Moral Nihilism

[Giff]

Charles, atheists aren't nihilistic. I'm an athesit I'm not a nihlist, for an example.

It's Ignorant to say that atheist or that atheism entails moral nihlism. Atheism isn't a philosphy it's just word, it just mean that those who are atheist don't blieve in a god or any gods. It's just like that.

Then we all have diffrent philosophies and view of life. The only common thing we have is, like I said, that we don't believe in any god or gods.

Since atheism isn't religion does it not teach or learn a specific philosphy.

[Sam]

Here then is the (admittedly rough-and-ready) argument:

1. Atheism (Not quite, atheism posits only a lack of belief in gods. I think you mean evoloutionary theory?) posits that human life is the product of blind, purposeless, natural forces.

Your assertion that natural forces are intrinsicly purposeless has no foundation, who are you to dictate that a life brought about by evoloution has any less purpose than your own? I assume your saying that your purpose is to serve and one day be with God? I would consider an atheists pursuit of scientific and personal truths much more meaningfull regardless of the fact that when we die we cease to exist, at least that life would contribute something of use to furture generations.

2. Anything which is the product of blind, purposeless forces by definition has no purpose.

Again, there is no basis for that ... simply saying that "by definition" isn't enough! Just because existence stems from something other than a creator God DOES NOT make it purposeless, our purpose simply fills a smaller time frame (i.e. our lives)

3. Therefore human life has no purpose.

In line with my arguments above I think your only guide for this is the fact that you draw your purpose from your religion, It seems a little arrogant to therefore assume you can force it on those who don't share it.

4. Moral values are a component of human life.

Whoo hoo ... Got one right

5. Therefore moral values have no purpose.

Moral values do have a purpose in any human life, atheist or not I think this horse has been beaten to death in this thread so I won't reiterate but simply do you really need an all powerfull parent figure giving you a simple yey or ney before you can judge right and wrong? of course not.

6. Nihilism posits that life is without meaning or purpose and that values do not exist.

Fair enough.

7. Regarding the meaning or purpose of human life and moral values, both atheism and nihilism are linguistic tokens describing the same conclusion: human life and moral values have no meaning or purpose.

Again atheism and nihlism are two seperate entities, you fundamentally flawed assumption is that all atheist believe in evoloutionary theory which is the crux of your entire argument.

So we’re back to the original assertion in my first post: Atheism logically entails moral nihilism, yet I have encountered few atheists willing to assert it. Are you? Are you willing to be consistent with your own presuppositions and follow them to their logical conclusion? Do you have the courage of your convictions and declare unequivocally that all of life is meaningless and absurd?

You havent' encountered any atheists willing to admit this because it's absurd, I am consistent with my belief that there is no god and also my knowledge of evolution but the logical conclusion I reach are far different from your own ... let me "Connect the dots" for you; I believe that my existence is an astonishing occurence, I believe my life should be devoted to understanding the things around me, I believe that all humans should be held to a higher moral standard than those flaunted by religion and that such a standard should be based on our ingrained sense of right and wrong as a species and I certainly DO NOT believe that all life is meaningless/purposeless/absurd just because I have no creator God in my life against who I validate everything.

you further implied that your entire personal moral construct was a result of your religion which a) suggests your moral compass may be skewed on infanticide/just punishment

Skewed by what standard? But you're jumping ahead here, I'm trying to limit the discussion to one point. We could take that up later in a new post if you like.

Skewed by the bible, the "unaltered word of God".

b) suggest that without religion you would have no self control whatsoever.

That's quite a leap.

Not really, I mean your essentially saying that only religious people can assign value to morals and life etc ... and that your morals stem from your religion are you not? In which case without it you would have no morals? and hence no need of self control? - Follow your logic to it's conclusions for me Charles and tell me thats not where you end up ...

The fact is that society as a whole (i.e. the global society) has an ingrained sense of right and wrong, that is why we experience tangible pain/sympathy when we see our hear of others suffering. We can obligate everyone in line with this global trend in ethic & morality ... that what international law is all about.

So you affirm cross-cultural transcendent moral standards? You aren't a closet theist, are you?

---

No, I'm an atheist through and through ... and fyi, theism certainly doesn't affirm any cross cultural moral standards.

Sam

[Charles]

Giff wrote:

Charles, atheists aren't nihilistic. I'm an athesit I'm not a nihlist, for an example.

They would be if they were consistent. A bare denial of my argument is hardly convincing.

It's Ignorant to say that atheist or that atheism entails moral nihlism.

I have provided the argument, how is that ignorant?

Atheism isn't a philosphy it's just word, it just mean that those who are atheist don't blieve in a god or any gods. It's just like that.

Then we all have diffrent philosophies and view of life. The only common thing we have is, like I said, that we don't believe in any god or gods.

Since atheism isn't religion does it not teach or learn a specific philosphy.

Its not a philosophy itself, true, but it is based on certain philosophical presuppositions, among them that life is purposeless, which is the hallmark of nihilism.

