Is atheism logical?

[Servant of Jesus]

Haha, no. But there are some amazing opinions that people hold as to the message of God.

What do you think God is telling us?

 

[DeathMagus]

Cognitive dissonance is not a conscious process.

It was not my intent to imply that it was. I don't mean that they consciously attempt to achieve a state of cognitive dissonance. Rather, if someone really wants to believe something, cognitive dissonance is likely to kick in.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

A good example of cognitive dissonance in this context is the clinging to accepted Biblical standards of conduct and God-inspired social norms by those who profess to be atheists.

Anyone who truly doesn't believe in God, His commandments and His instructions as to how we should live our lives has no moral compass, no benchmark of what is acceptable behavior or not- other than those standards imposed by the society in which they live. But society-imposed standards are deficient in that they usually can only deal with behaviors which can be promulgated into a written code of laws, and they only apply if you get caught and are proven to be guilty- a cumbersome and often costly process.

So in the mind of one who professes to be an atheist, anything goes- and one person's moral code is no more valid than anyone else's. This explains why egomaniacal dictators, who usually have little or no regard for God, can justify all manner of abuse and torture- they are completely free to set whatever heinous behavioral standards they want. Those who follow satan are capable of committing similar atrocities- for them also, God's standards aren't relevant.

But the truth of the matter is that most people who profess to be atheists are in fact good people, able to discern right from wrong, and do in fact live their lives according to accepted standards of behavior- not just those in a country's criminal code, but also those behavioral norms described in the Bible. So, whether it be consciously or not, most atheists cling to behavioral standards that are inconsistent with what their stated belief requires because, I believe, deep down, they realize that there really may be a God who will eventually hold them accountable for what they have done.

Cognitive dissonance becomes more acute as an atheist grows older, and the inevitability of death looms closer, and they question not only where the ordered Universe came from, but also how their conscience; their knowledge of right and wrong behavior, could possibly come from anywhere other than God working within them.

So my advice is this- why fight it, why keep increasing the amount of stress and cognitive dissonance in your life. Why not embrace the living, loving God, who is ready at any time upon your repentance, to forgive your sins, and give you peace- for eternity. All you need to do is simply pray and ask God to be with you- the Lord's Prayer is a very good start:

Our Father, who are in Heaven
Hallowed by they name
Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done
in Heaven, as it is on earth.
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from evil
For ever and ever
Amen

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyone who truly doesn't believe in God, His commandments and His instructions as to how we should live our lives has no moral compass, no benchmark of what is acceptable behavior or not- other than those standards imposed by the society in which they live.

Not so! And it's better for you to ask than to make assumptions for others.

Assuming here that standards not imposed by society rely on self-policing through the application of personal principles of right and wrong, and not by judging one's actions based solely on risk-assessment due to the possibility of externally imposed punishments, such as from a court of law or social repercussions, then my moral principles are not imposed by any society.

I have a moral compass of my own. And I find it insulting to be told otherwise by people who are not in a position to know any better than myself.

So in the mind of one who professes to be an atheist

I am an atheist. I do not profess to be one. I am one.

anything goes-

I'm a virtue ethicist, and my virtues are sacred to me. You have atheists confused with nihilists.

So, whether it be consciously or not, most atheists cling to behavioral standards that are inconsistent with what their stated belief

There is no inconsistency whatsoever in saying that it's good to be kind to people, and rejecting the idea that the Christian God exists. Rejecting Christian metaphysics isn't the same thing as rejecting Christian ethics.

I believe, deep down, they realize that there really may be a God who will eventually hold them accountable for what they have done.

I do not act in virtuously because I fear that I just might be punished by a divine being. I act virtuously because I see that virtue exists in harmony with my well-being as an individual, and that my well-being is not determined fully, or even primarily, by external conditions (such as whether or not I'm imprisoned), but by conditions internal to myself, meaning the operations of my psyche.

Cognitive dissonance becomes more acute as an atheist grows older, and the inevitability of death looms closer, and they question not only where the ordered Universe came from, but also how their conscience; their knowledge of right and wrong behavior, could possibly come from anywhere other than God working within them.

Sorry, but the older I get, the more I am sure of my worldview and its justifications.

So my advice is this- why fight it, why keep increasing the amount of stress and cognitive dissonance in your life. Why not embrace the living, loving God, who is ready at any time upon your repentance, to forgive your sins, and give you peace- for eternity.

That truly would be cognitive dissonance on my part.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[solarwave]

Not so! And it's better for you to ask than to make assumptions for others.

