Justify Atheism

[Alyx.]

Justify Atheism... meaning we are supposed to make Atheism a worth believe in your eyes, something that has some sort of merit?

Well, I'll tell you my personal beliefs. I think that since the beginning of time, God has stood in for things we didn't understand. As science has progressed, and our knowledge has grown, God has been banished to the most mysterious event of all, the origin of the universe. However, I find it ludicrous to believe that an all powerful being just got there and created the universe, as Carl Sagan said, why not just save a step then and say the universe just got there? Surely, that explanation is much more simple then an all-powerful being. I also find it ludicrous to believe that God has created the universe, set it into motion, and done nothing. A being like that sounds much more like a force then a sentient being who gets involved in the universe. I am a fairly strong believer in Occam's Razor, and find that the idea of God, while slightly plausible, is much more ridiculous then other explanations for the origin of the universe.

The only way I could see a God existing is if he was totally counter-intuitive, like quantum mechanics, but MORE so.

[Miniar]

The only problem with that is, are we really sure what maxims can be made universal law with such a limited human perspective?  Even if the collective human mind were able to work out a moral code accepted by humanity, aren't we still lacking in that we only exist at one time and one place?  Wouldn't it imply that we need to know EVERYTHING before being able to decide what is an appropriate action and what is not?

In the end we act on the best information we have available to us, but one person may call those morals while another immorality.

The thing is, there are no moral absolutes.
Morals are a subjective thing that change with the times to fit the society within which the morals are held.
Even amongst the religious.

[Hauser]

The thing is, there are no moral absolutes.
Morals are a subjective thing that change with the times to fit the society within which the morals are held.
Even amongst the religious.

yes. i used this example in a recent discussion of good and evil.


the muslim: eating pork is BAD NO EVIL WRONG SIN SIN SIN.

me the atheist: YAY BACON!

-----

the puritanical Christian Fundamentalist: homosexual behavior is EVIL BAD WRONG SIN SIN SIN

the Inclusion Christians down the block from me: Love transcends bodies

-----

The State of Texas: thumbs up Capitol Punishment

Me and several hundreds of others: well...you're killing someone...dont right see how that's any different than MURDER.

------

i could pull ten thousand similar examples ranging in severity from how you think to what you eat to how you live your life to when is it ok to kill...examples that fall under both secular and religious concerns.

the idea of a universal morality is a pipedream given the highly variable nature of the human condition. The best way i personally can see is to go with a model of low impact vs high impact on a positive and negative spectrum. like..if i have a low impact in a negative way and a high impact in a positive way in the long run...im probably well suited to the definition of "good person". and vice versa. i dont need a higher power for that. i dont even need to be aware of it really. id just like an A for effort.

[Hauser]

Or put more simply:

17th Century Christian: Slavery is fine! The Bible says so!
20th Century Christian: Slavery is wrong! The Bible says so!

good example.  mind if i steal it for my next war with my ma?

[Hauser]

Not at all. But be kind to your ma 

only when she doesnt try her bible thumping hellfire and damnation Southern Baptist scare tactics on me...which by the way(for the sake of the discussion)..i consider to be PURE EVIL.

[Hauser]

Has anyone ever told you that you remind them of Sheldon from BBT? 

i had to google that. :p  in a lot of ways...it suits...so ill take it as a compliment. 

[BunnyBee]

Or do we take a relativistic viewpoint where we are both right in our respective spheres.  But what happens when those spheres converge, how then do we decide who is right?  Is there a supreme arbiter of morality greater than both of ours?

We would have to agree on the moral arbiter, which takes us right back to the issue of our respective spheres being incompatible.

We have to decide by consensus the social contract we live under.  It's not a perfect system, but this is where laws come from.  If my morals strongly conflict with the collective morality of the particular society I live in, I'm the one that will have to give, not everybody else.  If I don't, I have to be prepared to live with the consequences.  Like others have said, morality is a subjective thing that we all have to work out together.  That's why there is so much argument in this world.

On the topic of morality, wouldn't you feel better about morality coming from within yourself than your adherence to a code out of either fear or hope of a reward of some kind?  Wouldn't you say that a person that is simply naturally moral has to be a more moral being than one that only holds back their inherent immorality because of some carrot or switch?

[Silver]

Well, I'd reply to that reply to me, but it seems like everyone else already has it covered

[Just Kate]

The thing is, there are no moral absolutes.
Morals are a subjective thing that change with the times to fit the society within which the morals are held.
Even amongst the religious.

So throw out moral absolutes, my original statements/questions still stand.  In a world where I am my own moral authority and you are too, when our morality cross paths, who is right?  This is something I've always struggled with and I appreciate Immanuel Kant's attempt to explain it without using deity, but it still falls aggravatingly short.

[Hauser]

So throw out moral absolutes, my original statements/questions still stand.  In a world where I am my own moral authority and you are too, when our morality cross paths, who is right?  This is something I've always struggled with and I appreciate Immanuel Kant's attempt to explain it without using deity, but it still falls aggravatingly short.

no it doesnt. its not an automatic "a is right, b is wrong."

its a process of discourse, finding commonality. a process of cutting out the fat...the things that dont really have a negative impact on the whole.

ill use an example from real life

finding moral common ground with my best friend in the world was very difficult when i came out of the closet and told her i often dated women due to her very strictly religious nature. but in the end the dispute was solved because who i date doesnt have much of a bearing, if any on her life in a negative way. its a matter of using simple deductive logic to determine what's best for all parties. it takes time but i see even that as a benefit because its a process of learning each other...stripping away the centrism and finding common ground...learning to adapt..which is how all organisms survive, by being adaptable.

