What better explains reality: atheism or theism?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"subjective things are based on personal feelings"
Human emotions are an essential component in the ability to act morally.
"established using external factors or commonly acceptable standards."
Like faith based religious beliefs you mean, do behave. I'll give you a commonly accepted standard (note not a universal one) the majority of people don't enjoy being raped, or tortured, this implies we shouldn't do it to them, this is the basis for a moral standard. You will note that theistic and atheistic societies alike tend to have moratoriums on torture and murder, they don't on laughing, or smiling, odd that. When someone points out the inherent value of a morality based on promoting well being, you were snide and condescending, but could offer no cogent reason. When you cite a violent bigoted racist misogynistic text as the basis for morality everyone keeps offering cogent objections, the best you can offer in response is that people are reading it literally and not using a subjective interpretation.
Your 'reasoning' is risible because it leaps from claim to claim without evidence, and they're generally laughably contradictory.
"If you like pink, you can’t force me to like it as well."
No but i can recognise your right to like whatever colour you want, because it promotes well being, and harms no one. So the dishonesty of your analogy is manifest.
Note also the majority of islamic theocracies are not offering their religious doctrine and dogma as a choice, and this is in the 21 st century. So your talk of force for secular subjective morals is very dishonest, hypocritical in fact.
If it ever moral for a man over 50 to rape a nine year old girl?
this is far more apposite to the topic than your bs about colour preference, and the fact you refuse to answer shows why as well.
***tree hangs boughs in utter shame while another branch imitates the infamous facepalm***
***in utter disbelief***
"There can’t be rights and wrongs on things that are subjective."
There goes another aspiring claim for being the densest object in the universe... What was it Tin-Man said, "Light? And fluffy?"
rmfr
@ROYISM
I can choose to take a stand for what I believe to be moral/most beneficial/however you want to say it, even when I know it is not the be-all-end-all and that, technically, it doesn't "matter". But it matters to me. I'm under no delusion that I somehow hold the key to a perfect view of what is best. I'm continually learning as a person and my "morals" continue to grow, just as society's do. And I am certain that future generations will look back at my and society's views on morality and have an even clearer view of where we went wrong.
I'm out to have a world that works for everyone. I'm going to fight for that. There may be some out there that just want to see the world burn and they will fight for that too - But I'm counting on there being more of us on the side of making this global community work.
Also, I encourage you to look into the development of cooperation, compassion, etc. in the process of evolution. It's truly fascinating.
@Stone Jade
You said: “I can choose to take a stand for what I believe to be moral/most beneficial/however you want to say it, even when I know it is not the be-all-end-all and that, technically, it doesn't "matter".
I agree that you can believe what you want to believe. But how can you argue that your belief is more correct than my belief. Is there any standard with which to measure your morality so then I can adopt your views as well? Otherwise, you shall stop insisting that I am wrong, just as you can’t insist that I must like the color pink just because you think it looks nice.
You said: “I'm under no delusion that I somehow hold the key to a perfect view of what is best. I'm continually learning as a person and my "morals" continue to grow, just as society's do.”
There is a huge misconception here. You think you are growing continually in your morality. But the fact is that you can’t even make a reliable judgement to know whether you are growing or regressing. You can say this about scientific advancements – yes we are growing in our knowledge of the universe, because there is some objective way to measure it. But you CANNOT say that about values, until you show me using what yardstick you are measuring your growth or decline in morality.
You said: “I'm out to have a world that works for everyone. I'm going to fight for that.”
That’s so presumptuous of you. So, you seem to know what is best for everyone, while all you have is a bunch of subjective ideas. How are you any different from a theist who claims the same thing about knowing what is right and fighting for it.
You said: “Also, I encourage you to look into the development of cooperation, compassion, etc. in the process of evolution. It's truly fascinating.”
The main outtake of evolution is survival of the fittest. Do whatever it takes to survive better and you are good to go. Everything else – compassion etc – are expendable in this overarching scheme of things.
@ROYISM
"But how can you argue that your belief is more correct than my belief."
By arguing for it. I can appeal to your compassion, to your empathy, to your reason and understanding of the effects of our actions. And you can do the same. And hopefully, through those conversations, we both get a clearer view of how we can make this world a better place.
"But the fact is that you can’t even make a reliable judgement to know whether you are growing or regressing."