There is no inconsistency whatsoever in saying that it's good to be kind to people, and rejecting the idea that the Christian God exists. Rejecting Christian metaphysics isn't the same thing as rejecting Christian ethics.

I think the point is if there is no God all acts are ether all justifed, all unjustifed or all meaningless. As there is nothing to base morality on, just personal choice and the experience in ones life. Hitlers morals were just as right as anyone elses. Relativism.

It is only good to be kind to people because there is something that makes it good, something to compare it to. If there is not God, there is no difference between kindness and murder, except a majoritys opinion overcomming the minorities opinion.

 

[DeathMagus]

I think the point is if there is no God all acts are ether all justifed, all unjustifed or all meaningless.

Why can't we dictate the meaning of our actions?

As there is nothing to base morality on, just personal choice and the experience in ones life. Hitlers morals were just as right as anyone elses. Relativism.

Is there something wrong with a series of subjective value judgments, from which morals can be derived?

It is only good to be kind to people because there is something that makes it good, something to compare it to.

So the only reason you're kind to people is because god arbitrarily decided it was good?

If there is not God, there is no difference between kindness and murder, except a majoritys opinion overcomming the minorities opinion.

Except that one promotes my values and the other does not. Isn't that enough?

 

[Freodin]

I think the point is if there is no God all acts are ether all justifed, all unjustifed or all meaningless. As there is nothing to base morality on, just personal choice and the experience in ones life. Hitlers morals were just as right as anyone elses. Relativism.

It is only good to be kind to people because there is something that makes it good, something to compare it to. If there is not God, there is no difference between kindness and murder, except a majoritys opinion overcomming the minorities opinion.

What "makes it good" is indeed a good question, but I don´t think you are really interested in an answer to that.

Just look at your last sentence. Is there really no difference in kindness and murder, regardless of God or no-God?

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I have a moral compass of my own. And I find it insulting to be told otherwise by people who are not in a position to know any better than myself.

Mark

But that's just one of my points: when you rely on your own moral compass, there is no universal standard, and so if someone has a different idea of what is morally correct or not, how can you say that their standard is any better or worse than yours?

You may feel compassion for your fellow human being and live a decent life, as I happen to believe the vast majority of the people in the world do- but the problem is a Hitler, or a Stalin, etc. whose moral code is radically different from that of most people.

Unfortunately, benevolent dictatorships exist mainly in fairy tales.

 

[Freodin]

But that's just one of my points: when you rely on your own moral compass, there is no universal standard, and so if someone has a different idea of what is morally correct or not, how can you say that their standard is any better or worse than yours?

You may feel compassion for your fellow human being and live a decent life, as I happen to believe the vast majority of the people in the world do- but the problem is a Hitler, or a Stalin, etc. whose moral code is radically different from that of most people.

Unfortunately, benevolent dictatorships exist mainly in fairy tales.

Somehow I am missing your point. What is the problem with people like Hitler or Stalin? Why do you think that people who have repeatedly asserted that they have their own moral standard would stop acting on them when confronted with different morals?

You damn the acts of Hitler, because in your moral system - which you claim is from God - they are wrong.

I damn the acts of Hitler, because in my moral system - which is based on my understanding of history, society and biology - they are wrong.

So where is the difference?

 

[Servant of Jesus]

You damn the acts of Hitler, because in your moral system - which you claim is from God - they are wrong.

I damn the acts of Hitler, because in my moral system - which is based on my understanding of history, society and biology - they are wrong.

So where is the difference?

I maintain that God's standard is a universal and unchangeable one- so, for example, adultery, murder, theft, lying, etc. are always wrong. If someone professes to be a Christian, but then says its alright to murder or commit adultery, they are not following God's standard.

So with Hitler- you, and most other people, may think that what he did was wrong, but a vast number of Germans in the 1930's supported his actions, and a neo-Nazi today would also say that Hitler was absolutely right- and should have finished the job.

So who is to say that your viewpoint is any more justified than that of the neo-Nazi? By God's standard, Hitler's actions would always be condemned as being absolutely wrong.

 

[The Nihilist]

I maintain that God's standard is a universal and unchangeable one- so, for example, adultery, murder, theft, lying, etc. are always wrong. If someone professes to be a Christian, but then says its alright to murder or commit adultery, they are not following God's standard.
So with Hitler- you, and most other people, may think that what he did was wrong, but a vast number of Germans in the 1930's supported his actions, and a neo-Nazi today would also say that Hitler was absolutely right- and should have finished the job.
So who is to say that your viewpoint is any more justified than that of the neo-Nazi? By God's standard, Hitler's actions would always be condemned as being absolutely wrong.

