Philosophy Now Forum

We seem in danger of losing the basic purpose again, so perhaps this would be a good time to refresh ourselves on the reason for the topic above, and indeed, the starting point of the whole strand.

The original poster wrote:

It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real.

Now, in our whole discussion, I cannot recall that an Atheist has actually tried to meet this challenge.

Has anyone got an account of why, as an Atheist, he or she is obliged to believe in morality or meaning at all? Sure, we know they can practice them if they want, or they can point out that they are sociological phenomena...but this is quite different from suggesting any reason Atheism sponsors that choice.

Moreover, can they justify, from an Atheist perspective, why anyone who DOES NOT WANT to behave morally or IS NOT INCLINED to impute any kind of "meaning" to life is rationally or morally obligated to do so, on the basis of Atheism?

Or is the OP right, and Atheism is a dead stick in regard to both morals and meaning?

Arising_uk wrote:Is it? Thanks for the info.

So how long you been a paganist?

All my life, and you can apply whatever label to me that suits you, it will really make no difference to me what you call me.

FYI, I am nominally a Lutheran.

thedoc wrote:FYI, I am nominally a Lutheran.

Ah! So you do think there are three separate 'God's', just that they work in concert. So why keep saying 'one 'God' '?

Also, I don't think you can have Odin or any of the other 'God's' as your 'God' as they are fundamentally different 'God's' from yours. It also looks like 'Allah' is yet another different one. Boy they sure multiply don't they.

Immanuel Can wrote:...

It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real.

Now, in our whole discussion, I cannot recall that an Atheist has actually tried to meet this challenge. ...

Still yet to hear what this "real" means?

Has anyone got an account of why, as an Atheist, he or she is obliged to believe in morality or meaning at all? ...

What do you mean by "believe" here?

As to "meaning" what on earth does "believing in meaning" mean?

Sure, we know they can practice them if they want, or they can point out that they are sociological phenomena...but this is quite different from suggesting any reason Atheism sponsors that choice. ...

Er!? We can also say it is a biological phenomena. Your argument is that unless we believe in a 'God' and 'its' punishment we will always behave badly but apparently we don't whereas those who believe in your 'God' still do, how do you account for this?

Atheism is not a movement nor is it a proposed moral or ethical stance, it is just a non-belief that your 'God' exists. That you think this leads to immoral behavior says more about your Christian opinion of Man rather than any reality about Man.

Moreover, can they justify, from an Atheist perspective, why anyone who DOES NOT WANT to behave morally or IS NOT INCLINED to impute any kind of "meaning" to life is rationally or morally obligated to do so, on the basis of Atheism?

Like all godbotherers you confuse, deliberately in my opinion, Nihilism with Atheism. The difference is that we care about the behaviour and not the reasoning, hence you can say your 'God' told you to kill these people but we'll still try you for murder.

Or is the OP right, and Atheism is a dead stick in regard to both morals and meaning?

No more or less than the idea that a 'God' will be punishing you for your actions doesn't stop the actions.

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:FYI, I am nominally a Lutheran.

Ah! So you do think there are three separate 'God's', just that they work in concert. So why keep saying 'one 'God' '?

Also, I don't think you can have Odin or any of the other 'God's' as your 'God' as they are fundamentally different 'God's' from yours. It also looks like 'Allah' is yet another different one. Boy they sure multiply don't they.

No, I believe in one God, it is only your misunderstanding that creates 3 separate Gods. Whatever information you think you have about God is incorrect, and as an unbeliever that is understandable, you are an outsider looking in, thinking you understand what is going on.

How do you know that Odin, Allah, and others are different and separate? You talk like you think you are an expert in Gods, but your posts reveal that you really know nothing about God, or what believers believe.

thedoc to Arising_uk wrote:Whatever information you think you have about God is incorrect

Tell us, what is the correct information?

thedoc to Arising_uk wrote:...and as an unbeliever that is understandable, you are an outsider looking in

Oh no, that sound horrible. What's going on "IN THERE" that we need to know about? Wati a minute... "in there" must have "walls", and be "closed in" and of limited space... so I think I'd rather be outside.

thedoc to Arising_uk wrote:How do you know that Odin, Allah, and others are different and separate? You talk like you think you are an expert in Gods, but your posts reveal that you really know nothing about God, or what believers believe.

Aren't we making it all up (ALL of these various gods) -- creative lifeforms that we are? So aren't we experts of what we make up?

Lutherans are said to believe in:

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

Do you believe that the Bible is infallible (pre or post Guttenberg?)? Better than Buddhist scriptures and the Koran?

On what grounds would one believe the mythology of middle eastern Iron Age people is more true than any other mythologies or, especially, rigorous and better-informed scientific observations made since? Where did the discovery of viral and bacterial diseases leave the concept of "evil spirits"?

Lacewing wrote:

thedoc to Arising_uk wrote:Whatever information you think you have about God is incorrect

Tell us, what is the correct information?

thedoc to Arising_uk wrote:...and as an unbeliever that is understandable, you are an outsider looking in

Oh no, that sound horrible. What's going on "IN THERE" that we need to know about? Wati a minute... "in there" must have "walls", and be "closed in" and of limited space... so I think I'd rather be outside.

thedoc to Arising_uk wrote:How do you know that Odin, Allah, and others are different and separate? You talk like you think you are an expert in Gods, but your posts reveal that you really know nothing about God, or what believers believe.

