The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith

[Whateverist]

I can't decide if you have your head in the clouds or up your ass. But in this you are on the same level with plenty of atheists.

Was that a dig at me?

Not a dig exactly. Really I meant that in the very nicest way possible.

You insist on placing morality under the domain of reason,

He does no such thing. He tries to, but fails miserably.

And this is different from what you do .. how?

No one responds to morally reprehensible behavior involving cruelty to others in a purely intellectual way.

I do.

Well, so you claim. But do you really know yourself all that well? A little bird told me probably not.

It is empathy for others which makes us recoil against cruelty, and empathy operates at the level of feeling, not rationality.

And a highly unreliable basis it is.

Your criteria for choosing a basis for morality reminds me of the drunk who searches for his wallet under the street light because the light is better, even though that is not where he thinks he lost it. I think you just like the bright light of rationality even if no objective basis for morality may be found there.

There is no need to justify an assignment of value to people objectively, for either theists or atheists, if you recognize that empathy and not rationality is the basis of morality.

You mean, for your morality - which is self-contradictory and unreliable.

Unlike real life where no contradiction or unreliability need ever arise in the course of human affairs.

One need not have a reasonable justification for rejecting cruelty in order to avoid what one finds unpleasant.

Unless they are deluded enough to think they can actually justify their position and expect others to share it.

Fixed that for you.

In the same way I need not have an objective basis for rejecting store-bought mayonnaise in order to leave it off my sandwiches.

But then, you don't expect others to do the same, do you?

As with common values, never. People are full of surprises.

That in fact is the proper use of rationality, to serve feeling and come up with strategic goals for maximizing that which one is drawn to and avoid that which one is repulsed by. One just needs to keep rationality in its place.

"Proper use"? How very teleological of you. Tell me, how did you divine that that was the "proper use" of rationality or who told that? The little bird that sings inside you?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

[Question Mark]

Strodel, everything you just said is based entirely on the notion that your view is the natural means of viewing morality, which you have yet to prove.

And what's more, your generalising of atheists as pot-smoking, porn-addicted, morally bankrupt people who don't believe int he divine, shining light of your genocidal, merciless, arsehole of a god, just makes me think that you're a sad little person who's been fed every lie that theists love to splatter us with. I'm surprised you haven't started calling us satan worshipers yet.

Secular morality is based upon observation of the pain or benefit actions have upon people. You scoff at it, satisfied with the arbitrary morality of your imaginary god. "what you consider "effects" are just social constructions and linguistic categories designed to capture certain things that some people thought were worth capturing"
Do you even hear what it is that you're saying? No duh the effects are social constructs. Actions have no tangible effect on people until we ascribe meaning to them. We learned that hurting other people generally makes them sad, and often makes the person doing the hurting feel regretful compassion.

Really, I have nothing more to say to you if you're just going to scoff at things and not even consider them properly.

[Angrboda]

Where can I get some of this atheist drivel? It sounds delicious.

[Esquilax]

What do you call this process of ascribing rights? You havn't answered the question of why it is wrong to believe certain things upon insufficient evidence as it relates to theology but not according to something like ascribing rights.

You have not said where any of the rights come from. It is true that peoples rights leave them when they die, if atheism is true and they have rights, but you have not demonstrated that people have rights at all.

It's called social agreement. This whole argument you're making skips over something important: empathy. We as people as capable of imagining the experiences of other people, and in doing so develop a sense of what is and isn't okay. We're social animals; our rights are based upon mutual agreement over the things we would or would not like to happen to us. What's so bad about that?

I believe that you have insufficient evidence to believe that people ever have rights that they can lose. You have not demonstrated that people are more important than rocks.

Well, intellect is a good start. We're the smartest creatures on the planet, or at least that's the way we interpret it from our own perspective, that's gotta count for something. But even if I were to say that we aren't inherently better than rocks... so what? Or rather, as opposed to what? I mean, you believe humanity is somehow more important that animals: are you advocating that we slaughter all the lesser species indiscriminately? If not, why does it matter? What difference does humanity's lack or otherwise of cosmological importance actually change?

If you were consistent with your extremely important ethical views, you would consider if the probability of deism or Christianity was greater than the probability of total nihilism.

We have. We've all probably spent more time considering our worldviews as atheists than you have. This is why we can all see through your false dichotomy.

[genkaus]

No, what you consider "effects" are just social constructions and linguistic categories designed to capture certain things that some people thought were worth capturing. Any conception of what the "effects" of things are is purely phenomenological. You actually have no business talking about what the effects of your actions are because if you are honest about your methodology, you will realize you know next to nothing.

The "effects" of your actions on other people may include their deaths, pain and physical suffering, destruction of the physical fruits of their labor and possibly the collapse of civilization - none of that is "purely phenomenological". All of it is actual.