No, this is not correct. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. What Hitler did is beyond the pale. We do not possess the moral language to describe what Hitler did. Saying that he was wrong is like using a yardstick to measure the distance from the earth to the sun, and this is as true for christians as it is for anyone else.
My moral position is one of social contractualism. There's an implicit contract that varies from society to society. So, someone commits a crime, and everyone agrees he's wrong, and punishes him accordingly. The difference between a common criminal and Hitler is that the common criminal wishes to remain a part of society and doesn't really undermine it. The Nazi death factory, for starters, made meaningful social interaction impossible and absurd. It works to eradicate the necessary preconditions for society. For this reason, men like that cannot authentically be tried and judged by a jury of their peers; they can only be exterminated, as one would do to a rabid dog.

 

[Morcova]

I maintain that God's standard is a universal and unchangeable one- so, for example, adultery, murder, theft, lying, etc. are always wrong. If someone professes to be a Christian, but then says its alright to murder or commit adultery, they are not following God's standard.

Then you do not condone god commanding people to murder in the bible? Or condone your god outright murdering people?

 

[anonymous1515]

Then you do not condone god commanding people to murder in the bible? Or condone your god outright murdering people?

That is one of my biggest concerns with religious dogmatism. What if somebody believes that God commands them to do something that would otherwise be morally suspect (i.e. killing somebody else).

It is a scary thing to claim that the only morally acceptable actions are the ones in line with God's will. By doing so, one could justify doing almost anything in the name of God by claiming God willed them to do it.

In addition, it seems to me that the Bible is open to a lot of interpretation. God's message is not the same for everyone, evidently. Many many Christians support capital punishment, despite God's commandment not to murder. They claim that capital punishment is not murder; instead, it is simply killing, and it is a biblical punishment for criminals. As such, murdering criminals is not wrong because it is in line with God's will.

To me, a deontological ethics system based on the Bible seems suspicious. Maybe it's just me...

 

[Eudaimonist]

But that's just one of my points: when you rely on your own moral compass, there is no universal standard, and so if someone has a different idea of what is morally correct or not, how can you say that their standard is any better or worse than yours?

No, you said that atheists don't have a moral compass. No shifting the goalposts, please.

My standard is the requirements of human life. (Which Hitler failed miserably.) This is an objective standard if that means reality-oriented, not whim-oriented. I very much can judge other people's moral standards.

You are simply mistaken if you think that all atheists are condemned to the sort of moral subjectivism where personal desires are thought to completely set one's own standard.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Servant of Jesus]

No, you said that atheists don't have a moral compass. No shifting the goalposts, please.

No shifting was done or implied. I wasn't saying that atheists don't live by a moral code- quite the contrary, I was saying that they do have an internal sense of right and wrong; do have a moral compass. I then suggested that this moral code is God-given; is evidence of the presence of God. Of course, an atheist will vigorously deny this- but what is reality?

A compass is an independent device used to help a person stay on course- so a moral compass is also an independent "device" needed to keep us human beings on course.

So a true atheist (if there was such a thing) would have no God-given moral compass, no Ten Commandments; no independent way of keeping them on course. An atheist may then think they should be going in a given direction, but if a Hitler comes along and says "no- this is the right direction", and points in a different direction, then how can anyone say who is right and who is wrong if there is no compass?

My standard is the requirements of human life. (Which Hitler failed miserably.) This is an objective standard if that means reality-oriented, not whim-oriented. I very much can judge other people's moral standards.

I bolded your two most important words "My" and "I". Your standard may be a requirement to preserve human life, but if someone else comes along and say "No- I believe in killing all the _________ (insert any number of recent ethnic groups), how can you say your standard is any better than theirs?

You are simply mistaken if you think that all atheists are condemned to the sort of moral subjectivism where personal desires are thought to completely set one's own standard.

If atheists reject the God-given internal moral code and the Bible standards, then what are they using to define a standard? And why is any one standard any better than another?

 

[Eudaimonist]

No shifting was done or implied. I wasn't saying that atheists don't live by a moral code- quite the contrary, I was saying that they do have an internal sense of right and wrong; do have a moral compass. I then suggested that this moral code is God-given; is evidence of the presence of God.

Okay.

That clashes a bit with what you wrote: "Anyone who truly doesn't believe in God, His commandments and His instructions as to how we should live our lives has no moral compass, no benchmark of what is acceptable behavior or not- other than those standards imposed by the society in which they live."

This doesn't look like a "god-given" moral compass to me. But I will take you at your word.

