Finally an atheist proper, with views and questions

[MR. Macabre 666]

DAMN, this conversation has gone way over my pay grade. IMO, you shouldn't have to explain the reasons why you do or don't believe in any god/gods. Philosophical arguments aren't ever going to convince me one way or the other.
I've seen zero evidence for any god to exist, so I'm an atheist, simple.

[The Grand Nudger]

Me neither. Though..the commitment to empiricism you mention above is a philosophic position and an explanation for your state of belief.

I think a stronger formulation of that position isn't that we haven't seen any evidence of gods, but that we've seen so much evidence that gods are not, as posited by theism, personal and intervening agents operating within our universe. The evidence we have, all of it...and alot of it.... points to them being human misattributions which may, at least according to a naturalist account of swinburnes divine authority, actually be owed to nature. Deference to the volcano god on account of it's volcano-ness, it's volcano-ness being a legitimate reason for deference even if it's god-ness is a false premise, for example.

[Paleophyte]

So for me the strong form of error theory is what I currently hold to whereby a) moral talk makes claims about mind-indendent normative properties, b) no such properties exist, therefore c) all moral claims are in error.

This has always been a fairly simple one for me, but perhaps I'm being naive.

If one views morals as the necessary rules of interaction between members of a society then premise b fails and the argument collapses. If morals exist within a society rather than within a single mind then you simply don't have a problem.

It's a pretty simple thought experiment to show that any society that doesn't have a proscription against murder is going to be very short-lived. The same can be done for any behavior that is a net negative for the society. Any society in which might makes right is unstable, because even the mightiest must sleep lightly with one eye open. This also explains why the proscription against murder is very specific: Thou shalt not kill a member of our society who behaves properly. In-group murder is prohibited, while out-group murder is either encouraged or at least not nearly as heavily discouraged. Even more interestingly, members of a group that threaten the integrity of the group typically find themselves targetted more viciously than any outsider (apostates, heretics, and Republicans who don't back Trump come to mind).

And I'm not just talking about the Bible, although it is a treasure trove of lovely examples. From our drone strikes to the child labor that makes our food and clothing, our lofty morality seems to only apply to our little clan.

[Ahriman]

Morality is not really a thing, in actuality. I mean it's nice to be moral I guess, but who really cares? No one is winning any kind of favor that actually matters by being nice all the time. In fact it's so superfluous that it almost seems like self-imposed inanity. It's pointless. Be nice if you want, but please don't think God cares about you more than He cares about other people just because you're nice.

[Lucian]

So for me the strong form of error theory is what I currently hold to whereby a) moral talk makes claims about mind-indendent normative properties, b) no such properties exist, therefore c) all moral claims are in error.

This has always been a fairly simple one for me, but perhaps I'm being naive.

If one views morals as the necessary rules of interaction between members of a society then premise b fails and the argument collapses. If morals exist within a society rather than within a single mind then you simply don't have a problem.

It's a pretty simple thought experiment to show that any society that doesn't have a proscription against murder is going to be very short-lived. The same can be done for any behavior that is a net negative for the society. Any society in which might makes right is unstable, because even the mightiest must sleep lightly with one eye open. This also explains why the proscription against murder is very specific: Thou shalt not kill a member of our society who behaves properly. In-group murder is prohibited, while out-group murder is either encouraged or at least not nearly as heavily discouraged. Even more interestingly, members of a group that threaten the integrity of the group typically find themselves targetted more viciously than any outsider (apostates, heretics, and Republicans who don't back Trump come to mind).

And I'm not just talking about the Bible, although it is a treasure trove of lovely examples. From our drone strikes to the child labor that makes our food and clothing, our lofty morality seems to only apply to our little clan.

I agree with you that this is a reason that morals tend to have survived and been useful in societies. I think this might sit under the category of evolutionary debunking arguments, although I am poorly read on that at the moment. That said, I don't think it collapses premise b. Moral error theory is about whether or not mind-independent normative reasons exist. Normativity related to some intrinsic motivational force of these properties, or something that has a "ought" built into it. Your examples about society are good descriptively - but then if morality is just that set of facts then why add the concept of normativity at all
One question about possible social origins of morality would be how far such arguments get us. For example, we could claim that morality has these benefits, but it doesn't prove that therefore there is no mind-independent property. Something I have more reading to do on

[Lucian]

DAMN, this conversation has gone way over my pay grade. IMO, you shouldn't have to explain the reasons why you do or don't believe in any god/gods. Philosophical arguments aren't ever going to convince me one way or the other.
I've seen zero evidence for any god to exist, so I'm an atheist, simple.

Completely agree with that last statement. I am an atheist now for the same reason that I lack belief in ghosts, yetis, loch ness monster etc. I don't want to conflate philosophical arguments for my position with the reason I believe my position, the same way that I don't belief philosophy and apologetics are the reason most Christians believe what they do
I do however think it is interesting to think through the implications of the lack of belief, and to see whether there are good arguments that can modulate how strongly I should lack that belief. At the moment I am more on the "balance of probability" part of the scale that runs from 100% confidence in the belief of gods, to 100% confidence in lack of belief. So philosophical arguments have some benefit there. Also, if I want to adopt the position of atheist that says that there are no gods, which is the definition I hold to for me, rather than just "I lack belief", and I want someone to understand that position and offer a positive case for it, then it is nice to have something to say beyond asking that person to just prove their case.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

DAMN, this conversation has gone way over my pay grade. IMO, you shouldn't have to explain the reasons why you do or don't believe in any god/gods. Philosophical arguments aren't ever going to convince me one way or the other.
I've seen zero evidence for any god to exist, so I'm an atheist, simple.