[Charles]

Sam wrote:

(Not quite, atheism posits only a lack of belief in gods. I think you mean evoloutionary theory?)

Yes, I hoped I didn’t need to spell out everything. Are there any non-evolutionists on this forum?

Your assertion that natural forces are intrinsicly purposeless has no foundation,

Really? Don’t evolutionists pride themselves on the thoroughly naturalistic mechanisms of the evolutionary process? To quote paleontologist and evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” I’d say that’s a pretty good foundation. I’m surprised you’re contesting it.

who are you to dictate that a life brought about by evoloution has any less purpose than your own?

I’m someone who is familiar with standard evolutionist theory. On naturalistic (i.e. non-theistic) evolutionary premises, life in general and man in particular are cosmic accidents. The universe did not purpose that they should arise.

I assume your saying that your purpose is to serve and one day be with God? I would consider an atheists pursuit of scientific and personal truths much more meaningfull regardless of the fact that when we die we cease to exist, at least that life would contribute something of use to furture generations.

I’m not stating what our purpose is, I’m merely stating that on naturalistic evolutionary grounds, and by inference on atheistic grounds, our life has no purpose. We’re random colonies of bacteria, without purpose, meaning, design, or dignity. Some atheists will readily admit this, why won’t you?

Again, there is no basis for that ... simply saying that "by definition" isn't enough! Just because existence stems from something other than a creator God DOES NOT make it purposeless, our purpose simply fills a smaller time frame (i.e. our lives)

I think you need to read up on some of the standard literature:

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

“This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”

- Richard Dawkins, River Out Of Eden

Do you care to correct Prof. Dawkins? He’s sounding pretty nihilistic there . . .

In line with my arguments above I think your only guide for this is the fact that you draw your purpose from your religion, It seems a little arrogant to therefore assume you can force it on those who don't share it.

I haven’t stated what I believe to be our purpose. I’m merely stating that on naturalistic evolutionary grounds, and by inference on atheistic grounds, our life has no purpose. Why do you run from the obvious? Are the implications too scary?

Whoo hoo ... Got one right

Earlier you chided me for not making explicit an implicit premise (re evolution), now I’m chided for making explicit and explicit premise. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t . . . oh . . . I probably shouldn’t use that phrase with atheists.

Moral values do have a purpose in any human life, atheist or not I think this horse has been beaten to death in this thread so I won't reiterate but simply do you really need an all powerfull parent figure giving you a simple yey or ney before you can judge right and wrong? of course not.

Your moral values are merely personal or cultural preferences: X is praiseworthy because I like X. Why should I adopt your values? They cannot impose moral obligation on anyone who disagrees.

Again atheism and nihlism are two seperate entities, you fundamentally flawed assumption is that all atheist believe in evoloutionary theory which is the crux of your entire argument.

All atheists here who reject evolution, say “I do.”

[awkward silence]

Honestly, its not like I’m going out on a limb here, so I’m not worried that my entire argument is at risk.

You havent' encountered any atheists willing to admit this because it's absurd,

Sure I have, as I originally wrote “I have encountered few atheists willing to assert it.” Those who don’t enthusiastically affirm nihilism have not yet learned the “hardest lesson” that the universe is “indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose” as Dawkins succinctly puts it.

Its like an alcoholic who can’t admit he has a drinking problem, or a Christian who can’t admit that unrepentant sinners go to Hell; the truth is too uncomfortable.

I am consistent with my belief that there is no god and also my knowledge of evolution but the logical conclusion I reach are far different from your own ... let me "Connect the dots" for you; I believe that my existence is an astonishing occurence, I believe my life should be devoted to understanding the things around me,

Why? You’re a cosmic accident. A meat machine. A colony of bacteria. The universe didn’t design you to understand. It doesn’t care if you understand everything or understand nothing. And when you’re dead it still won’t care. Your life, Sam, is meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. These are the implications of your own evolutionary/atheistic presuppositions.

I believe that all humans should be held to a higher moral standard than those flaunted by religion and that such a standard should be based on our ingrained sense of right and wrong as a species and I certainly DO NOT believe that all life is meaningless/purposeless/absurd just because I have no creator God in my life against who I validate everything.

Dawkins was right, it is the hardest lesson for humans to learn.

Skewed by the bible, the "unaltered word of God".

The Bible contains my moral standard, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say my moral standard is skewed by it.

Not really, I mean your essentially saying that only religious people can assign value to morals and life etc ...

I’m not saying that at all. Religious people do not assign value, God does.

and that your morals stem from your religion are you not?

From God. He is the Lawgiver.

In which case without it you would have no morals?

If he had not revealed the law, I would not know it, correct.

and hence no need of self control?

I would have need for self-control whether the law was revealed or not.

- Follow your logic to it's conclusions for me Charles and tell me thats not where you end up ...

