Question for Atheists

[Chad32]

That's the whole lure of fast food. Just about everyone knows it's bad for you, but it tastes so good. Wendy's is probably my favorite, though I really like Checkers too. I don't care for Checkers fries, though.

[Tonus]

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.

Then perhaps it is a faulty line of thinking?

On what basis then can we say that one thought or belief is more rational than another?

We can reason. What more is needed?

[Dystopia]

Hello.

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.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods or the belief no gods exist - Atheism alone doesn't correspond to materialist perspectives. It is true that the majority of atheists will be materialists as well, but both positions are not mutually exclusive - Take the example of Buddhists, they don't hold belief in a universal creator/god but they do not believe the universe is entirely materialistic. Acting morally or ethically, as you put it, are mostly socially constructed concepts that derive from our necessity to regulate our conducts, and yeah I consider morals and ethics to be a biological and naturalistic result of our species' evolution - I also believe our morals and ethics will reach a greater level of perfection with time - Just compare what's moral or not right now in secular countries with 200 or 300 years ao.

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.

Just because there's some randomness involved, that doesn't mean we possess no control over our reason or decisions.

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?

Check above ^
Just because chemical reactions, naturalistic evolution and our biological/psychological traits matter a lot, that doesn't mean everything is random.

[ManMachine]

That's the whole lure of fast food. Just about everyone knows it's bad for you, but it tastes so good. Wendy's is probably my favorite, though I really like Checkers too. I don't care for Checkers fries, though.

Don't get me wrong I'm partial to the occasional bucket of chicken.



MM

[Losty]

That's the whole lure of fast food. Just about everyone knows it's bad for you, but it tastes so good. Wendy's is probably my favorite, though I really like Checkers too. I don't care for Checkers fries, though.

Taco Bell is my only weakness for fast food, but I really do try to avoid it.

[Mister Agenda]

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!

Welcome to the forum.

If the universe is entirely material (which it must be under atheistic thinking), then everything that exists or happens is fundamentally just chemicals reacting.

Don't you think it would be courteous to ask us what we think instead of telling us what we MUST think? Atheism doesn't exclude dualism or idealism, it only excludes believing in any deities. Atheism and materialism are not synonyms. I've met atheists who believe in ghosts and astrology. The only thing all atheists have in common is a single opinion on a single topic. We're just like theists in that respect, and I'm sure you know how diverse theists are.

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.

Yep.

Humans and their thoughts and beliefs, as parts of the universe, are merely chemicals as well.

Here's where you start going off the rails, with the word 'merely', as though a whole can't be more than the sum of its parts. That's a fallacy of composition (we're made of chemicals, therefore all we are is chemicals).

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.

Not really very like that at all, as now you're talking about moral agents, not chemical compounds.

On what basis then can we say that one thought or belief is more rational than another?

It really concerns me when people have difficulty distinguishing between rational and irrational without appealing to a deity. I'm left with trying to determine if they're being disengenuous or merely blinded by faith.

Dead chemistry can't be spoken of in terms of reason.

By definition, we are 'live chemistry'.

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.

Composition fallacy seems a particular weakness of yours. The parts of something are not constrained to behave like the whole. If a wall is fragile, that doesn't mean the bricks it's made of are.

Lines of reasoning become totally subjective since we are all slaves to our particular chemistry.

That is a claim. You can make a case that use of reasoning is at least partially subjective, but you haven't made a case that it is totally subjective and I am entitled to reject the claim that it is until you do.

But if reason is subjective, we lose any grounds we had of evaluating statements.

When you build your castle on a foundation of fallacies and unsupported assertions, you can't expect it to be very sturdy.

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?

Not really, since you've failed to establish that it's the case.

[Ben Davis]

Atheism is... the belief no gods exist

Ahem... as per our other discussions: no, that's anti-theism

[bennyboy]

Atheism is... the belief no gods exist

Ahem... as per our other discussions: no, that's anti-theism

My beagle lacks a belief in God. He's an atheist.

[Dystopia]

Atheism is... the belief no gods exist

Ahem... as per our other discussions: no, that's anti-theism

Not for me, I believe no gods exist and that's a gnostic claim, not an anti-theist one, I am not against belief in god simply because I believe he doesn't exist - Let's imagine I was like our former fellow Mozart Link and thought religion brought lots of benefits, therefore I'd incentive it - Is this anti-theism? It looks the opposite to me.

[Ben Davis]

My beagle lacks a belief in God. He's an atheist.

So's my rock

---

Ahem... as per our other discussions: no, that's anti-theism

Not for me, I believe no gods exist and that's a gnostic claim, not an anti-theist one, I am not against belief in god simply because I believe he doesn't exist - Let's imagine I was like our former fellow Mozart Link and thought religion brought lots of benefits, therefore I'd incentive it - Is this anti-theism? It looks the opposite to me.

*risks the derail

The only discrete definition of atheism is 'absence of theism'. In no accurate use is atheism a 'belief in the non-existence of god/s'. In fact, that misdefinition is commonly used by theists in order to misrepresent the position of most atheists, often for nefarious purposes. As soon as you start adding values (e.g. belief in the non-existence of god/s), you need to start looking for different words. Since 'belief in the non-existence of god/s' is a position which is in direct opposition to theism, it is, by definition, 'anti-theistic'. That's only one of the possible definitions of anti-theism but it is an accurate one; as we've discussed before, 'opposition to religion/religious organisation' is another (and your default definition, I assume from your use). Remember that anti-theism is a term which can be applied to specific context, depending on the definition being used.

I know you prefer the term 'gnostic atheist' and I think I've explained to you why I prefer to use 'anti-theist'. Both are accurate.



...although 'anti-theist' is more accurate