Aren't we making it all up (ALL of these various gods) -- creative lifeforms that we are? So aren't we experts of what we make up?

God exists.

I can't help you till you elect to join the community of believers.

Of course, humans make up all sorts of names for what they can't understand, and humans aren't expert on much of anything, just ask a scientist.

Greta wrote:Lutherans are said to believe in:

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

Do you believe that the Bible is infallible (pre or post Guttenberg?)? Better than Buddhist scriptures and the Koran?

On what grounds would one believe the mythology of middle eastern Iron Age people is more true than any other mythologies or, especially, rigorous and better-informed scientific observations made since? Where did the discovery of viral and bacterial diseases leave the concept of "evil spirits"?

I said I was a nominal Lutheran, if you would like me to elaborate, just ask. What Lutherans are said to believe doesn't always, or very often, apply to me. I attend a Lutheran church out of habit, but I don't believe it makes much difference which church you attend I believe that Gods words were transcribed by fallible human scribes and therefore are not the actual words of God, but need to be interpreted to get the truth. Those who read them literally, or interpret them in a particular way, are usually wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Aetixintro wrote:
It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics / Morals and Meaning for real

Now in our whole discussion I cannot recall that an Atheist has actually tried to meet this challenge

Has anyone got an account of why as an Atheist he or she is obliged to believe in morality or meaning at all? Sure we know they can practice them if they want or they can point out they are sociological phenomena...but this is different from suggesting any reason Atheism sponsors that choice

Moreover can they justify from an Atheist perspective why anyone who DOES NOT WANT to behave morally or IS NOT INCLINED to
impute any kind of meaning to life is rationally or morally obligated to do so on the basis of Atheism?

Morality is a human construct and one that applies to anyone capable of making moral choices. It therefore is irrelevant if some
one happens to be an atheist as well. You falsely assume only theists are bound by morality. But secular moral systems exist too

Immanuel Can wrote: "Logic" the mechanism has no particular content but its own formal requirements. But propositional logic, logic as applied to the empirical world, does.

Me: Truth and falsity are just values; they do not assert a fact any more than the plus and minus signs in maths

Actually, they are not just values. They're empirical facts.

If that was the case, then we could not replace them with meaningless symbols like 'P' and 'X'. A simple argument would be: If P then P Whether that is valid does not depend on whether P is an empirical fact. 'If God then God', 'If fairies then fairies' are as valid as 'If London then London'

Whether you are talking to a male or female right now is not a matter of how I "value" myself, far less of how you do. It's a physical fact, one you may be able to inductively estimate from my manner of discourse or the content thereof, but either way will remain true or false in spite of whatever guess you make.

You understand that when I wrote 'value' I did not mean 'assess the worth of', or 'make a guess about'? It isn't the same as 'evaluation'.

If I write 'minus seventeen' it is not an assessment of some physical fact. It is not asserting 'seventeen does not exist' or that there is a size seventeen hole in the universe. Similarly, in logic, if I write 'not P' I'm not asserting as an empirical fact that 'P does not exist'. Like pure maths, it is simply a value that exists relative to other values. It is entirely abstract.

surreptitious57 wrote: Morality is a human construct and one that applies to anyone capable of making moral choices. It therefore is irrelevant if some
one happens to be an atheist as well. You falsely assume only theists are bound by morality. But secular moral systems exist too

Isn't the problem with the ' You falsely assume only theists are bound by morality'?

If I think morality is a human construct, then why would I be 'bound' to it? Surely I would only be bound to it in the sense that it was identical to me, that I couldn't not be moral because morality was anything I want it to be.

Sure, I might construct a moral system and then try to live by it, but it would just be the equivalent of saying 'let's see if I can get to the end of the road without treading on any cracks'. An amusing game, but there would be no reason why I shouldn't replace it with a different game at any point.

So, you can treat morality as sociology; 'I see many people in China are playing the 'don't tread on the cracks game'. But if you are saying that Morality is a thing in itself, something we should be bound by, then the atheist has to give a reason for believing that. And that reason has to be something more compelling than 'I just made it up'.

surreptitious57 wrote: Morality is a human construct and one that applies to anyone capable of making moral choices. It therefore is irrelevant if some
one happens to be an atheist as well. You falsely assume only theists are bound by morality. But secular moral systems exist too.

Do you think Christianity might have ignited moral values amongst the Atheists and Pagans?

Arising_uk wrote:Also, I don't think you can have Odin or any of the other 'God's' as your 'God' as they are fundamentally different 'God's' from yours. It also looks like 'Allah' is yet another different one. Boy they sure multiply don't they.

As i continue to say, man's belief in God doesn't change the state of God.

surreptitious57 wrote: But secular moral systems exist too

Irrelevant.

Theft, racism, rape, infanticide all of these "exist" too: but are you going to argue that "existence" makes them moral too?

What you really have to do is to prove that, under Atheism, one of these systems is obligatory. If they're not, then their existence is merely incidental -- unless you can show that one of them rationally or morally requires our compliance.