwitz, the Gulags of Stalin or worse.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[jayem]

Why do you think that being able to explain something in naturalistic terms precludes that something from being the result of a supernatural cause?

Sure, the shifting of the tectonic plates beneath the surface of the earth causes the earth to quake, but this explanation in no way proves that a supernatural cause of such an event cannot exist.

Sure, my custom built gaming rig named Deep Blue can run every game available at the highest settings with no lag but being able to explain how its components and software enable it to do this in no way proves that I, its builder and designer cannot exist!

I am wholly other than Deep Blue. I transcend it in numerous ways. I am greater than it. It is not me and I am not it.

Henry Ford was not the Model T, Bill Gates is not Microsoft Windows, da Vinci was not the Mona Lisa.

Your reasoning as to why supernatural causes cannot exist is as fallacious as the reasoning that says none of these people can exist because their effects can be explained by understanding how their constituents work.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My goal wasn't to disprove the supernatural. My main point--which I stated in the last sentence of my post--was why should I believe in anything supernatural. As I said, this is based on inductive reasoning. Which is not a claim of absolute metaphysical certainty. Induction is drawing a general conclusion from examining specific situations. It's empirically based reasoning. Example: whenever we measure the temperature at which pure water at sea level begins to boil, we get 100 deg C. So I have a pretty good reason to believe that water at sea level will always boil at 100 deg C. Though I haven't proven with absolute certainty that pure water at sea level will never, ever boil at a different temperature. Of course, negatives generally can't be proven, and I know I can't prove that supernatural entities don't exist. But why would I believe such things that have often been invoked, but have never been shown as valid?

What proof can you offer that anything supernatural does exist? Isn't it fallacious to claim a supernatural causation just because a natural one isn't known?

 

[xianghua]

The view of science held is that of an old universe, spontaneous emergence of life and macro evolution.
.

i am not sure. you mat refer to the consensus. but there is also a group of scientiss that think that evolution is false and that the earth is young. so its depend in what you believe in.

 

[HitchSlap]

i am not sure. you mat refer to the consensus. but there is also a group of scientiss that think that evolution is false and that the earth is young. so its depend in what you believe in.

No, there isn't.

 

[anonymous person]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My goal wasn't to disprove the supernatural. My main point--which I stated in the last sentence of my post--was why should I believe in anything supernatural. As I said, this is based on inductive reasoning. Which is not a claim of absolute metaphysical certainty. Induction is drawing a general conclusion from examining specific situations. It's empirically based reasoning. Example: whenever we measure the temperature at which pure water at sea level begins to boil, we get 100 deg C. So I have a pretty good reason to believe that water at sea level will always boil at 100 deg C. Though I haven't proven with absolute certainty that pure water at sea level will never, ever boil at a different temperature. Of course, negatives generally can't be proven, and I know I can't prove that supernatural entities don't exist. But why would I believe such things that have often been invoked, but have never been shown as valid?

What proof can you offer that anything supernatural does exist? Isn't it fallacious to claim a supernatural causation just because a natural one isn't known?

Thank you for clarifying your position.

There is quite a bit of good evidence for the existence of the supernatural. The existence of the natural order itself begs explanation.

All the evidence we have points to a beginning of the natural order which of course implies the existence of something supernatural as its efficient cause.

In fact, the more we know about nature, the more evidence we have for the supernatural.

Have you taken a look at some of the arguments and lines of evidence for the existence of God?

 

[jayem]

There is quite a bit of good evidence for the existence of the supernatural. The existence of the natural order itself begs explanation.

All the evidence we have points to a beginning of the natural order which of course implies the existence of something supernatural as its efficient cause.

Thanks for responding. Why don't you start a new thread documenting this evidence for supernatural entities. And explain why the natural world as we observe it cannot have resulted from natural processes. I will gladly subscribe. It will be great to have an intelligent discussion of both viewpoints.

 

[Chriliman]

Thanks for responding. Why don't you start a new thread documenting this evidence for supernatural entities. And explain why the natural world as we observe it cannot have resulted from natural processes. I will gladly subscribe. It will be great to have an intelligent discussion of both viewpoints.

This guy lays it all out pretty well:

 

[bhsmte]

Most of the godless people I meet today (including agnostics and atheists in that) consider science and choice as the pillars of reality. Science defines how we look at the world and assess the validity of truth claims and choice is the basis for morality and law. I accept that there are other kinds of godless people out there. In the past we had Marxists who had an historical ideological understanding of the evolution of society based on economics. Also Nietzsche had an atheistic world view based on the will to power. Freud argued that our psychology and particularly views on sex determined our understandings of reality. But these previous forms of atheism have mainly been refuted, discredited and overthrown and today the majority of godless people phrase their godlessness in terms of the principles of scientific authority and choice.

The view of science held is that of an old universe, spontaneous emergence of life and macro evolution. It is a bleak and brutal vision of nature in which mass extinctions and biological processes have led to oblivion for many species while allowing others to thrive and survive. Reality is painful and choices determined by biological circumstance.

