RE: Atheism, A Grim Position?
January 6, 2015 at 3:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 4:27 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(January 6, 2015 at 12:12 am)*steve* Wrote: But what if I ( as a rational human being ) don't care about society?
Then you're not actually a rational human being.
(January 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm)*steve* Wrote: I just want what I want and I want to kill redheads, and will try to get away with it. Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?
If that's how you feel, there is something fundamentally wrong with you. Psychopaths have impaired empathy, reduced response to stimulus, and a limited ability to care about the consequences of their actions to themselves and others. They're defective, and the condition is incurable. Fortunately, sociopathy is on a spectrum where redhead-killers are an extreme, even for them, and various flavors of con artist and petty criminal are on the middle of that bell curve of sociopathy.
(January 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm)*steve* Wrote: I don't think it was by accident that Thomas Jefferson invoked the creator in the Declaration of Independence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Full stop. All other opinions are subordinate to that ultimate endowment. No more "why that" questions.
Why would anyone think Jefferson invoked the creator by accident?
Atheists can believe in inalienable rights, too. I do.
(January 6, 2015 at 12:26 am)*steve* Wrote: Yes, "descent with modification sieved by natural selection" encoded some behaviors and tendencies. So what? Does that make them fundamentally right or wrong? If so, how?
Why should something have to be fundamentally right or wrong? Why can't something be right or wrong for us, as human beings, depending on the circumstances and consequences?
Can you give an example of something that is fundamentally wrong?
(January 6, 2015 at 2:46 am)*steve* Wrote:(January 6, 2015 at 2:32 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: But you don't understand it at all if you don't understand it's simply a lack of belief in a deity/ deities.
Surely judging from the many thousands of comments in the forums there is more to atheism than just a definition.
There is more to atheists than just a definition. More to theists, too. It doesn't follow that there's more to atheism or theism themselves.
(January 6, 2015 at 3:04 am)*steve* Wrote: True. But we subjugate ourselves to the mightiest all the time, often believing it is in our best interest or the interest of others. As children we do it, albeit maybe with some rebellion from time to time. For those who live in the US, most would accept the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court in determining what is lawful and what is not; an essential part of preserving the benevolent aspects of the Constitution. However, when it is felt this subjugation is not benign, rebellion often occurs.
Personally I don't have a problem with God determining what is moral and what is not. This is based on a belief in God's benevolence to creation.
You certainly abandoned fundamental rightness and wrongness the instant it was convenient.
(January 6, 2015 at 10:41 am)*steve* Wrote: Ok, I get it. My bad. So atheism doesn't have any tenets beyond "Atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities". But I'm curious then. Are there atheists who disagree with what I mistakenly called tenets in my first post?
* There is no ultimate meaning.
* There is no ultimate basis for value.
* There is no ultimate intentionality associated with/in reality.
If so, I'd like to hear what those disagreements are.
Let's hear it:
What's the ultimate meaning?
What's the ultimate basis for value?
What's the ultimate intentionality?
Why should I believe your answers are the truth?
Why is God necessary for your answers to be true?
I don't need to be an atheist to recognize it when a claim is insufficiently supported to justify accepting it as true in the first place. You haven't even attempted to make a case that 'ultimate meaning' is a real thing, and I shouldn't accept it until you (or someone) does.
That's not atheism. It's rational skepticism.
(January 6, 2015 at 11:07 am)*steve* Wrote:(January 6, 2015 at 10:54 am)Alex K Wrote: What precisely do you mean by ultimate?
Take the US Supreme Court as metaphor for it. That court is the final adjudicator for what is consistent with the constitution and what is not. There is no higher authority that can be appealed to in that adjudication. It stops there.
The Court can still decide incorrectly. What use is this idea of 'ultimate' if it doesn't necessarily include being correct?
And please don't just tack on 'and it's necessarily correct' to your court analogy.
(January 6, 2015 at 12:42 pm)*steve* Wrote: I personally think moral systems are essential and good things. What I'm saying, however, is that without some ultimate basis for them, any reasonable person could argue against them or even their elimination. A thoroughgoing anarchist could offer a well reasoned, logically consistent argument that they are perfectly right to do whatever they want and all restrictions on individuals should be eliminated. It's "every man for themselves" is logically defensible without some ultimate basis for morality saying it's not right.
Person with no ultimate basis tries to justify killing redheads for pleasure: Long argument that goes nowhere and doesn't persuade anyone that redhead murder is okay.
Person with ultimate basis tries to justify killing redheads for pleasure: 'God told me to do it'.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