I see, though, that you seem to think that the standards of society are a moral compass of sorts. I don't think of it this way, so it looks like I misinterpreted you to mean that atheists don't have a moral compass at all. So while I insist that I have a moral compass that does not involve the "standards of society", I withdraw my objection to what I thought was a claim that atheists have no moral compass at all.

Of course, an atheist will vigorously deny this- but what is reality?

That atheists can have a moral compass that is rooted in reality rather than mere desire, and does not arise from the fullness of what Christians mean by "God".

A compass is an independent device used to help a person stay on course- so a moral compass is also an independent "device" needed to keep us human beings on course.

The device must be rooted in something aside from human whim. Agreed.

So a true atheist (if there was such a thing) would have no God-given moral compass, no Ten Commandments; no independent way of keeping them on course.

No, they could have an independent way of keeping them on course.

An atheist may then think they should be going in a given direction, but if a Hitler comes along and says "no- this is the right direction", and points in a different direction, then how can anyone say who is right and who is wrong if there is no compass?

I would have no problems doing so, since there is a standard of human well-being that exists because human well-being is a potential that can exist in reality, not merely in someone's desires.

Hitler achieved little but the destruction of those human values that nourish human lives.

I bolded your two most important words "My" and "I". Your standard may be a requirement to preserve human life, but if someone else comes along and say "No- I believe in killing all the _________ (insert any number of recent ethnic groups), how can you say your standard is any better than theirs?

"My" standard is the standard that applies to all human beings. It is the standard of what is good for human beings as such. My standard is better than Hitler's because it identifies what is good for human individuals.

If atheists reject the God-given internal moral code and the Bible standards, then what are they using to define a standard? And why is any one standard any better than another?

I don't claim to speak for other atheists, but my standard is defined by the reality of human nature and the requirements for the existence of human life.

Sorry, but I'm just not the moral subjectivist you are trying to paint all atheists as.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

I maintain that God's standard is a universal and unchangeable one- so, for example, adultery, murder, theft, lying, etc. are always wrong. If someone professes to be a Christian, but then says its alright to murder or commit adultery, they are not following God's standard.

So with Hitler- you, and most other people, may think that what he did was wrong, but a vast number of Germans in the 1930's supported his actions, and a neo-Nazi today would also say that Hitler was absolutely right- and should have finished the job.

So who is to say that your viewpoint is any more justified than that of the neo-Nazi? By God's standard, Hitler's actions would always be condemned as being absolutely wrong.

So it is not about doing right, it is about being patted on the back for it? How you justify things?

Well, Hitler justified his actions by a divine providence. He believed in an absolute moral code... which differed from yours.

So who are you to say that your viewpoint is any more justified than Hitlers? You can only repeatedly claim that your God is right and his isn´t, without any means to indeed "justify" this claim.

 

[Hnefi]

I maintain that God's standard is a universal and unchangeable one- so, for example, adultery, murder, theft, lying, etc. are always wrong. If someone professes to be a Christian, but then says its alright to murder or commit adultery, they are not following God's standard.

But history is chock full of religious people, christians and others, doing awful things. So belief in god doesn't seem to make people behave better than they otherwise would - so again it must be asked what difference it makes which system you adhere to.

If I became a christian today, not only would it not improve the morals of those around me, there is also no evidence that it would imrpove my own morals.

So with Hitler- you, and most other people, may think that what he did was wrong, but a vast number of Germans in the 1930's supported his actions, and a neo-Nazi today would also say that Hitler was absolutely right- and should have finished the job.

The vast number of Germans in the 1930's were also christian. So again, what use is the christian belief when it comes to improving morals?

So who is to say that your viewpoint is any more justified than that of the neo-Nazi? By God's standard, Hitler's actions would always be condemned as being absolutely wrong.

So why wasn't he? Why did he have the support of the church?

The answer is simple. Morals are subjective, whether you like it or not. Simply looking at different christians gives us very differing views on what is right and what is wrong - so even among christians themselves, morals are obviously subjective eventhough they claim otherwise.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

HELP! I need someone else to help take on the burden of carrying on the debate for the "no" side.

But, despite some rocky moments, it is pretty civilized and interesting- you'd almost think that everyone here was a Christian, rigorously following Biblical standards of polite discussion.

There is a code for that too, y'know.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But, despite some rocky moments, it is pretty civilized and interesting- you'd almost think that everyone here was a Christian, rigorously following Biblical standards of polite discussion.

The Bible has standards of polite discussion?


eudaimonia,

Mark