Sure. But there is evidence. I can look at the effects of my actions on the well-being of those around me, the environment, our political system, the empowerment of others, etc. Actions have consequences and in my observations (which are of course not objective) my actions have more positive and less negative effects than they used to. It's definitely not a science, but that's still a meaningful outcome in that it actually affects the real world. Parents don't stop trying to be better parents simply because they can't prove whether they're getting better or not. But yeah, my perception of positive and negative is subjective.
"That’s so presumptuous of you. So, you seem to know what is best for everyone, while all you have is a bunch of subjective ideas. How are you any different from a theist who claims the same thing about knowing what is right and fighting for it."
I was very clear that I don't think my morality is perfect, that I'm continuing to learn, and that I'm also not going to be complacent because I care about this world in the people in it. Here's the deal: everyone's morality is subjective. All of us are trying to figure out what's right. And yes, theists are included in that. Would you prefer that, because morality is subjective, everyone throw their hands in the air and say that there's no way to know if murder and torture are better or worse than kindness and generosity because no God explained the difference to us? Something's brewing here regarding babies and bathwater.
Let's not pretend that there's a black and white moral code that has stood the test of time, even within religion. Society and individuals' moralities will continue to change over time, and we all have a say in how that goes. I'd prefer to be a part of that conversation.
@Stone Jade
You said: “By arguing for it. I can appeal to your compassion, to your empathy, to your reason and understanding of the effects of our actions. And you can do the same. And hopefully, through those conversations, we both get a clearer view of how we can make this world a better place.”
When I asked you how you can argue that you belief is more correct, I was not asking about the mechanism by which you will do it. I was asking about the principle. If I am not sure about what I am talking, I will not have the courage to preach it. But you seem to agree that your morality is subjective, but yet you are preaching it.
You said: “Sure. But there is evidence. I can look at the effects of my actions on the well-being of those around me, the environment, our political system, the empowerment of others, etc.”
But before that, why should the well-being of the nation be more important than the well-being of the individual. If a poor man thinks that he is suffering in poverty while there are some filthy rich guys living in luxury, and decides to rob them to improve his well-being, why should he be wrong?
You said: “But yeah, my perception of positive and negative is subjective.”
Then why do you preach?
You said: “I was very clear that I don't think my morality is perfect, that I'm continuing to learn, and that I'm also not going to be complacent because I care about this world in the people in it.”
And you somehow assumed that caring for the world is a good thing. May be that trait in itself is the result of a warped evolutionary accident, which you must get over. So, what you are basically doing is begging the question, instead of providing the basis for morality.
You said: “Here's the deal: everyone's morality is subjective. All of us are trying to figure out what's right.”
I am not stating that everyone’s morality is subjective. (I was only mentioning that from your perspective it must be so, and therefore yours is no better than a theist’s position.) However, my position is that theistic morality is not subjective. Not matter what the society thinks or feels, no matter what my upbringing or place of birth or culture… my position on any particular issue will remain the same. For example, drinking alcohol would be a sin in my view, not matter what my circumstances. That’s why it’s not subjective.
You said: “Would you prefer that, because morality is subjective, everyone throw their hands in the air and say that there's no way to know if murder and torture are better or worse than kindness and generosity because no God explained the difference to us?”
I am just saying that since your morality is subjective that is what it will eventually lead to. It is all fine to preach your subjective morality, but when push comes to shove, it will be easy to throw it out of the window, because after all it’s just subjective, and your will to hold on to it would be weak. Say for example, a person who believes that he is answerable to God in the hereafter, such a person will not compromise on his values no matter what. But if by speaking the truth a person with subjective morality were to land in some big trouble, he would not have any difficulty changing his position.
"There can’t be rights and wrongs on things that are subjective."
That's a subjective opinion, so why should anyone care what you think?
Touché
@Sheldon
They shouldn't....that's her point. Why should the religious believe an atheist that claims to be moral?
In the spirit of rational based atheism give me objective evidence for the basis of your morality?
quip ""There can’t be rights and wrongs on things that are subjective.""
Sheldon "That's a subjective opinion, so why should anyone care what you think?"
quip "They shouldn't."
You are making a spurious claim you think we should all ignore, fair enough. I'll file it with your specious question for a 'why' you have no evidence to justify.
"give me objective evidence for the basis of your morality"
I have never claimed this was possible, and since no theist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, theists morals have an equally subjective basis. So why are you singling out atheists who don't make the claim, when it is theists like yourself who actually make this claim?
@Sheldon
However misguided theists may seem to you...at least they subjectively attempt to grapple with the issue.
The atheist's only answer is to shove their heads up their collective asses.