What do you call this process of ascribing rights?

Application of the principle of golden rule.

You havn't answered the question of why it is wrong to believe certain things upon insufficient evidence as it relates to theology but not according to something like ascribing rights.

Because its not okay for rights either.

You have not said where any of the rights come from.

From society. More precisely, the government.

It is true that peoples rights leave them when they die, if atheism is true and they have rights, but you have not demonstrated that people have rights at all.

Ofcourse people have rights. They are granted to them by by their government or their society or their constitution. Ofcourse, where there is no such guarantee, people don't have rights.

I believe that you have insufficient evidence to believe that people ever have rights that they can lose.

You mean that the government documents legally granting them the rights is insufficient evidence? What more do you need?

You have not demonstrated that people are more important than rocks.

I have.

If you were consistent with your extremely important ethical views, you would consider if the probability of deism or Christianity was greater than the probability of total nihilism.

While it has nothing to do with ethics - Christianity certainly does not have a greater probability of being true - given that it is contradictory to reality.

No, this is an extremely superficial view of something that shows you have probably never read a book on Christian apolgetics from start to finish.

No one ever really needs to.

The that God wills something entails that the things basic nature can be understood by recognizing the will of God.

Except, you really can't. Otherwise, religion would not have been wrong - and continue to be wrong - about so many things, so many times.

It is typical of the culture and attitude of the atheist, typically under 25, proud and haughty, who takes pleasure in things like pornography and filthy language to question "God's arbitrary say so". It is the sort of spirit that comes from rebellious adolescence, not a real philosophical difficulty.

And what you fail to realize that inspite of any rebellious attitude or lack of philosophical outlook, they still are right.

God made the divine order and the nature of the order is understood in understanding God. To understand the will of God is to understand why everything is what it appears to be. God's will is the essence of the universe, its telos, it is the noumenal world. It is much, much more real and clear than what people see, and as such, it forms not only a normative claim for morality but also for understanding the nature of life.

Is that why religion has been so wrong about almost everything we now know for centuries? Is that why the religious morals lie in the dung-heaps of middle-ages - where they belong?

I'm sorry, but if any of what you said was even remotely true, then religion would've been making all those wonderful discoveries about the nature of universe - not science. Faith, then, would've been the way to get to know reality - not reason and evidence. And if your normative claims f morality had any justification, the collective rational thinkers of modern times would not have turned from them shuddering in disgust.

What you said is something that you have not spent more than 50 hours of your life thinking through, which is too bad because it is the most important thing in life, how to be a good person.

If you have spent 50 hours of your life thinking about morality and all you have come up is this garbage, I feel sorry for you.

If empathy is the way that you know how to live a good life, that still raises the question that what is it that grounds empathetic emotions and makes them ethically normative.

Do you understand that not everyone buys any kind of normative ethics?

I would argue that empathy, along with all other human emotions are vital for morality. But they are vital because people are created to use them that way. The ground of morality is not in the feelings themselves, it is in the interrelation between the feelings, the people, the societies, the world around and the ultimate plans and intentions of God.

You would argue wrong - god and his plans would've no role to play in ethics.

Why should I believe that empathy is the basis of morality? I do not believe that reason is the basis of morality, I believe that God is.

And that is why your morality is as subjective and arbitrary his.

I have seen God

And now you should see a doctor.

and I know that there are answers to these questions.

Answers which have been proven wrong even before your came here.

The fact that you made this point shows you have never seriously studied Christian philosophy. Of course there is a reason that God's choices represent a higher morality than peoples: God created everything. Everything around the world bears the mark of something created by God. God judgements about things describe the essential nature of things. He created things moral nature and destiny at the same time he created their physical nature, the two are related.

Even if that was true - which it is not - that still wouldn't make his morality any higher that anyone else's.

But in Christianity, as in most of the world religion, love triumphs over all.

Not even close. Usually it is the power that triumphs over all. Why do you think most of the world religions, including Christianity, are so power-hungry.

Politically, Christians have built the most free societies on earth,

You mean, once Christianity was removed from politics.

You consider yourself free to invent your own absolute ethics and impose them over the Bible. I would't be surprised if you have never even owned a house, and you a probably ready to make all these judgements and sweeping statements about Christian values.

To be fair, he is not inventing any absolute ethics - in fact, he's arguing that there are no absolute ethics. But one does not need to come up with any sort of ethics to know and understand that Biblical ethics and Christian values are filthy and should be swept aside.

I don't make assumptions. I have seen thousands and thousands of events in my life that confirmed the reality of God and the Holy Spirit. I have seen miracle after miracle. Once I prayed and asked God if I should change my name from Jay to Joseph, a symbol of a new life. God responded by giving a prophetic word to a prophet - "Your name is Joseph". Then someone confirmed the prophecy about a week later.