The view of choice held implies that each person has the freedom to choose their own way and that the basis of morality is to respect these choices. Reasonably they may argue that murder violates another persons freedom, intolerance violates his freedom etc. They may also argue that if I am gay I should be allowed to marry another gay person, if I want to die then I should be able to have euthanasia, if I do not want this baby then I should be able to kill it before it is born.

I have 3 main issues with this godless understanding of choice.

1) It seems to contradict the scientific appraisal of reality as being somehow determined by environment, evolution and circumstance.

2) It is rather selective in what it chooses e.g. the mother choice of her own personal convenience over that of the life of her child.

3) It has no ultimate authoritative foundation that does not change.

In essence can the idea of choice be justified if this high view of science is maintained. Why are the choices accepted by godless people so selective in terms of what is acceptable and what not. With what authority that survives any kind of serious scrutiny can these choices be justified

In reading the tone of your posts on this site, I really think you just need to come to grips with reality; everyone doesn't agree with your faith beliefs. In fact, 2/3 of the worlds population don't agree with your personal faith beliefs.

I wouldn't let it bother you though, because you can still believe as you will.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for responding. Why don't you start a new thread documenting this evidence for supernatural entities. And explain why the natural world as we observe it cannot have resulted from natural processes. I will gladly subscribe. It will be great to have an intelligent discussion of both viewpoints.

I would love that thread. Wouldn't bank on it happening though.

 

[mindlight]

In reading the tone of your posts on this site, I really think you just need to come to grips with reality; everyone doesn't agree with your faith beliefs. In fact, 2/3 of the worlds population don't agree with your personal faith beliefs.

I wouldn't let it bother you though, because you can still believe as you will.

Most people in this world agree with me that there is a God and so atheism is wrong. Also most people globally believe their choices are or could be meaningful and some form of freewill. If you want to do this by a vote then you lose by about 90-10 on this one. But feel free to parade as the silent majority if you want to live in denial.

 

[mindlight]

i am not sure. you mat refer to the consensus. but there is also a group of scientiss that think that evolution is false and that the earth is young. so its depend in what you believe in.

I would not base my own belief on a young earth on science. Nor do I think that evolution is not happening and is not observable today. There were not 43 different types of sparrow on the ark.

But there is no proper science to show that macroevolution and an old universe is anything but speculation beyond the scope of science.

That so many people today have assumed that science has the right and clarity to speak outside the scope of its methods is what is interesting here. That so many people assume that the all determining theory of evolution, that has developed as a theory of our origins, does not contradict the equally powerful conviction that our choices are meaningful ones and should be respected is also interesting.

The latest form of positive atheism based on science and choice fails because it overextends the authorities it claims, because it contradicts itself and because its own sick form of narcissistic choice is too subjective and has no basis in any kind of external authority that might legitimate it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The latest form of positive atheism based on science and choice fails because it overextends the authorities it claims, because it contradicts itself and because its own sick form of narcissistic choice is too subjective and has no basis in any kind of external authority that might legitimate it.

I personally don't know any positive atheist that would accept the phrase "no possible gods exist".

Do you?

 

[mindlight]

I personally don't know any positive atheist that would accept the phrase "no possible gods exist".

Do you?

The demons acknowledge that God exists and that does them no good. To suggest that something may move in the shadows outside your own tiny of bubble of godless consciousness is not faith and will not save you. Indeed when the vast majority of the worlds population are shouting at you that there is a God the affirmation of alternate authorities like science and choice (which is the dominant consensus amongst atheists today) is a nonsense on the basis of which we might question that atheists sanity.

 

[bhsmte]

Most people in this world agree with me that there is a God and so atheism is wrong. Also most people globally believe their choices are or could be meaningful and some form of freewill. If you want to do this by a vote then you lose by about 90-10 on this one. But feel free to parade as the silent majority if you want to live in denial.

For me to be denying anything, you would first need to demonstrate what i am denying, with something other than your opinion. Evidence would be nice. And by the way, 2/3 of the population deny christianity, so christianity must be wrong. See, i can play that game too. Personal faith beliefs are wildly varied and a dime a dozen and everybody claims they have it right. They cant all be right, but they certainly could all be wrong.

 

[mindlight]

For me to be denying anything, you would first need to demonstrate what i am denying, with something other than your opinion. Evidence would be nice. And by the way, 2/3 of the population deny christianity, so christianity must be wrong. See, i can play that game too. Personal faith beliefs are wildly varied and a dime a dozen and everybody claims they have it right. They cant all be right, but they certainly could all be wrong.

So you call for evidence and cite a sociological consensus on religious numbers as an example. Positive atheists cite other such "appeals to evidence" and bequeathe them with the authority of science. What you deny is clear and clearly articulated in scripture and church and less so in creation and history. Yet you assert the use of tools that cannot yield spiritual answers nor even physical ones beyond a certain point and then complain that they do not provide you with the evidence you need. It would be funny except it is probably true that about 2/3rds of the people on this planet seem to be on a highway to hell and intent on bickering about which death metal band, hindu idol or koranic verse should be on the wall of the bus that takes them there.