I am following it. You still haven’t reached your conclusion that “without religion you would have no self control whatsoever.”

The fact is that society as a whole (i.e. the global society) has an ingrained sense of right and wrong, that is why we experience tangible pain/sympathy when we see our hear of others suffering. We can obligate everyone in line with this global trend in ethic & morality ... that what international law is all about.

International law is arbitrated by compromise and treaty. Its not like the UN or the ICC appeals to innate ideas.

I’ll simply quote Dawkins again: “We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”

No, I'm an atheist through and through ... and fyi, theism certainly doesn't affirm any cross cultural moral standards.

God’s law is certainly a cross cultural moral standard. The Ten Commandments, for example, are binding on all people of every culture throughout history. It wasn’t intended merely for the Jews 3500 years ago.

Good discussion, Sam, thanks.

[Giff]

God’s law is certainly a cross cultural moral standard. The Ten Commandments, for example, are binding on all people of every culture throughout history. It wasn’t intended merely for the Jews 3500 years ago.

You don't need to read the bible to know that killing a person is a bad thing. The commandements are based on what people thought was wrong at the time. People had moral values that where similar long before the old testament was written and the commandemnt was written down.

Also they are not binding on all people of every culture.

They would be if they were consistent. A bare denial of my argument is hardly convincing.

As I said I'm not an nihilst and I'm an atheist. Which most athesit aren't. Don't know why come with such a claim. I have moral values wihtout religion and I'm not nihilistic in anyway. Everyone isn't the same, it wouldn't suprise me if some atheist are nihilist but that doesn't mean everyone are.

“without religion you would have no self control whatsoever.”

A false statement. I live without religion and have self control, also my country which is pretty much non-religious is also having good control of itself.

I have provided the argument, how is that ignorant?

Since it's not correct. There's nothing that say atheism entail moreal nihilism.

[Tiberius]

Then on what basis did we conduct the Nuremberg Trials? The Nazis' personal and societal moral code informed them that genocide was acceptable. What justification do you have for saying what they did was wrong? Is your personal or societal moral standard superior or universal whereas theirs was not?

We conducted the Nuremberg trials because the majority of people considered the actions of those on trial to be disgusting and evil. We don't convict people based on individual morality, but on the morality of the majority. Societal morality is always superior to individual morality; it has to be for society to function.

I did the "freethinking" thing a couple of decades ago, but thanks for the offer.

So why don't you try it again?

So you do not murder because of the negative consequences to yourself: "punishment", not "rewarded", "ostracism." No mention of the victim here. No mention that taking another person’s life is intrinsically evil. What a telling omission.

I would wager even you don't believe that taking a person's life is intrinsically evil. Were we wrong to kill Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity? What about the people on death row who have killed again and again and again? I'm not a fan of the death penalty in most cases, but there are certainly some that can be justified. How about war? Is it wrong to kill people in a war if you are trying to free the country of tyranny?

I could reply that I am pro-murder because it brings me sadistic pleasure. That's my personal preference. You have no warrant to convince me that my murderous actions are immoral, other than appealing to my own selfish interests of being punished or ostracized. You have no standard by which to condemn me: why should I abide by your preferences or those of your culture?

We do have a warrant though. Society deems that murder is not a good thing unless in specific circumstances, and you have to abide by the standards of the culture you live in or face the consequences.

The naturalistic fallacy entails ascribing moral approval to that which is already found to be the case, which is what you're positing when you say that "morality itself is a natural thing.” It is simply another way of saying what is (the fact that a cultural values exist) entails ought (these cultural values should be so). How else can we judge an action blameworthy or praiseworthy if our moral standard is itself the product of our own nature?

How exactly am I ascribing moral approval on anything? I'm not mentioning any type of action that is a matter of ethics, I'm mentioning the system of ethics itself. For the naturalistic fallacy to hold, I must be saying that something is natural, therefore it is moral. The "something" has to be an action (i.e. homosexuality, murder, etc). Morality itself isn't an action, it is the method by which we decide if something is moral or not. Saying this itself is natural is as fallacious as saying our minds are natural (i.e. not fallacious at all). I'm not saying that morality is a product of our individual nature, but it is a product of our evolution. We have to have a certain moral code in order to work together in a social group. This is also the current thinking of science, so please don't bring up the naturalistic fallacy again, it doesn't apply to the current discussion.

Many people here have denied that atheism entails moral nihilism, but a denial does not an argument make. Your rebuttal "If we all decided murder was ok, we wouldn't have a society anymore" assumes that atheism does not entail moral nihilism, so its not much of a supporting argument.

No, we've explained (often at great length) why we aren't nihilists. This isn't just us saying "atheism is not nihilistic", this is us telling you why it isn't. I don't see how my statement assumes anything about the beliefs of the people in the society. It is simple deductive reasoning that if a society as a whole thought murder was ok, the entire society would disappear.

One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil. Is that an irreducible moral truth? Torturing babies for pleasure is evil. Is that an irreducible moral truth?

