2 2
mbohu

Inconsistencies with Atheism

Recommended Posts

Following up on the recurring topic of religion vs. atheism, and seeing that there is a good crowd of people who self-identify as atheists on this forum:
One area where this discussion often lands is the area of morality. Religious people often argue that religion is needed for it's strengthening influence on moral values (whatever they may be) and of course atheists argue that religion is in no way needed for that (and often point how it has had opposite effects in the past) and can, of course point to a large number of atheists with very strong moral values.
So far so good. But, there is one logical problem, I think Atheists*) have, and I haven't seen this addressed very well:
If you look at it in terms of the source of one's moral values, there really is nothing in atheism that one could base one's moral values on. On the contrary, at least given the definition of atheism in my footnote, everything in that particular "belief system" points to seeing "moral values" as an illusion, or irrelevant in terms of having any real effects on reality. This does not preclude atheists from being "moral" people, but it does point to the fact that--at least in purely logical terms--their morality cannot have its source in their atheism. It is something quite separate from it.
To explain: If you believe that there is really nothing but the physically observable universe, in which realities, such as "meaning" and even "values" truly have no existence whatsoever, then you really cannot base any moral values on this belief (as the very term is meaningless.) If you believe that any action that you undertake is in essence nothing but an effect of some nerve-firing in your brain, which, by the way has long been predetermined through prior influences, not just on the biological but also the atomic level, then there is no meaning or value to your action, nor are "YOU" really responsible for them, especially given that the concept of "you" as an integral self-determining unit is highly suspect and likely illusory.
At best, one could say that "morality" is a set of actions that have evolved because they kept our species alive, but there are just as many actions that most people would consider "immoral" which have contributed to our species' survival. In any case none of this can be attributed to any person's individual "goodness" as again, such a concept does not (and likely cannot) exist as a physical reality.
I do wonder, how someone as a self-described atheist responds to this question.

*) In this case I would go with a definition of atheist that includes a purely objectivistic view of the world. Sure some atheists simply say "I don't know and I simply don't believe in anything until I have reasonable proof". That would not exclude any reality beyond the purely objective, physical...but my sense is that most atheists reject such a reality out of hand or at least work under the assumption that it does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mbohu said:

there really is nothing in atheism that one could base one's moral values on. 

Hi mbohu,

How about the crazy concept that one's moral values are unique to every person who has ever lived? 

I feel that mine are.  And I have never told anyone to have the same moral values that I have.

After all, your very title has 'inconsistencies' in it.

So there,

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A theist is someone who believes that one or more gods actually exist.

An atheist does not have a belief in a god, not necessarily that a god or gods don't exist, just that there is not enough evidence to warrant a belief that a particular god does exist.  

The burden of proof is on the theist, or a god, to prove that a god exists, not on an atheist to prove that a god doesn't exist.  

As to the question of morality, atheism is not a world view or a system of morality.  It is simply a rejection of the claim that a god has been shown to exist.  

Therefore, your question of atheism and morality is highly biased and leading, in other words, preaching to the choir. Those who do not believe in a god, and therefore, don't believe the teachings of religion based on faith are free use other means of evaluating morality across the strata of human experience, culture, science, philosophy, and logic for the common good and well-being of society.

As a corollary, those who do not believe in the divine nature of religious scripture, say the Christian Bible, are free to read it objectively for what it is, an incredibly immoral, contradictory, and absurd collection of archaic stories that illustrate why atheism is the superior position.

If you'd like to see the ignorance and dishonesty of people trying to defend the morality of their religious beliefs, may I suggest checking out the YouTube channel - The Atheist Experience.  The Atheist Experience is a call in show, usually hosted by Matt Dillahunty, where theists try to argue for the existence of a god, and generally prove themselves to be in denial of and ignorant of the immorality of their own beliefs.

The show also does an incredible job of explaining where atheists get their morals from, which is the question you originally asked, but something tells me that you weren't really looking for an answer!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, skycatcher68 said:

A theist is someone who believes that one or more gods actually exist.

An atheist does not have a belief in a god, not necessarily that a god or gods don't exist, just that there is not enough evidence to warrant a belief that a particular god does exist.  

The burden of proof is on the theist, or a god, to prove that a god exists, not on an atheist to prove that a god doesn't exist.  

As to the question of morality, atheism is not a world view or a system of morality.  It is simply a rejection of the claim that a god has been shown to exist.  

Therefore, your question of atheism and morality is highly biased and leading, in other words, preaching to the choir. Those who do not believe in a god, and therefore, don't believe the teachings of religion based on faith are free use other means of evaluating morality across the strata of human experience, culture, science, philosophy, and logic for the common good and well-being of society.

As a corollary, those who do not believe in the divine nature of religious scripture, say the Christian Bible, are free to read it objectively for what it is, an incredibly immoral, contradictory, and absurd collection of archaic stories that illustrate why atheism is the superior position.

If you'd like to see the ignorance and dishonesty of people trying to defend the morality of their religious beliefs, may I suggest checking out the YouTube channel - The Atheist Experience.  The Atheist Experience is a call in show, usually hosted by Matt Dillahunty, where theists try to argue for the existence of a god, and generally prove themselves to be in denial of and ignorant of the immorality of their own beliefs.

The show also does an incredible job of explaining where atheists get their morals from, which is the question you originally asked, but something tells me that you weren't really looking for an answer!

 

 

 

 

Awesome. Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

From my perspective, religion was spawned from the necessity of a "moral code", once man kind started to develop "societies", or social structure...    