How does THAT objective evidence sit with you?
"The atheist's only answer is to shove their heads up their collective asses."
So you have no objective evidence for your claim then, and were simply lying to misrepresent atheists / atheism, thought so. Then having lied, and been called on it, your only answer is a puerile ad hominem fallacy, quelle surprise. Coupled with your grandiloquent pseudo intellectual posturing that's pretty funny.
"How does THAT objective evidence sit with you?"
I couldn't have for a better example to show unequivocally that you're too thick to understand the difference between objective and subjective, and of course that you have the typical theists grasp of what constitutes evidence.
Now you may put your head wherever you wish, it's not like it's of much use to anyone anyway.
@Sheldon
Seems YOU don't have any objective evidence for YOUR claim so, what's there to misrepresent? Gathering from your resistance to introspection...you seem to represent atheism just fine. Other atheists are free to not accept your limited take though.
If an atheist makes a comment concerning their morality - with their head up their ass - does it actually resonate? ;-)
Why should I believe you're moral Sheldon?
So you still can't demonstrate any objective evidence for your specious question, and appear to have now completely abandoned your arrogant and pretentious claim to be looking for introspection. I'm baffled why you're still hanging around tbh, it appears you just want to keep pathetically repeating your mantra that specious conjecture equates to intellectual introspection. It's as lame now as it was when you first started your BS.
Smiley faces now, yes I think we can all see the level of intellectual rigour you're shooting for, you can't even come up with a new ad hominem fallacy.
"Why should I believe you're moral Sheldon?"
Why should I care what yet another intellectually stunted theists thinks about anything, especially one so dumb they think an argument from ignorance fallacy represents profound introspection?
@Sheldon
You shouldn't (but you do nonetheless)...it's not about them, introspection is about you! Re: arrogant introspection.
That's not my stumbling block...that's exclusively yours. Re: arrogant introspection. (Your conspicuous lack thereof)
Because I enjoy "baffling". ;-)
CAN you even attempt introspection? Seems you vociferous, cerebral, thinking types lack the capacity for intuitive understanding. This would explain much.
@ ROYISM
"Do you mean to say that moral values are subjective and that each one can adhere to their own set of values. If I indulge in human sacrifice would you not stop me? If yes, wouldn’t that be you imposing your subjective views on me?"
Yes, moral values are subjective. I will take it even further, they are based on the circumstances.
For example: I am opposed to murder 100%. Yet, if I saw a crazed lunatic going at one of my loved ones with a butcher knife, and I had a gun in my hand, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger.
Your human sacrifice scenario is ludicrous. Can you justify human sacrifice would have a purpose weighed against the death of another human being?
You proposed human sacrifice, now justify it. If you cannot, then you are guilty of injecting a stupid and irrelevant question into this debate.
And yes, I would stop you from performing an act of human sacrifice and impose my subjective opinion over your crazed values. Have you done it in the past?
@ David
"You proposed human sacrifice, now justify it. If you cannot, then you are guilty of injecting a stupid and irrelevant question into this debate.
It took you to comment on this for me to realize royism actually asked about human sacrifice. I guess my mind saw it as irrelevant (bold text above) and completely ignored that statement on me. Just amazing how the human mind works sometimes...
@ royism
If I saw you attempting a human sacrifice, guess who would end up being the one who gets sacrificed without even a nanosecond spent thinking about my reaction?
rmfr
@ Arakish
You said: “If I saw you attempting a human sacrifice, guess who would end up being the one who gets sacrificed without even a nanosecond spent thinking about my reaction?”
In a discussion of this nature, emotional hyperventilation is useless. You are just begging the question here. What you need to do is show me on what grounds you think human sacrifice is immoral or wrong, instead of issuing threats to a hypothetical question that I raised. What is your position on animal slaughter for food? If you eat animals, why is that any less a sin than killing a human? Some animal lover can get as enraged by the killing of animals as you are with humans. Why is human life more valuable than animal life, but for the simple selfish reason of human centricity?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that the universe 'revolves' around humans?
"Do you see the killing of humans and animals in the same vein?"
Not enough information, killing in what context, in what way the same?
Where did you get that worldview from?"
My ability to reason and to empathise with the suffering of other sentient beings. As I am an atheist I don't think indiscriminate murder pleases a (fictional) deity, unlike some theists, and Muslims of course.
If you suddenly managed to grasp the ability to reason objectively tomorrow, and realised your deity was as fictional as all the others, are you really saying you'd suddenly think behaviours like rape and murder were morally acceptable?