They both depend on the society you are in. We allow women to wear the clothes they like, we consider this a good thing. Other countries (middle eastern especially) say this is an evil thing. They think that women are property and that this is a good thing, we think that any concept of human ownership is evil. So no, they aren't irreducible moral truths; they all depend on which society you belong to.

Likewise with the second, it depends on the society. There are societies in Africa which torture babies and children because they suspect them to be witches; they think this is a good thing, we think this is an evil thing. Please explain how this comes about if morality is irreducible.

Only if the murderers shared your culture. You cannot engage in cross-cultural moral judgments, since there is no transcendent moral truth.

Yes we can engage in cross-cultural moral judgements. Take your example of the Nuremberg trials. We invaded their country and imposed our morals on them. The victor always wins the moral battle, and has done over the centuries. Same thing happened when we started capturing slaves from Africa. We judge other countries all the time. We think that what happens to "child witches" in Africa is disgusting, and we lobby their government to crack down on such activities. If we ever invaded, we would impose our morality on them and prosecute anyone who disobeys our morality.

That is precisely the point, my friend.

See above.

Unless you’re a Chinese or Khmer Maoist, you do not share the culture of Mao or Pol Pot, so you cannot condemn their murders of 74 million people.

For the last time, you don't need to be in the country to condemn the actions of such people. We judge things by our societies standards and our own standards. By these standards the actions are condemnable.

If you were consistent in your atheism, you would be.

Only because you cannot think outside the box. You think God made us and morality is from God. We don't believe in God and we have other explanations of the origin of morality. You simply stick your fingers in your ears when we try to explain how we think morality originated. Atheism says nothing about morality, it only says something about the existence of gods.

1. Atheism posits that human life is the product of blind, purposeless, natural forces. // No, science posits this. Atheism posits that there are no gods.
2. Anything which is the product of blind, purposeless forces by definition has no purpose. // No, it only has no objective purpose. Subjective purposes might be many. For instance, a rock weathered by a river has no objective purpose, but a person might use that rock as a hammer, thereby putting a subjective purpose on it.
3. Therefore human life has no purpose. // Objectively? yes. Subjectively, some people might have a problem with this statement.
4. Moral values are a component of human life. // Moral values are a component of society, multiple humans living together.
5. Therefore moral values have no purpose. // This is like saying "legs are a component of human life, therefore legs have no purpose". Moral values have a purpose: they hold the society together.
6. Nihilism posits that life is without meaning or purpose and that values do not exist. // Indeed.
7. Regarding the meaning or purpose of human life and moral values, both atheism and nihilism are linguistic tokens describing the same conclusion: human life and moral values have no meaning or purpose. // No (see above annotations).

My annotations are preceded by a // and are bolded in the above quote ^

So we’re back to the original assertion in my first post: Atheism logically entails moral nihilism, yet I have encountered few atheists willing to assert it. Are you? Are you willing to be consistent with your own presuppositions and follow them to their logical conclusion? Do you have the courage of your convictions and declare unequivocally that all of life is meaningless and absurd?

Atheism does not logical entail moral nihilism, and if it did, well I guess then I wouldn't be an atheist. I'm a person who does not believe in gods, but holds that morality exists and has a purpose. As for following my presuppositions, I have no presuppositions. My atheism does not lead me to look at the world with any less wonder. Instead, it leads me to search for more answers to things. If I ever found God as those answers, I would reject my atheism. That is the exact opposite of following through with presuppositions. I hold that it is you who has presuppositions and your clinging onto them has blinded you to the possibility that other people might have other explanations. Your presupposition is that God exists and has dictated morality, even though the evidence is to the contrary.

[Giff]

I agree with Adrian's answers in his post above

Also want to add thathumans have empathy is what make us know what is right and wrong. That's what societies common moral values are built on.

The only diffrence in moral values all over the world have to do with religion, which are the only thing that can justify evil. Otherwise have every culture pretty much culture the same basic principles. Specially when it comes to killing and abuse or harming another human.

[Charles]

Adrian wrote:

We conducted the Nuremberg trials because the majority of people considered the actions of those on trial to be disgusting and evil. We don't convict people based on individual morality, but on the morality of the majority. Societal morality is always superior to individual morality; it has to be for society to function.

You make my point for me. “Societal morality is always superior to individual morality.” Therefore in Nazi Germany, where the societal morality dictated it was acceptable to murder Jews, it was moral for them to murder Jews.

Without a transcendent moral standard, anything goes if that’s what the majority of people want. What if the majority of people in the UK said it was okay to murder atheists, or any other minority group, would that make murder a moral act?

Morality is not determined by poll.

So why don't you try it again?

Been there, done that, found it was a road to nowhere.

I would wager even you don't believe that taking a person's life is intrinsically evil. Were we wrong to kill Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity? What about the people on death row who have killed again and again and again? I'm not a fan of the death penalty in most cases, but there are certainly some that can be justified. How about war? Is it wrong to kill people in a war if you are trying to free the country of tyranny?

