Atheism, A Grim Position?

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't forget about the "psi"!

[*steve*]

So, you're just going to ignore everything I've said to you in this thread, including the questions I've asked you and the requests for demonstration of your otherwise baseless assertions, in favor of just restating your original position, despite the fact that I've given you plenty of material on why you're wrong, and contentions that you'll need to address for your position to make any kind of justifiable sense?

That's what you're going for here, little more than a "nuh uh!"?

I'm not ignoring what you say. I just find a lot of it is not relevant to the fundamental issues I posed in the thread. It skirts the fundamental issue. I'm trying to cut to the chase. Doesn't seem to me you are addressing the fundamental issues I'm raising. For instance, do you think a thoroughgoing anarchist can make a valid, defensible, well reasoned, logically consistent argument that she is perfectly right to do just whatever she wants and it's fine even to completely eliminate constraints on all individuals? No matter what society thinks. Or even that "right" and "wrong" are merely illusionary constructs of those who want to formulate morality. If not, why not. My view is that without some ultimately foundational moral base, those arguments can be completely valid.

---

Don't forget about the "psi"!

That was in there. Dean Radin has an interesting book on that ( _Entangled Minds_ ), that seems to employ standard statistical analysis. I'm always a bit skeptical about this sort of stuff, and even a lot of "scientific conclusions" being popularized on the internet. People are people, and we all have our confirmation biases. Having said that, I've had a few "psi" experiences in my life that defy standard explanations. I've also seen some people sense and predict things that are just weirdly contrary to conventional wisdom.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hello, I'm new to the forum. Full disclosure: I'm currently a non-traditional theist. However, I have considered atheism a few times but it seems to be such a grim position. Let me explain.

As I understand atheism, these would be a few of its tenets:

There is no ultimate meaning. Therefore, all lives and events are ultimately meaningless.

That has nothing to do with whether or not gods exist.

There is no ultimate basis for value. Therefore any moral position is ultimately arbitrary and logically, equally defensible. This means that things like genocide, pedophilia, torture, etc. are equally defensible to any other moral position.

That has nothing to do with whether or not gods exist. But even if gods did exist, and we took our morals from them, those morals would still be relative and subjective.

There is no ultimate intentionality associated with/in reality. Therefore, all events, actions, thoughts and behaviors are determined by chance and necessity. Thus, an individual's thoughts and actions are determined solely by prior causal events and chance.

I'm not sure where I sit on free will vs determinism, but with some definitions of god(s), the plans they are alleged to have preclude free will and human intentionality.

At least for me, if I take these atheist positions to their logical conclusion this all seems psychologically pretty grim.

I'd suggest that you haven't really questioned your premises and their validity.

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt, on the basis of that post alone, that you're as skeptical as you see yourself to be.

Nevertheless, I'm sure we'll all enjoy hearing about your experiences when you get around to telling that story.

[Mudhammam]

Greek mythology makes my life seem magical and more fulfilling. I guess it must be true.

[Esquilax]

I'm not ignoring what you say.

That is what you are doing, when I spend several posts explaining that objective and rational grounding for morality can be found, and that this prevents all perspectives from being equal without appealing to some unverified "ultimate" grounding, and your response is just "yeah, but without an ultimate grounding all perspectives are equal!"

When you restate your initial position in response to a post explaining why that initial position is little more than a flawed assertion that does not follow, you have either ignored what is being said, or are intentionally pretending that it wasn't said.

I just find a lot of it is not relevant to the fundamental issues I posed in the thread. It skirts the fundamental issue. I'm trying to cut to the chase. Doesn't seem to me you are addressing the fundamental issues I'm raising.

The trouble is that the fundamental issues that you're raising are little more than fiat assertions about how things work, and that expecting people to play by things you just declare to be true because you want them to be is childish, not to mention not something any of us are bound to do. If you want to make a case for why "ultimate" grounding is required, and then why reality is insufficient "ultimate" grounding yet the subjective opinions of a cosmic wizard qualify, I'm all ears. But all you're doing so far is asserting that all those things are true and then expecting us all to just take you at your word.

For instance, do you think a thoroughgoing anarchist can make a valid, defensible, well reasoned, logically consistent argument that she is perfectly right to do just whatever she wants and it's fine even to completely eliminate constraints on all individuals?

No, I don't, because such a position would be necessarily inconsistent, either in the position actually being espoused, or in the moral framework the claimant is seeking to use as an alternate. Not to mention, such a position would be practically untenable unless the claimant is expecting that it be applied to her alone, and nobody else... upon which time she is merely special pleading, and has failed to qualify for a well reasoned and logically consistent position.

I've said this before, you know. Like, in posts you've responded to.

No matter what society thinks. Or even that "right" and "wrong" are merely illusionary constructs of those who want to formulate morality. If not, why not. My view is that without some ultimately foundational moral base, those arguments can be completely valid.

You spend a lot of time asking everyone else to justify their positions, but when I asked you to justify the necessity of ultimate foundations for morality, you completely ignored me, and that's the whole basis of the argument by which you're disagreeing with the rest of us.

[*steve*]

Well, I'm done. I have a pretty high tolerance for ad hominem and sarcasm but I do get weary from it. So, I'll say goodbye. I appreciate the civil discourse and good arguments from a few of the members. I thought I'd try this forum to learn and have some serious debate, but turns out it's not my cup of tea.

If anyone is interested in how these kinds of debates are done right, in my opinion, check out [snip] Mostly atheists over there. Discussions are challenging, well argued, and almost always civil. Good stuff.

So let the trashing of me begin. I won't be listening, so have fun.

[FatAndFaithless]

Uh..bye? Hopefully your discussions are far less one-sided on that forum and don't involve so much ignoring of other's points and questions.

[robvalue]

Erm... Bye Sorry to see you go so soon.

[Esquilax]

Why is it that so many theists seem to think that pointing out the baseless, assertive nature of their arguments is an ad hom?

Not to mention, if you want to talk about ad homs, the guy started out the goddamn thread by calling atheism a psychologically grim, nihilistic and meaningless position, without asking anyone first.