Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

Necromancer wrote:"Stamp collecting" is an example of a sparetime (life-)interest. Other could be collector of buttons, special toys, cars, guns... you know... anything leisurely without a God in it.

What does it have to do with ethics though?

The point is to expose the seriousness of devotion to exactly ethics (ultimately practiced as personal morals) as you've (as Atheist) rejected both the (Sec. etc.) Humanist and the religious.

What depth of commitment in terms of ethics can you reach as an Atheist as you've chosen Atheist as your path of life and not the (Secular etc.) Humanist and certainly not the religious?

Because, if the Atheist had been so devoted to ethics their name would be Humanist so there has to be something else in that place like Nihilism that allows for all actions whatsoever, a kind of humptydumpty lifestyle in terms of ethics/morals!

Necromancer wrote:What depth of commitment in terms of ethics can you reach as an Atheist

Do you think that being a good person requires a commitment? Why can't it just be the way a person is? Do you think that people are naturally evil unless they choose a religion and make a commitment to follow that religion's guidelines? As if they don't know what to do or how to be anything of worth without a particular doctrine telling them? Wouldn't that seem kind of sheep-like?

Lacewing wrote:

Necromancer wrote:What depth of commitment in terms of ethics can you reach as an Atheist

Do you think that being a good person requires a commitment? Why can't it just be the way a person is? Do you think that people are naturally evil unless they choose a religion and make a commitment to follow that religion's guidelines? As if they don't know what to do or how to be anything of worth without a particular doctrine telling them? Wouldn't that seem kind of sheep-like?

Yes, I think this hard world requires a commitment, to build character! Even though I think most people are good all the way from childhood (depending on the parents too, I assume), there are all sorts of actions taking place up through the years such as pressure to take part in bullying in school and so on.

Necromancer wrote:Yes, I think this hard world requires a commitment, to build character!

If true, who/what would such a commitment need to be made to? And does making a commitment actually indicate/assure genuine intent... or might it be driven by other things?

It seems to me that a person either is or isn't aligned with doing the right thing, and it does not necessarily require anyone else telling us what that is. Some people may need or want guidance from others, but some people don't. There are those who follow the guidance of a doctrine... and do terrible things. Just as there are those who instinctively know how they want to align themselves in positive ways, and they're not making a commitment to anyone in order to do that... they just do it because it's what feels right to them.

It's like love. Nobody has to tell us how. We either do it or we don't.

It seems disrespectful of humanity, in how a lot of theists think that people are wretches without a god. Why would a god create a bunch of wretches, who could only be good if they came begging for the god to make them good? Doesn't that seem really bizarre?

Necromancer wrote:Even though I think most people are good all the way from childhood (depending on the parents too, I assume), there are all sorts of actions taking place up through the years such as pressure to take part in bullying in school and so on.

People are not "turned" that easily, unless they already have an inclination to be turned. A strong character of values naturally seeks to maintain such a vibration -- and that does not require belief in a god. I'm guessing that theists need to believe that non-theists are rudderless, as some sort of self-validating measure for the theist. Perhaps because: What is the purpose of a god if people can be loving and kind without it? The whole god premise seems to be based on humanity NEEDING to be saved from themselves. Doesn't that sound like an agenda of those wishing to control populations?

Necromancer wrote:The point is to expose the seriousness of devotion to exactly ethics (ultimately practiced as personal morals) as you've (as Atheist) rejected both the (Sec. etc.) Humanist and the religious. What depth of commitment in terms of ethics can you reach . . .

The idea of quantifying something like that seems nonsensical to me.

Re "rejecting humanism," I wouldn't say that I've rejected humanism. However, I wouldn't want to say that I'm embracing it, exactly, either--simply because that term seems to mean quite different things to different people. I'd want to know exactly what I'm agreeing to before I agree.

as an Atheist as you've chosen Atheist as your path of life

Atheism isn't a "path of life." Atheism refers to one simple belief, and that's it.

Because, if the Atheist had been so devoted to ethics their name would be Humanist so there has to be something else in that place like Nihilism that allows for all actions whatsoever,

"Nihilism" is basically the same thing as "anti-realism," which is basically the same thing as "subjectivism." And subjectivists simply believe that something occurs, when it does, only in the mental realm, not external to the mental realm. In other words, they believe that the thing in question is just a way of thinking about things. That doesn't imply that one feel that just anything goes morally. People have preferences. Many of those prefrences have evolutionary roots.