Very well. Let me amend my previous statement to “No mention that taking another innocent person’s life is intrinsically evil. What a telling omission.” Yes, there are justified killings in a Christian worldview: self-defense, capital punishment, and in a just war. Your omission of the victim is still telling.

We do have a warrant though. Society deems that murder is not a good thing unless in specific circumstances, and you have to abide by the standards of the culture you live in or face the consequences.

But you still cannot condemn Nazi Germany for mass murder. Their society thought that was acceptable. Who are you to deny them their right of moral self-determination? If the whole world voted it was okay to murder group X, by your reasoning that would be a moral act. What nonsense.

How exactly am I ascribing moral approval on anything? I'm not mentioning any type of action that is a matter of ethics, I'm mentioning the system of ethics itself. For the naturalistic fallacy to hold, I must be saying that something is natural, therefore it is moral. The "something" has to be an action (i.e. homosexuality, murder, etc). Morality itself isn't an action, it is the method by which we decide if something is moral or not. Saying this itself is natural is as fallacious as saying our minds are natural (i.e. not fallacious at all). I'm not saying that morality is a product of our individual nature, but it is a product of our evolution. We have to have a certain moral code in order to work together in a social group. This is also the current thinking of science, so please don't bring up the naturalistic fallacy again, it doesn't apply to the current discussion.

And we know that current scientific understanding is never wrong! I’m applying the naturalistic fallacy to the metaethical question of value itself, not an individual case of applied ethics as you mention. If morality is the product of evolution (that which is), and we should adopt that very morality to guide our behavior (that which ought), then we commit the naturalistic fallacy. For it may be the case that our evolutionary morality is immoral.

But I agree, let’s move on.

No, we've explained (often at great length) why we aren't nihilists. This isn't just us saying "atheism is not nihilistic", this is us telling you why it isn't. I don't see how my statement assumes anything about the beliefs of the people in the society. It is simple deductive reasoning that if a society as a whole thought murder was ok, the entire society would disappear.

Because only a non-nihilist would say "If we all decided murder was ok, we wouldn't have a society anymore." A nihilist would shrug his shoulders and label the whole thing absurd: the survival or extinction of society is meaningless. So your rebuttal is circular.

I’ll supply the same Dawkins quote I gave Sam: “We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.” Dawkins seems to have grasped the inevitable conclusion of his evolutionist atheism, why don’t you?

They both depend on the society you are in. We allow women to wear the clothes they like, we consider this a good thing. Other countries (middle eastern especially) say this is an evil thing. They think that women are property and that this is a good thing, we think that any concept of human ownership is evil. So no, they aren't irreducible moral truths; they all depend on which society you belong to.

But the statement “One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil” is true regardless of the culture. Sure, some cultures will define the good and the evil differently from you or me, but the statement itself is true, is it not? That is to say, it is a transcendent moral standard which is culturally neutral.

Likewise with the second, it depends on the society. There are societies in Africa which torture babies and children because they suspect them to be witches; they think this is a good thing, we think this is an evil thing. Please explain how this comes about if morality is irreducible.

I’m unaware of any society, African or otherwise, that would deny it is evil to torture babies for pleasure. Please document your claim.

I always find it amusing but sad the lengths to which cultural relativists (like yourself – the “morality of the majority”) or emotivists will go in order to deny such prima facie moral absolutes such as the wickedness of torturing babies for pleasure. Oh the ethical gymnastics you perform!

Yes we can engage in cross-cultural moral judgements.

Not with the force of obligation. You can say to the Nazi “mass murder is evil” but your moral standard imposes no duty on him to obey it, since your standard is culture-dependent.

Take your example of the Nuremberg trials. We invaded their country and imposed our morals on them. The victor always wins the moral battle, and has done over the centuries. Same thing happened when we started capturing slaves from Africa. We judge other countries all the time. We think that what happens to "child witches" in Africa is disgusting, and we lobby their government to crack down on such activities. If we ever invaded, we would impose our morality on them and prosecute anyone who disobeys our morality.

As someone once said, “might does not make right.” The fact that a moral code is often imposed on one culture by another does not thereby justify said moral code. An obvious example is the slave trade you mentioned. But by your reasoning, the slave trade was a moral action(s) because our culture thought it was a good idea. It was “morality of the majority” to use your phrase.

For the last time, you don't need to be in the country to condemn the actions of such people.

No, but you need a culturally-transcendent moral standard which is duty-imposing by which to judge another culture. Otherwise the culture you’re condemning is immune to your condemnation because it is following its “morality of the majority.”

We judge things by our societies standards and our own standards. By these standards the actions are condemnable.

Adrian, honestly. Your culture’s “morality of the majority” places no burden of obligation on another culture’s “morality of the majority.” You’re intelligent enough to understand this.

