Question for Atheists

[ManMachine]

Hi! I've been trying for a while now I get an atheist's response to a particular line of thinking, but have thus far been unable to help anyone understand it or give a coherent thought about it. I'm hoping here is a better place to find some discussion on the matter!

If the universe is entirely material (which it must be under atheistic thinking), then everything that exists or happens is fundamentally just chemicals reacting. Chemicals, however, cannot act reasonably or morally. We can't take one test tube and say that the mixture in it is "more right" than the one in another tube. Natural laws simply dictate their behavior.

Humans and their thoughts and beliefs, as parts of the universe, are merely chemicals as well. Every idea is a natural string of reactions in the brain. The reactions in one mind lead someone to be an atheist while the reactions in another mind lead to a theist. Sort of like different outcomes in two test tubes.

On what basis then can we say that one thought or belief is more rational than another? Dead chemistry can't be spoken of in terms of reason. We are all parts and products of a giant chemical universe, atheists and theists alike. How can the universe be behaving unreasonably in one place but not in another? It just is. Lines of reasoning become totally subjective since we are all slaves to our particular chemistry. But if reason is subjective, we lose any grounds we had of evaluating statements. If my chemistry makes me think you are unreasonable and yours does the opposite in your brain, since no reaction can be said to be rationally superior to another, then there can be no meaningful debate. Ideas are all equally natural. Isn't that kind of a problem?

If you have ever seen a child bump their head on a table you will see them say something like 'bad table'. You may even have bemoaned your car door if you shut your fingers in it, called your printer 'stupid', it is easy to ascribe intent (and by inference, morals) to inanimate objects. So easy, in fact, that you could be fooled into thinking the emotions and morals you feel are not a collective delusion we all share in when we ascribe them to ourselves, when we are, as you have pointed out, are just bags of chemicals.

Morality is not a Universal entity, it is a human strategy. Centuries of romantic notions have layered them is mystery and intrigue but they are just survival strategies driven by biological imperatives. It's not a popular theory but then we have always had inflated opinions about our own species importance.

MM

[Chad32]

I'm getting tired of the whole morality debate. Morality is subjective. Evn if it comes from a god, it's still subjective because it's still coming from someone instead of just being a universal truth. Morality comes from our need as social creatures to get along with each other. Groups need rules in order to coexist, and these rules change over time as society changes. Since we are social creatures, it's a bit odd that anyone would think it's ok for one individual, or a small group of individuals, to have most or all of the power. That's why dictators tend to be unpopular, and systems that spread the power around the group as a whole tend to work better for everyone involved.

It's not complicated. It shouldn't be hard to figure out. One ruler above all does not help in a group dynamic.

I don't agree. I think there are basic moral truths which transcend cultural and national boundaries and are, therefore, objective.

It's true that pretty much evry culture has laws against murder, but there are exceptions that differ from place to place. While it's objectively true that you can't go to any country and just start killing random people without consequence, there are times where this is allowed.

The exception to the biblical commandment is obvious when Yahweh tells Moses, after the commandment not to kill, to go down the mountain and start killing people.

Murder is universally wrong, but is also accepted in certain circumstances that differ between groups. Is that really objective, or subjective?

[DramaQueen]

Sobjective.
**weeping**

---

And you reminded of the worst thing in Spanish
Thanks

[robvalue]

I think the initial post touches somewhat on my favourite subject, free will. If we're all just chemicals and we follow the laws of nature and person A is led to the conclusion that god exists, and person B is led to the conclusion that this claim is untrue, how can either be wrong?

If in fact there was no other way things could have happened, because there is no free will, then indeed neither position is "right" or "wrong", but in fact nothing means anything at all. No one is making any decisions, this is not a discussion, it's me being a puppet typing.

Personally I don't believe we have free will, I think it is desirable to consider ourselves more than the sum of our parts and somehow in control. I don't know if this can ever be proven true or false, but from the way I see science going and experiments about being able to predict your decisions before you "think" you have made them, I feel free will could end up being discounted.

But nothing is to be gained by assuming we don't have free will, you can only lose, in the case that you actually did. And nothing can be proved from assuming no free will, because nothing means anything and no other events could be happening.

We have to make certain fundamental assumptions before we can even begin to reason at all:

1) What we experience is real, or at least a realistic interpretation of reality
2) We have free will, and so can choose to reason one way or another

[ManMachine]

I think the initial post touches somewhat on my favourite subject, free will. If we're all just chemicals and we follow the laws of nature and person A is led to the conclusion that god exists, and person B is led to the conclusion that this claim is untrue, how can either be wrong?

If in fact there was no other way things could have happened, because there is no free will, then indeed neither position is "right" or "wrong", but in fact nothing means anything at all. No one is making any decisions, this is not a discussion, it's me being a puppet typing.

Personally I don't believe we have free will, I think it is desirable to consider ourselves more than the sum of our parts and somehow in control. I don't know if this can ever be proven true or false, but from the way I see science going and experiments about being able to predict your decisions before you "think" you have made them, I feel free will could end up being discounted.

But nothing is to be gained by assuming we don't have free will, you can only lose, in the case that you actually did. And nothing can be proved from assuming no free will, because nothing means anything and no other events could be happening.

We have to make certain fundamental assumptions before we can even begin to reason at all:

1) What we experience is real, or at least a realistic interpretation of reality
2) We have free will, and so can choose to reason one way or another

You've hit on a very valid point. Every discussion on Free will I read seems to boil it down to simple single choice issues, but this is not representational of reality. Free will, or lack of it, still means the subconscious call to action operates in a strategic framework that has many possibilities, and some actions may be designed to specifically illicit counter-reactions that in and of themselves may be the desired outcome or lead to the desired outcome for the initiator.

On many occasions I am aware I am acting in a certain way just to find out how people around me will act in response, it's a very revealing strategy.

I see morality as a social strategy. Someone posted earlier that murder is universally wrong, then went on to say in certain groups it was accepted, which means its not universally wrong. the poster might want to believe it is universally wrong but clearly it isn't. If everyone thought murder was wrong then there would be no one to fight our wars. Morality is never static, Milgram's experiment demonstrates our ability to submit to authority despite that morality, the 'prisoner's dilemma' demonstrates how we are likely to secure the best outcome for ourselves as individuals when put in situations with unknown outcomes.

In nature there is no 'good', just nature. 'Good' is a human social expression (it has no use for an individual outside a social context) and we don't need a god to tell us we are human.

MM

[Losty]

Sobjective.
**weeping**

---

And you reminded of the worst thing in Spanish
Thanks

What is the worst thing in Spanish?

[popeyespappy]

Sobjective.
**weeping**

---

And you reminded of the worst thing in Spanish
Thanks

What is the worst thing in Spanish?

Taco Bell?

[Losty]

Taco Bell isn't in Spanish lmao. I actually like Taco Bell. It is my fast food weakness.

[ManMachine]

Taco Bell isn't in Spanish lmao. I actually like Taco Bell. It is my fast food weakness.

'Fast food makes you sick quick.' (Robin Williams)


MM

[Losty]

Fast food is disgusting and even Taco Bell is disgusting if you actually think about the shit that you're eating. But Taco Bell tastes good so sometimes I eat it anyways.