That's fairly worrying.
@Sheldon
You said: “If you suddenly managed to grasp the ability to reason objectively tomorrow, and realised your deity was as fictional as all the others, are you really saying you'd suddenly think behaviours like rape and murder were morally acceptable?”
You are raising this question because you have already begged the question and decided for yourself that these things are wrong. There are only two reasons why these things are wrong in our culture – one is religious belief and the other is social conditioning (a big part of which comes from religions anyways). If you were born in an cannibalistic tribe that feeds on humans for breakfast, you would be as blasé about it as chomping on chicken legs every day. So, the question is on you?
Answering your question of what would happen to me if I left my religion… well that depends on how I take to the social pressures and conditioning in my environment. If I am in the midst of cannibals, I might be eating humans. If I am in the midst of vegans I might consider you guys as savages who eat animals… and so on. Without the referral point of God, who is really good and bad in the middle of all this would be anybody’s guess.
I raised the question because it was apposite, you have avoided answering it for the same reason. How I feel about them is irrelevant to the question.
"There are only two reasons why these things are wrong in our culture – one is religious belief and the other is social conditioning (a big part of which comes from religions anyways)."
So you think rape is wrong? What about a 50 year old man raping a nine year old girl? Or do prophets get a free pass on (child) rape?
There are plenty of atheist and secular societies in the developed west, and they have the lowest rates of violent crimes like rape and murder in the world.
--------------------------------------------------
"f you were born in an cannibalistic tribe that feeds on humans for breakfast, you would be as blasé about it as chomping on chicken legs every day. So, the question is on you?"
Answer mine and I will answer your, if you lost your belief in a deity are you saying you would suddenly think behaviours like rape and murder were moral? Stop obfuscating with red herrings.
--------------------------------------------
" Without the referral point of God, who is really good and bad in the middle of all this would be anybody’s guess."
You mean because everyone who has ever believed in a deity has an identical moral code? You are funny, you just stated social conditioning was a factor, now without a deity there is no point of reference, despite atheists giving you several. Empathy, well being, then there are concepts like justice and equality, all of the trump blindly following the misogynistic ravings of ancient superstitious paedophiles, no matter how often you try to claim it came form a deity you can't evidence, and that no two Muslims can agree on without resorting to jihad and bloodshed.
@ ROYISM
"Atheism doesn't explain anything. It just rejects God. Theism attempts to explain the 'Why' of things. As in why do we exist. While science attempts to explain the how of things, as in how things exist."
Atheism does not have to explain anything, it is just the default position on an unproven claim.
We can live 100% of our daily lives without the requirement for a "why".
Asking "why do we exist" is begging the question, a fallacy.
@David Killens
You said: “Atheism does not have to explain anything, it is just the default position on an unproven claim.”
SO you agree that atheism is not good enough to explain reality.
You said: “We can live 100% of our daily lives without the requirement for a "why".
My argument is that without answering these existential questions, values and morality are meaningless. For example, if I believe that the reason for my existence is to serve humanity, then I will spend my time feeding the hungry and helping the poor. Why do you indulge in any act of charity, if you think the reason why you exist doesn’t matter at all?
I do agree that atheism does not have to explain reality. As I stated, atheism is not a method to explain or prove anything, it is just a position.
I indulge in charity because I give a shit. I care about my fellow human beings. There is nothing magical or mystical about it, I just have empathy for my fellow human beings. I do not need a god, or a devil, or angels to have emotions and other internal qualities. Dogs are capable of love, they also have a sense of fair play, a component of morality. We are all animals, we do not need to ask such questions to live our lives and enjoy them with quality.
I do not have to have answers to existential question to have any meaning for morals or other values, they stand on their own, independent of any question. They have high value all on their own.
@ David Killens
I indulge in charity because I give a shit. I care about my fellow human beings. There is nothing magical or mystical about it, I just have empathy for my fellow human beings.
If you think you are doing these acts of charity out some innate sense of empathy, you are mistaken. Your values are the result of years of social conditioning, the ontology of which if you analyze will have some notions on the meaningsof life. The fact is you are relying on some existential dogma (in your language mystical or magical stuff) without your knowing it.
You said:,Dogs are capable of love, they also have a sense of fair play, a component of morality. We are all animals, we do not need to ask such questions to live our lives and enjoy them with quality.
Dogs don’t have any moral quotient, we simply try to read our notions into them. Would say a dog is evil if it attacks a passerby or kills a kitten? No They don’t act on the basis of moral choices they consciously make. They simply act on instincts. But we humans are not like that.