Only because you cannot think outside the box. You think God made us and morality is from God. We don't believe in God and we have other explanations of the origin of morality. You simply stick your fingers in your ears when we try to explain how we think morality originated. Atheism says nothing about morality, it only says something about the existence of gods.

I can think outside the box; I used to reside outside it. I understand your argument, I’m simply pointing out the inconsistency of it.

1. Atheism posits that human life is the product of blind, purposeless, natural forces. // No, science posits this. Atheism posits that there are no gods.

Naturalistic evolution is the mother’s milk of modern atheism. Do you deny naturalistic evolution?

2. Anything which is the product of blind, purposeless forces by definition has no purpose. // No, it only has no objective purpose. Subjective purposes might be many. For instance, a rock weathered by a river has no objective purpose, but a person might use that rock as a hammer, thereby putting a subjective purpose on it.

“Only” no objective purpose? Well at least you acknowledge as much. Using the definition that purpose is the reason for which something exists, people can play make-believe and conjure up any supposed reason for their existence. But these make-believe fantasies cannot supply purpose because there is no reason for their existence beyond the blind, naturalistic, non-teleological mechanisms of evolution. You are a cosmic accident, a meat machine, a colony of bacteria. There was no reasoning behind your existence, therefore you have no purpose.

3. Therefore human life has no purpose. // Objectively? yes. Subjectively, some people might have a problem with this statement.

Yes, those who entertain childish and naïve fantasies that their life has purpose in a purposeless universe. And atheists think theists are gullible!

4. Moral values are a component of human life. // Moral values are a component of society, multiple humans living together.

Ah yes, your “morality of the majority.”

5. Therefore moral values have no purpose. // This is like saying "legs are a component of human life, therefore legs have no purpose". Moral values have a purpose: they hold the society together.

Once again you assume that which you need to prove. If human life had purpose (which it does not according to evolution), then its component parts would have purpose. Rather since human life has no purpose (according to evolution), its component parts have no purpose.

7. Regarding the meaning or purpose of human life and moral values, both atheism and nihilism are linguistic tokens describing the same conclusion: human life and moral values have no meaning or purpose. // No (see above annotations).

See above rebuttals to your annotations.

Atheism does not logical entail moral nihilism, and if it did, well I guess then I wouldn't be an atheist.

In that case, I have a Good Book you should read.

I'm a person who does not believe in gods, but holds that morality exists and has a purpose. As for following my presuppositions, I have no presuppositions.

Don’t be jejune, we all have presuppositions, they’re unavoidable. The trick is to be aware of them and avoid their possible pitfalls, or discard them when they’re incorrect.

My atheism does not lead me to look at the world with any less wonder. Instead, it leads me to search for more answers to things. If I ever found God as those answers, I would reject my atheism.

That is intellectually admirable of you to say.

That is the exact opposite of following through with presuppositions. I hold that it is you who has presuppositions and your clinging onto them has blinded you to the possibility that other people might have other explanations. Your presupposition is that God exists and has dictated morality, even though the evidence is to the contrary.

I’m quite aware of my presuppositions and of alternate explanations – I once held quite different views than I currently do. Regarding God’s existence, I affirm that knowledge of him is properly basic. But that is a discussion for another post.

[Tiberius]

You make my point for me. “Societal morality is always superior to individual morality.” Therefore in Nazi Germany, where the societal morality dictated it was acceptable to murder Jews, it was moral for them to murder Jews.

Without a transcendent moral standard, anything goes if that’s what the majority of people want. What if the majority of people in the UK said it was okay to murder atheists, or any other minority group, would that make murder a moral act?

Morality is not determined by poll.

Yes, in Nazi Germany, at that specific time, in that specific country, it was considered moral to hate and want Jews to be killed. Hitler brainwashed the majority of the people to think this way, and for them, that was the moral truth. If the majority of the people in the UK said it was okay to murder atheists, then to that majority, the murder or atheists would be a moral act. To atheists or other people it might not be, but that wouldn't change the majority public view of the murder. Certainly, morality is not determined by a poll, it is determined by what most of the people think. 200 years ago in the UK, most people thought it was immoral to be a homosexual; these days most people think it is not immoral. So we have two options; either morality is absolute and only one of these outlooks on homosexuality is correct, or morality is relative and both of these outlooks are correct within the time that they existed. With the first, we have problems as to what the absolute moral laws are, how we can know what they are, and if we really trust the source. With the second, the source is quite literally the changing nature of society.

Very well. Let me amend my previous statement to “No mention that taking another innocent person’s life is intrinsically evil. What a telling omission.” Yes, there are justified killings in a Christian worldview: self-defense, capital punishment, and in a just war. Your omission of the victim is still telling.

Innocent by whose standard? I agree, killing someone who is innocent by our own standard is wrong, but what about killing the soldiers in Iraq? Some of them might have honestly believed they were doing the right thing by following Saddam, being loyal etc. There is a quote often used to express this problem: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Morality is relative, and we find it morally justifiable to kill a soldier in Iraq if he is fighting for an evil dictator, yet in his own country, in his own house, he may be one of the most moral men (by his country's standard).