Completely agree with that last statement. I am an atheist now for the same reason that I lack belief in ghosts, yetis, loch ness monster etc. I don't want to conflate philosophical arguments for my position with the reason I believe my position, the same way that I don't belief philosophy and apologetics are the reason most Christians believe what they do
I do however think it is interesting to think through the implications of the lack of belief, and to see whether there are good arguments that can modulate how strongly I should lack that belief. At the moment I am more on the "balance of probability" part of the scale that runs from 100% confidence in the belief of gods, to 100% confidence in lack of belief. So philosophical arguments have some benefit there. Also, if I want to adopt the position of atheist that says that there are no gods, which is the definition I hold to for me, rather than just "I lack belief", and I want someone to understand that position and offer a positive case for it, then it is nice to have something to say beyond asking that person to just prove their case.

Other than the frippery bits round the edges (no tithes, it frees up your Sunday mornings, etc), I'm not sure that a positive philosophical case can be made for atheism. Atheists are not necessarily kinder, happier, more successful in business, or more moral than theists. Talents in the arts and sciences don't seem to correlate in any significant with religious belief or its lack. Atheists aren't better athletes, students, fishermen, farmers, or auto mechanics.

I don't see my atheism as something that needs philosophical justification. It simply...is.

Boru

[Lucian]

Completely agree with that last statement. I am an atheist now for the same reason that I lack belief in ghosts, yetis, loch ness monster etc. I don't want to conflate philosophical arguments for my position with the reason I believe my position, the same way that I don't belief philosophy and apologetics are the reason most Christians believe what they do
I do however think it is interesting to think through the implications of the lack of belief, and to see whether there are good arguments that can modulate how strongly I should lack that belief. At the moment I am more on the "balance of probability" part of the scale that runs from 100% confidence in the belief of gods, to 100% confidence in lack of belief. So philosophical arguments have some benefit there. Also, if I want to adopt the position of atheist that says that there are no gods, which is the definition I hold to for me, rather than just "I lack belief", and I want someone to understand that position and offer a positive case for it, then it is nice to have something to say beyond asking that person to just prove their case.

Other than the frippery bits round the edges (no tithes, it frees up your Sunday mornings, etc), I'm not sure that a positive philosophical case can be made for atheism. Atheists are not necessarily kinder, happier, more successful in business, or more moral than theists. Talents in the arts and sciences don't seem to correlate in any significant with religious belief or its lack. Atheists aren't better athletes, students, fishermen, farmers, or auto mechanics.

I don't see my atheism as something that needs philosophical justification. It simply...is.

Boru

I agree there doesn’t NEED to be a positive case. That said I think some are possible. Error theory doesn’t do it though, it is just an interesting topic that can have an impact on the debate about theism, but doesnt necessarily 
I think a positive case can be made for atheism, such as “what would we expect to see in a universe that is governed by purely naturalistic reasons” and seeing if that is the case. Then I agree with Oppy though, there is no knock down argument that will convince everyone. And definitely nothing can be proved to mathematic certainty

[Belacqua]

I think a positive case can be made for atheism, such as “what would we expect to see in a universe that is governed by purely naturalistic reasons” and seeing if that is the case. Then I agree with Oppy though, there is no knock down argument that will convince everyone. And definitely nothing can be proved to mathematic certainty

Usually they say it's hard to prove a negative, so the claim "there is no god" may be difficult to finalize. And if people want to define atheism as a lack of belief, that seems reasonable to me.

As you've clearly found, though, a thoughtful adult person who is an atheist will have to deal with philosophical arguments. You have heard any number of claims by Christians, you have considered them, and you have found sufficient reason to judge them unpersuasive. No doubt you can articulate these reasons.

So to me, an atheist who is also a thoughtful adult person aware of the society he lives in will have philosophical positions that he can defend.

I mean, when you reject the claims made by Christians, I assume you do so according to good standards. These standards are your beliefs, and they can be articulated and defended. (And they may be very good standards, too.)

[Belacqua]

It's been my experience that christians don't tend to argue for an objective morality, at least not on the internet.  They argue for a subjective morality and call it objective since it's a gods.  The way I respond to "christian objective morality" is to argue for a genuinely objective morality.

I agree with that analysis of what is happening in most cases. I think that Swinburne would be a counter-example as I believe he argues that a moral fact would obtain in all possible worlds, even those that did not contain a god?

I've never read any Swinburne, so I can't comment on his ideas. And if Christians we talk to on the Internet don't have any good arguments beyond the subjective, that just means that we aren't hanging out with the right people. There are plenty of Christians in the world who can argue intelligently, beyond, "this is what I like, therefore it's God's will." 

Have you read much on the modified euthythro dilemma? Roughly it departs from the argument about are gods commands good because he wills them, or is his will good because the commands are good (probably butchering that). The modified version says that even if they ground goodness in his nature, the argument still applies. Is his nature good because of his desires, or are his desires good because of his nature. See this paper by koons https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._Euthyphro

Have you looked into the more Greek-based, Neoplatonic type Christianity, or the Aristotelian/Thomist versions? The Euthyphro thing seems not to be relevant to the claims made by such traditions at all. 

In a too-simple nutshell, for these types of theologians, God simply IS the Good. If we say he "wants" something, this is simply a manner of speaking -- he "wants" nothing in the same way I want a glass of wine. To say God wants X, in this context, means that if you do X you are moving more towards the Good. And the Good is never arbitrary. It is the Good of human flourishing, based on the type of animals we are. 

Granted, this is not the kind of theology one hears on Internet chat rooms, but it is what Dante wrote about, and I think he was a smart guy.