You said: I do not have to have answers to existential question to have any meaning for morals or other values, they stand on their own, independent of any question. They have high value all on their own.
How do they have high value on their own? If man were not there, the material world would exist, but there would be no such thing as values. Because values are a human construct... and the basis for it is our notion of purpose and meaning of life.
"Your values are the result of years of social conditioning, "
Hahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahah, not that from a Muslim is really fucking hilarious.
David meant the value these ideas possess are manifest, independent of specious pretentious religious questions that assume life has an purpose beyond what individuals choose their lives to mean. He's not claiming the ideas exist independently of humans, that absurd claim is what religious apologists like yourself make, that they have access to objective morality.
@ROYISM
If you think dogs are incapable of evil, you think dogs are incapable of evil.
If I think an action does good, I think it is good, and thus it has value in itself.
Your replies in other threads have made it clear that you are see no merit in doing what is good unless you believe that "God" exists - it is clear that you are still of this mindset. For you, something is not good because you recognize it as good in itself...it is good because you are told to do it. This is why you are incapable of finding value through the concept of "good". You say that values are a human construct, and yet you act as though life can only have a purpose if "God" exists, which of course you paradoxically cannot regard as a human construct.
@ ROYISM
"If you think you are doing these acts of charity out some innate sense of empathy, you are mistaken. Your values are the result of years of social conditioning, the ontology of which if you analyze will have some notions on the meaningsof life. The fact is you are relying on some existential dogma (in your language mystical or magical stuff) without your knowing it."
Actually, no. When I was much younger, in my teens and early 20's I was a self absorbed selfish asshole. I did not care for others, and sadly hurt other people. Only when I matured and did a lot of self-reflection and thinking, did I take on a higher level of empathy. I learned (all by myself) to be caring and more sensitive to others.
"Dogs don’t have any moral quotient, we simply try to read our notions into them. Would say a dog is evil if it attacks a passerby or kills a kitten? No They don’t act on the basis of moral choices they consciously make. They simply act on instincts. But we humans are not like that."
Dogs do have a morality. They have been tested under proper scientific protocol, and the results were not based on the dog's desire to please their master. Everything they do, dogs do for a reason. My brother was a cop, and he was a dog handler. One of his dogs (who went into the Purina Hall of Fame) was a 140 pound monster German Shepard. If he sent that dog to attack you, you were in very serious trouble. Yet I have seen that dog in a home environment, with my three year old nephew pulling on it's tail and trying to poke it in the eye. Yet Baron did not react, he just took it. I have also seen guard dogs for a high security military base. They are pushed into insanity, to hate humans with an unbelievable ferocity. Even their handlers are at risk. They are not evil, they are a product of their environment. If you apply the "evil" label to anything, you are not understanding what is going on and resorting to ignorance.
@David Re: Dogs
Interesting that dogs/animals are being discussed right now. I absolutely LOVE dogs. My all-time favorite animal. I get along with dogs better than I get along with most people, as a matter of fact. I currently own a muscular young fellow named Cooper. He is something of a mix of black lab and a touch of Rottweiler. Our neighbors also have a black lab, and her name is Maggie. We also have three cats, one of which is an outside cat (the other two we keep inside). Cat's name is Thor, and he and Cooper are good buddies. Now, Maggie and Thor get along fine, also. However, Maggie can sometimes get a little over-excited and become a little too "aggressive" with Thor. Nothing too serious, thankfully. Mostly just Maggie trying to be dominant.
Anyway, just this afternoon I went out into the garage where they all hang out just to pet Cooper a bit and spend some time with him. Naturally, Maggie and Thor were there too. Thor the cat strolled to just outside the garage door to lay in the sun, while Maggie and Cooper were competing with each other for my attention. At one point while I was petting Cooper, I noticed Maggie walk outside toward where Thor was, and I saw Maggie's tail go into "point" mode. And I knew she was focused on Thor. At that same time, Cooper looked over and noticed the same thing. And before I could get up to distract and scold Maggie, Cooper quickly went out the door past Maggie. And when I did make it to the door, I saw Cooper standing directly over Thor in a protective manner while looking directly at Maggie as if to say, "Don't even think about it!" I kld you not! That was a most awesome and impressive sight! I shooed Maggie away. Thor got up and went back into the garage and got on top of my truck. Cooper got a treat and a whole bunch of praise and petting.
Pages