But you still cannot condemn Nazi Germany for mass murder. Their society thought that was acceptable. Who are you to deny them their right of moral self-determination? If the whole world voted it was okay to murder group X, by your reasoning that would be a moral act. What nonsense.

I find myself repeating things again and again with you. Try to listen this time. The Nazi society found mass murder of the Jews morally acceptable. We do not. Thus we use our moral judgment on them and say "That is evil". It doesn't deny them their right of moral self-determination, it is an observation, nothing more. Now if we were to invade (as we did) and impose our morality on them, this would be denying them their right of moral self-determination, but as I previously mentioned, this is often the reward for victors in wars. If the whole world thought (don't use the word voted, it distorts the point) that murdering group X was ok, it would be a moral act for those people (not an absolute moral act). It wouldn't be moral for group X or anyone who opposed such thinking. People tend to want to be moral, because this is what their society demands of them. Most of us (with the notable exception of psychopaths) think that murder is in most cases wrong, and we all feel good about being in this state because we are the majority. However if a large number of people woke up one morning and all thought the complete opposite, then one of two things would inevitably happen. Either they would stay silent and keep wanting to be part of the majority, even though their individual morality had been changed, or they would become a vocal group and lobby for change in our ethical outlook. I believe a good example of this might be the BNP party in the UK, which is a notably racist party, and yet has (in this modern age, and in this country) gained a large number of members.

And we know that current scientific understanding is never wrong! I’m applying the naturalistic fallacy to the metaethical question of value itself, not an individual case of applied ethics as you mention. If morality is the product of evolution (that which is), and we should adopt that very morality to guide our behavior (that which ought), then we commit the naturalistic fallacy. For it may be the case that our evolutionary morality is immoral.

But I agree, let’s move on.

Current scientific understanding is rarely wrong on the large scale. It is mainly the small scale things that it needs to adjust, however this is irrelevant to the conversation. The point was that I wasn't using a naturalistic fallacy. I never said that if morality is a product of evolution, we should adopt that very morality to guide our behaviour. You are twisting my words. No, scratch that; you are completely misrepresenting my point. I argue that morality is the process by which we can live in a society. Evolutionary morality is never "immoral" for the society it leads because it exists for the sole purpose of making sure we work together, as we have had to do to survive.

Because only a non-nihilist would say "If we all decided murder was ok, we wouldn't have a society anymore." A nihilist would shrug his shoulders and label the whole thing absurd: the survival or extinction of society is meaningless. So your rebuttal is circular.

Oh come on now! So let me see if I've got this right...My argument is circular because I say something a non-nihilist would say, but I cannot have meant that because I am an atheist, and by your presupposition atheists are nihilists. To me that sounds like a circular argument made by you. You have a presupposition that atheists are nihilists, and when I say something only a non-nihilist would say, it contradicts your premise. You are too stubborn to just accept that maybe you might be wrong about the whole atheism/nihilism thing, so instead you deny I could ever have meant what I said. Honestly, your debate tactics astound me.

I’ll supply the same Dawkins quote I gave Sam: “We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.” Dawkins seems to have grasped the inevitable conclusion of his evolutionist atheism, why don’t you?

Shall I paste the entire quote in it's context for you?

A female digger wasp not only lays her egg in a caterpillar (or grasshopper or bee) so that her larva can feed on it but, according to Fabre and others, she carefully guides her sting into each ganglion of the prey's central nervous system, so as to paralyze it but not kill it. This way, the meat keeps fresh. It is not known whether the paralysis acts as a general anesthetic, or if it is like curare in just freezing the victim's ability to move. If the latter, the prey might be aware of being eaten alive from inside but unable to move a muscle to do anything about it. This sounds savagely cruel but, as we shall see, nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.

Dawkins was referring to the good and evil we tend to see in nature; he wasn't talking about morality. I think this point is self explanatory.

But the statement “One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil” is true regardless of the culture. Sure, some cultures will define the good and the evil differently from you or me, but the statement itself is true, is it not? That is to say, it is a transcendent moral standard which is culturally neutral.

Indeed, I agree with you. People want to do good things by their culture's standards because this is what is rewarding by the culture, and is how our morality has evolved. We needed to work together to survive, because on our own in the wild we are one of the most pathetic creatures out there. We aren't that strong, we don't have claws for killing and stripping prey, and we don't have very good teeth for devouring raw meat. We need to work together (i.e. be "good") or we will die.

I’m unaware of any society, African or otherwise, that would deny it is evil to torture babies for pleasure. Please document your claim.

I always find it amusing but sad the lengths to which cultural relativists (like yourself – the “morality of the majority”) or emotivists will go in order to deny such prima facie moral absolutes such as the wickedness of torturing babies for pleasure. Oh the ethical gymnastics you perform!