[Just Kate]

no it doesnt. its not an automatic "a is right, b is wrong."

its a process of discourse, finding commonality. a process of cutting out the fat...the things that dont really have a negative impact on the whole.

ill use an example from real life

finding moral common ground with my best friend in the world was very difficult when i came out of the closet and told her i often dated women due to her very strictly religious nature. but in the end the dispute was solved because who i date doesnt have much of a bearing, if any on her life in a negative way. its a matter of using simple deductive logic to determine what's best for all parties. it takes time but i see even that as a benefit because its a process of learning each other...stripping away the centrism and finding common ground...learning to adapt..which is how all organisms survive, by being adaptable.

You use a rather benign example, but one doesn't have to look far to see others whose sense of morality directly impacts another.  Take the radical members of ELF who have killed other humans in an attempt to save animal lives.  They have a code of morality that says saving animal life is so important, it is worth the cost of human lives.  I imagine there are some humans who disagree with this and certainly do not wish to be killed in another's attempt to save an animal life.

Without the existence of a moral absolute, who is truly morally correct in a situation?  There is no right answer.  Well maybe there is and Vexing said it best:

The person with the sharpest sword.

[Hauser]

You use a rather benign example, but one doesn't have to look far to see others whose sense of morality directly impacts another.  Take the radical members of ELF who have killed other humans in an attempt to save animal lives.  They have a code of morality that says saving animal life is so important, it is worth the cost of human lives.  I imagine there are some humans who disagree with this and certainly do not wish to be killed in another's attempt to save an animal life.

ALF? yeah. there's all kinds of conflict. depends on your patience and commitment as to whether or not it can be solved in a rational manner. and sometimes you gotta lay the smack down. So what?


that's just life.

[Dryad]

I think, in the end, morality is born out of altruism. (Behavioural biology; not the kind of pink hippy altruism.)
Basically: Anything that effects the chances of the species as a whole in a negative way is bad. Strong competition within the same pack is a bad thing, for example, while strong competition with members of another pack is a good thing.
Taking care of old members of a pack is a good thing; that way, you can make sure that old people are respected, which means a lot of good for the old people of all times, and everyone who survives for a long time will be an old person, right? Besides; it's very rewarding after a long life of hard toil to be respected and taken care of. This is a very common structure in social predatory mammals.

But it's a bit vague.. So people tend to make 'morals,' which are basically concessions of allowing other people to do what you don't want them to do, and vice versa. They're unwritten rules, and as such, are much clearer than the vague thing called altruism. At least with morals, you can pin them down. But morals are little more than altruism given a spin of personal preference and favour, so it's still a good thing to question them. While morally right for a certain society, it may not always be 'good,' even for that society's standards.
the moral code itself may have been born out of immoral behaviour. A very good example of this is monotheistic morals. Read Leviticus, if you don't believe me. It's so full of hell, hatred and spite that all you can see is 'fear' written in stone-age Neon letters. Countless of people have tried to change it, but so far, the closed-minded hate-mongering has survived. These codes are, however, beneficial to the group. Either you join them, or you're condemned to hell. Either you repent, or you're doomed. It also keeps all the scary people out.

[Miniar]

Without the existence of a moral absolute, who is truly morally correct in a situation?  There is no right answer.

You answered your own question.
Morality is malleable, changing with time, subjective, thus, there's no one who is "truly" morally correct in any situation.
There is the "commonly agreed upon morally acceptable choice of the time for the place and situation". Later on, when the times have changed, people can (and often do) look back at that situation and consider the choice morally offensive in some way or another.

[Arch]

The person with the sharpest sword.

All things being equal (well, not really), I think I prefer a blaster in my kilt.

[jainie marlena]

Why is it on the backs of those who know there isn't a god to show proof? There isn't a tooth fairy either but I am not going to prove that to you.

this is a good point because there is no system to prove god(s) are real or not. so why ask for proof. an active atheist you mean a protester with the self given title of being an atheist.
Post Merge: June 26, 2010, 01:09:41 PM

Because an atheists main objection to god believers is, "you can't prove there's a god". In reality, most theists don't base their belief off any scientific proof, that would defeat the whole purpose of faith.

it has no system. it is not a belief
Post Merge: June 26, 2010, 02:15:55 PM

It is on the back of anyone who makes any claim to show it to be true.

As an atheist your making the claim "God does not exist".
There is the same onus here as claiming "God does exist".

Thanks for the interesting replies I will look them over later when I got some spare time

the only thing that has been proven to me about the god of  Christianity is that no one agrees on who god is or what he does. An atheist has a better chance of understanding God than does a christian because there minds are fresh.

[DaddySplicer]

Lol, this thread again.

Just to be a d-bag rather than take my earlier more scholarly approach:

I died at sixteen momentarily from coke overdose and there was nothing. No god. Or white light. Except from the lamp in my face when I was jolted back a moment later.

My personal atheism: Justified. 

Also, don't do coke.