Atheism, A Grim Position?

[JuliaL]

It means that those are the behaviors which survive and expand their domains. Therefore those are the behaviors which we observe. Not written in the sky or anywhere else.

[*steve*]

Neither, it makes them successful. The issue you're talking about isn't even best addressed by "right or wrong" but by "legal or illegal".

No, that is exactly the issue I'm addressing: right or wrong, irrespective of what is considered "legal or illegal".

[JuliaL]

Yes, but you didn't answer my question: Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?

You're going to have to be more clear about what you mean by 'fundamentally.' I would say that any action by itself is amoral. It is only when it is placed in the context of a replicating pattern that it gains the status of moral or immoral, right or wrong. And each instance will have a different rightness or wrongness depending on from where it is being observed. In the view of the bear, killing the hiker is right. In the view of the hiker it is wrong.

[*steve*]

Tell you what I told the last guy with the same schtick. Bricks and Boxes. If you'd like to propose a scenario in which your desire to kill redheads is either moral or amoral - be my guest. If you'd like to ignore any of the reasons others give for this moral norm against murder - and continue the "why why why" - okay.


At the end of the day....we'll put you in a box...and then hit you over the head with a brick.

(morbid curiosity, are you planning something?)

Yes, I'm planning on opening a nice bottle of merlot. :-)

---

You're going to have to be more clear about what you mean by 'fundamentally.' I would say that any action by itself is amoral.

Ok, fair enough.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, that is exactly the issue I'm addressing: right or wrong, irrespective of what is considered "legal or illegal".

Hey, if you subscribe to some moral system in which murdering redheads is "right", then that's that... for you, huh? I'll continue to consider it "wrong" from the basis of my own moral system. The two of us may never agree.....but I'm not the one that's going to end up in a box hit over the head with a brick, eh?

[JuliaL]

The two of us may never agree.....but I'm not the one that's going to end up in a box hit over the head with a brick, eh?

Don't speak too quickly. Theists still swing a pretty mean brick and I hear they don't like atheists.

[*steve*]

The two of us may never agree.....but I'm not the one that's going to end up in a box hit over the head with a brick, eh?

Don't speak too quickly. Theists still swing a pretty mean brick and I hear they don't like atheists.

Not too good with bricks but I do swing a golf club pretty well. ;-) Actually, a couple of my best friends are atheists. I much prefer the non-religious to traditional religious folk when it comes to deep conversation.

[JuliaL]

I claimed the dictum 'God said to' was simple.

Some may. I think it is incredibly complex.

If you find time, could you please elaborate on your response?
Complex how?
What part of ineffable don't you understand?

---

Not too good with bricks but I do swing a golf club pretty well.

I swing a golf club exceptionally badly though I do try to get to the links at least once a decade.

[rexbeccarox]

Don't speak too quickly. Theists still swing a pretty mean brick and I hear they don't like atheists.

Not too good with bricks but I do swing a golf club pretty well. ;-) Actually, a couple of my best friends are atheists. I much prefer the non-religious to traditional religious folk when it comes to deep conversation.

If a couple of your best friends are atheists, why don't you understand atheism?

[*steve*]

I claimed the dictum 'God said to' was simple.

Some may. I think it is incredibly complex.

If you find time, could you please elaborate on your response?
Complex how?
What part of ineffable don't you understand?

Right. Now things get tough. In my view there is an ultimate basis for value, grounded in God. However, the question is how to access it, evaluate it in the given context, and apply it in the right way. Philosophers have grappled throughout the ages with moral questions and they constantly arise in each context.

You mentioned ineffable. Right. So now we get to religious experience. Another tough one. The great theologian Paul Tillich spoke of the "mystical a priori". Calvin spoke of "sensus divinitatis". Both reflect some sort of ontological and epistemic union with the divine. Paul Tillich also talked about how certain people, places, and things can be transparent to the divine. Those can also include wisdom literature, science, philosophy, art, music, etc. I add to this dynamic with what I call an informed intuition. All these speak to some sort of connection with the divine and divine purpose. So, I think the best we can do is open ourselves up to the divine depth within us and let it try to inform our moral decisions, realizing our fallibility. It ain't perfect and it must constantly be tested by results and realities. That's why it is complicated and challenging. I talk more about these ideas on my website [snip] where I've summarized some of my theological thinking. I haven't yet put up some of my writings expanding on the summary but will sometime in the future.

---

Not too good with bricks but I do swing a golf club pretty well. ;-) Actually, a couple of my best friends are atheists. I much prefer the non-religious to traditional religious folk when it comes to deep conversation.

If a couple of your best friends are atheists, why don't you understand atheism?

I think I understand some things about atheism but our discussions have mainly been about the conflicts in science and religion, philosophy of mind, and consciousness.