Well the "torture babies for pleasure" thing was a misread on my part, and I apologise. My point about torturing babies and children out of fear they are witches stands though, and you asked for a source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUJSME0TORw (part 1 of 6 I believe). A search on YouTube for "africa child witches" will turn up a large quantity of results though.

Not with the force of obligation. You can say to the Nazi “mass murder is evil” but your moral standard imposes no duty on him to obey it, since your standard is culture-dependent.

I never said "with the force of obligation", I said we could pass a moral judgement on them. We passed a moral judgement on Mugabe when he cheated in the election and tortured opponents, but he laughed at us. This didn't stop us from passing a moral judgement on him. Later of course we imposed our moral judgement on his country when we stopped trade. This of course is a parallel to the victor in war scenario.

As someone once said, “might does not make right.” The fact that a moral code is often imposed on one culture by another does not thereby justify said moral code. An obvious example is the slave trade you mentioned. But by your reasoning, the slave trade was a moral action(s) because our culture thought it was a good idea. It was “morality of the majority” to use your phrase.

Might does not make right, but majority does. The majority of people involved in the Second World War thought that the Nazi's were evil, hence why they invaded and stopped them. The slave trade was a moral action by the culture at the time, I do not think it is a moral action today.

No, but you need a culturally-transcendent moral standard which is duty-imposing by which to judge another culture. Otherwise the culture you’re condemning is immune to your condemnation because it is following its “morality of the majority.”

As I said above, condemnation in no way implies we should go and do something about it. I condemn people who smoke because I think it is an idiotic and disgusting habit, but I'm not going to go around stamping on people's cigarettes.

Adrian, honestly. Your culture’s “morality of the majority” places no burden of obligation on another culture’s “morality of the majority.” You’re intelligent enough to understand this.

Yet you don't seem to be intelligent enough to grasp that this wasn't what I said.

I can think outside the box; I used to reside outside it. I understand your argument, I’m simply pointing out the inconsistency of it.

Inconsistency??? Atheism as nothing to say about morality, it only deals with gods. How is that inconsistent???

Naturalistic evolution is the mother’s milk of modern atheism. Do you deny naturalistic evolution?

I don't deny naturalistic evolution (commonly called...evolution), but I deny that it has anything to do with atheism. Ken Miller is the most prominent textbook author on Evolution and is a devout roman catholic, and the leader of the Human Genome project is a devout Christian too. I still fail to see the link between atheism and evolution.

“Only” no objective purpose? Well at least you acknowledge as much. Using the definition that purpose is the reason for which something exists, people can play make-believe and conjure up any supposed reason for their existence. But these make-believe fantasies cannot supply purpose because there is no reason for their existence beyond the blind, naturalistic, non-teleological mechanisms of evolution. You are a cosmic accident, a meat machine, a colony of bacteria. There was no reasoning behind your existence, therefore you have no purpose.

I've acknowledged that from the beginning. I don't think there are any absolute moral laws, therefore objective purpose does not exist. However as in my rock analogy, something can easily have no objective purpose yet have a subjective one.

Yes, those who entertain childish and naïve fantasies that their life has purpose in a purposeless universe. And atheists think theists are gullible!

Subjective! A purposeless universe doesn't come into it!

Once again you assume that which you need to prove. If human life had purpose (which it does not according to evolution), then its component parts would have purpose. Rather since human life has no purpose (according to evolution), its component parts have no purpose.

You have a very warped view of evolution. Each individual aspect of an organism evolution has a purpose: to adapt to the environment that it is in. We have adapted legs to love about, arms to use tools, and brains to think. Each of these has a purpose! Morality is no different, and it serves a purpose as well.

In that case, I have a Good Book you should read.

Read it, found it very immoral (by my standards of course). Can't believe people think the god who endorsed slavery is the god who creates our moral law.

Don’t be jejune, we all have presuppositions, they’re unavoidable. The trick is to be aware of them and avoid their possible pitfalls, or discard them when they’re incorrect.

Then I shall expect you do discard your presupposition that atheists are nihilists.

That is intellectually admirable of you to say.

Thanks...

[Tiberius]

One final point on something you just mentioned:

All atheists here who reject evolution, say “I do.”

[awkward silence]

Honestly, its not like I’m going out on a limb here, so I’m not worried that my entire argument is at risk.

Not that this is any way a scientific poll, but I ran one on my blog last year: http://atheistblogger.com/2008/07/25/evolution-poll/

7 atheists out of 269 did not accept evolution, so they do exist. Acceptance of evolution is no a prerequisite to atheism, but I find that instead of the relationship being "evolution -> atheism", the relationship is "I'm an atheist, now I want to learn about the natural world -> evolution".

Certainly, I was an atheist before I had even heard about the theory of evolution, much less understood it. The poll on my blog also showed that 2/3 of my theist readers accepted evolution, which I count as further proof that evolution doesn't lead to atheism.