Really, have you seen a doctor yet? The only assumption I had made was that you are probably a nutjob and you are validating it.

I used to be an atheist. I used to go on the internet and talk to people all the time and try to prove how smart I was. I used to base all my beliefs about things that I believed in my head. And then I got out and exactly experienced religion and saw the reality of God.

Of the old "I used to be an atheist" drivel. Haven't seen that in a while.

Probably right now you and your atheist friends are smoking weed, watching porn and playing video games.

Don't really like porn - and never play video games.

That is what atheists typically do with their morality. Not all of them, a lot of them. They take serious topics, like this one, and make adolescent sexual references.

The topic may be serious, but suggesting that your arguments deserve anything more adolescent sexual references is laughable.

They try to get young people to accept their beliefs using the allure of freedom from religious restrictions as well as sensuality and arguments delivered without even the most basic understanding of theology.

All that is required is the knowledge that theology is built on lies and imagination and nothing more than a basic understanding is even required. The reason why young people actually come to accept atheism is because it is the right choice.

The average vocal internet atheist does not know what the word "exegesis" means, but he is so full of himself and so full of vices that come from his nihilistic worldview he has no problem debating with people about the most significant issues in life as if they were trading warez on irc.

And still he comes out better than a theologian explaining his theistic morality - what does that tell you?

In contrast, most of the religious people I know are married, are not drug users, give and serve and help others, and while there is a diversity of intellectual knowledge, most Christians have a sense of humility and responsibility to not really get into things they don't know much about (not all the time).

Sounds like a dull lot. Bring back the nihilists.

You can say a lot of words about Christian morality, but if you want to prove it to me, show me one atheist who is a decent human being, who doesn't watch porn and tell Christians they are anti-feminist, who doesn't lie, ever, who has some sense of regularity to his life that flows out of a carefully considered walk in which being a good person is most important of all.

So, when you say decent human being, you mean a decent human being by your moral standards - which they reject.

Here are my standards - watching porn is irrelevant, telling Christians that they are anti-feminist when they are being anti-feminist is a sign of decency, show me a person who never lies and I'll show you a liar and a good person wouldn't consider being a good person of any significance at all.

I will show you 10 atheists who think being a good person is the same as being smart.

Rational - not smart.

I see that you guys are debating whether pedofilia is ok on this forum. There is your proof: Christians are way behind. You need to look to the future.

You're right. Christians are way behind times when it comes to morality.

---

Was that a dig at me?

Not a dig exactly. Really I meant that in the very nicest way possible.

That was the nicest way? Comparing me to a theist who has his head up his ass? Boy, I'd love to see your mean side.

He does no such thing. He tries to, but fails miserably.

And this is different from what you do .. how?

I succeed.

I do.

Well, so you claim. But do you really know yourself all that well? A little bird told me probably not.

The little bird, as usual, is wrong.

And a highly unreliable basis it is.

Your criteria for choosing a basis for morality reminds me of the drunk who searches for his wallet under the street light because the light is better, even though that is not where he thinks he lost it. I think you just like the bright light of rationality even if no objective basis for morality may be found there.

Colorful analogy, if highly inaccurate. As indicated in my lengthy discourse on morality - to which I gave you a link - I have found the objective basis of morality rationally. And you haven't given any arguments against it other than "not so".

You mean, for your morality - which is self-contradictory and unreliable.

Unlike real life where no contradiction or unreliability need ever arise in the course of human affairs.

Not if they are based on correct premises.

Unless they are deluded enough to think they can actually justify their position and expect others to share it.

Fixed that for you.

You do realize that the statement referred to you, right? I guess we both agree that your morality is unjustifiable and therefore no one should be expected to share it .

But then, you don't expect others to do the same, do you?

As with common values, never. People are full of surprises.

You do understand what "common" means, don't you?

"Proper use"? How very teleological of you. Tell me, how did you divine that that was the "proper use" of rationality or who told that? The little bird that sings inside you?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

So, it's just your opinion then and shouldn't be given any merit at all.

[Whateverist]

That was the nicest way? Comparing me to a theist who has his head up his ass? Boy, I'd love to see your mean side.

Well alright then. Yes it was a dig inspired by you but deserved by many. Just to be clear though, I hardly think being compared to a theist is any insult. And, like most theists, you cling to unjustified objectivism.

Well, so you claim. But do you really know yourself all that well? A little bird told me probably not.

The little bird, as usual, is wrong.

Or else the self appointed judge who wrote the rule book he thinks applies to others is wrong. On this we obviously disagree.

As indicated in my lengthy discourse on morality - to which I gave you a link - I have found the objective basis of morality rationally. And you haven't given any arguments against it other than "not so".

Actually I did give a reason why I haven't bothered. If you were to provide me with even the slimmest outline of your argument so I could see if there was any hope for your project, I might actually look into it. Otherwise I don't intend to apply the effort required to verify what I already have good reason to believe is doomed.

You do realize that the statement referred to you, right? I guess we both agree that your morality is unjustifiable and therefore no one should be expected to share it .

That's right. Where we disagree is in thinking that there is any objective basis for anyone's morality or that justification is required.

[genkaus]

Well alright then. Yes it was a dig inspired by you but deserved by many. Just to be clear though, I hardly think being compared to a theist is any insult. And, like most theists, you cling to unjustified objectivism.

Except I did justify it and you weren't able to argue against it.

Or else the self appointed judge who wrote the rule book he thinks applies to others is wrong. On this we obviously disagree.

What rule book?

Actually I did give a reason why I haven't bothered. If you were to provide me with even the slimmest outline of your argument so I could see if there was any hope for your project, I might actually look into it. Otherwise I don't intend to apply the effort required to verify what I already have good reason to believe is doomed.

So you want me to take my detailed and well-thought out argument, remove all justifications, reasoning and evidence I've provided therein, reduce it to a bunch of statements that would necessarily look like bare assertions and present it to you so that you could do what - say that these are just assertions that you have no reason to consider? Excuse me if I don't fall for that.

Sorry, but that is not how a rational debate works. Rejecting a proposition when justification is absent is a reasonable position, but that is not yours. Justification has been provided but you refuse to look at because "meh, it may not be valid". That is the same as a theist going "la la la - can't hear you.".

That's right. Where we disagree is in thinking that there is any objective basis for anyone's morality or that justification is required.

Then you'd have no cause to complain if someone steals from you or kills you.

[jstrodel]

There are so many responses, and so many personal attacks and so much adolescent behavior, I am not going to reply to any more.

If you feel that you have a particularly strong objection to what I wrote, and there is no name calling, no adolescent behavior, no references to sexual organs, etc, message me and I will reply to it. You can post the reply in a public forum if you want to (I'm not afraid of debate I just don't feel like debating immature people).

Virtually all of the replies that I have read (I stopped reading them) have avoided the central issues that I have raised and attacked some sort of straw-man without any philosophical rigor, typically with reference to sexual organs or something like this. If you feel that you have a reply that doesn't fall into this category, please send it to me.

I understand that there are many atheists that are intelligent and mature people who have contributed substantially to human understanding. Many of them are my personal heros. I just don't feel like debating atheists that get a rush off of pissing people off on the internet.

I apologize if anyone wrote a thoughtful response and I missed it.

---

Many people here seem to think that in a debate you can simply ignore the original point being made, insult the person raising a question, splinter the debate into a million unrelated issues and then call the person names.

I apologize for the people I falsely characterized as porn watching, pot smoking video gamer players. Like I said, I understand there are many atheists who are intelligent people and decent.

[Whateverist]

Or else the self appointed judge who wrote the rule book he thinks applies to others is wrong. On this we obviously disagree.

What rule book?

The book of immutable morals you mistakenly think you've justified in your little treatise.

That's right. Where we disagree is in thinking that there is any objective basis for anyone's morality or that justification is required.

Then you'd have no cause to complain if someone steals from you or kills you.

Complaining wouldn't be high on my list of priorities if I was being robbed or attacked. That doesn't mean I wouldn't take any action. It just means whining in self-righteous indignation wouldn't be one of them. If anyone comes creeping through a window I would know for certain that their values did not align with mine so I would have to find some other criteria to make them desist other than reasoned argument. What would you do, talk them to death?


But enough. Clearly we do not agree on morality, atheism or probably much of anything else. To you I lack any morality at all. To me you are a self-satisfied prig who believes he has perfect insight into others even while lacking any insight into himself. You obviously enjoy debate for its own sake. So I leave you to it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That person should not vote, they should abandon all pretense of having a moral authority, they should not marry or raise a family because they will be unable to teach their children to be good people, they should not engage in any activity which requires moral reasoning, which is almost everything.

Sorry. I think you over-reached. IMO the better response is that you can do whatever you want as an atheist. You can chose to follow traditional moral codes or defy them, without any concern for consequences.The only restriction on behavior is a combination of pragmatism and self-preservation.

---

Why not ...create a nationalistic morality? Why shouldn't one group enslave another group?

You are on point. If good and evil are arbitrary product of society then you cannot judge the relative merits of one nation's morality over another. You lose the right to say Anglo-American/French civil structure is morally superior to German National Socialism. If you are not resigned to "might makes right" then some form of higher moral standard, a highest Good, is required.

---

I am not going to insult you, you aren't an honest person, and there is no reason to debate you.

Gentleness and grace, brother. They will call you all sorts of names, misrepresent our faith, and blasphem against God and His Word. Don't stoop to that level.