For the life of me I can't wrap my head around ANY organized religion based on a GOD/deity and modern man... It's pretty easy for me because, SCIENCE! 

Look at world religions, ethnicity and world location.  It really does boil down to the basics people.  We look different for reasons, the same can be said for our belief systems.  Native Americans(and MANY other) cultures worship the natural world around them. The bulk deriving from the tangible world.  While in some isolated pocket of the ME, some other stories got pasted around...  

So I must ask: Why did the Christian God only touch/focus on a very small circle of the world??? It's rhetorical!             

Edited by timski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, mbohu said:

If you look at it in terms of the source of one's moral values, there really is nothing in atheism that one could base one's moral values on.

Man is a social animal. Our morals come directly from our need for cooperation in order to thrive. An atheist's morals and values come from the same place as a religious organization gets theirs. A long history of taboos and rules that form the framework that we build  our society upon. As always enforced by laws that in theory we all have to abide by.  There are as many religious people by proportion to the population in our prisons as atheists or any other group. I'm not sure how you can even raise this question. Either you did not think much about it, or more likely you are just promoting debate. 

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skycatcher68 said:

A theist is someone who believes that one or more gods actually exist.

An atheist does not have a belief in a god, not necessarily that a god or gods don't exist, just that there is not enough evidence to warrant a belief that a particular god does exist.  

 

 

That sounds like its closer to the definition of an agnostic.

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
noun
 
  1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

That sounds like its closer to the definition of an agnostic.

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
noun
 
  1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
  1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"

 

This is a splitting of hairs,. The sort of thing thing theologians are famous for wasting time on. Let's just settle on the fact that both words refer to non-believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
  1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"

 

This is a splitting of hairs,. The sort of thing thing theologians are famous for wasting time on. Let's just settle on the fact that both words refer to non-believers.

One alludes to the possibility of the existence of a God, the other is staunch in its opposition that a God exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
  1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"

 

This is a splitting of hairs,. The sort of thing thing theologians are famous for wasting time on. Let's just settle on the fact that both words refer to non-believers.

I've heard that an agnostic is really just an atheist who is afraid of commitment.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I've heard that an agnostic is really just an atheist who is afraid of commitment.:P

Like I said, splitting hairs. The title of the thread is inconsistencies with atheism. An atheist is anyone who calls themselves one. Morality is a concept invented by man. It is as flexible in meaning as any one person wants it to be. The good lord knows that the moral standard one expects his neighbor to adhere to is not always the same as the one he is willing to live up to himself. There are no inherently moral or immoral acts in the universe. There are only the standards we set for ourselves and each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, skycatcher68 said:

The Atheist Experience is a call in show, usually hosted by Matt Dillahunty

Skycatcher68: Yes, I know his show very well. There are many others too, who are intelligent, funny and interesting: Ricky Gervais, Pen Gillette, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Sam Harris and of course Richard Dawkins come to mind--I watched many of them and quite a few of Matt's shows. 

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
  1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"

Let me try again to define what I mean by atheist in this particular post--and I understand that anyone here might not define themselves that way--but most of the ones mentioned above (the ones with the YouTube videos) DO mostly define themselves that way:
They hold the belief that nothing other than physical reality exists. That all of reality can be ascertained by external objective observation. This IS a belief. It is supported by the fact that nothing else has been objectively PROVEN to exist--but that somewhat ignores the fact that nothing else CAN possibly be objectively PROVEN to exist, because the very DEFINITION of "objective" precludes this A PRIORI.

Like I said, this is a specific definition that I am using (but many others do as well).If, on the other hand, we define Atheism only as saying that no GOD exist, then Buddhists would also be included as atheists, as they do not believe in any kind of GOD. They DO however believe in some sort of deeper reality that cannot be reduced to outer observable fact. They also believe that the mind is PRIMARY to external physical experience and NOT an artifact of brain activity.

 

Anyway, 

3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi mbohu,

How about the crazy concept that one's moral values are unique to every person who has ever lived? 

Yes, Jerry, of course that is a very valid moral position and I think even if one does not completely believe in "moral relativism" (which is the extreme form of this position), in SOME way what you say is true for certain: Even 2 Christians of the same denomination will actually have slightly different morals, if you dig deep enough.

But you still need to accept SOME kind of "spiritual" reality, it seems to me, in order to say that you have ANY kind of moral position. (By "spiritual" I mean something non-physical, such as the concept of "meaning" or "values", etc.) If you believe that all you do, is pre-determined by simple physical interactions of atoms, which combine into brain cells, which then regulate muscles, etc. then THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY of morality. There is actually no person in there, who could be blamed or lauded for their actions.

I think that's pretty self-explanatory, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

One alludes to the possibility of the existence of a God, the other is staunch in its opposition that a God exists. 

I've heard self-described atheists from each of those camps. The difference between them and people who self-identify as agnostics seems to be that the "I don't care" atheist believes that there needs to be some evidence for them to believe in a god, but they're open to the concept. The "there is no God" atheist is not really. And the agnostic is simply more open to the concept; maybe they think our representation of God is simply a stand-in for whatever we don't understand.

Either way, there's going to be some crossover. Consider what ethnicity people consider themselves to be -- there are people who self-identify as black, white, or Asian, who look pretty much exactly alike. Gowlerk put it very well indeed when he said that people are essentially social creatures; as a whole, we require society, and we seek it.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

One alludes to the possibility of the existence of a God, the other is staunch in its opposition that a God exists. 

That makes no sense.  

Atheism is about belief.  Agnosticism is about knowledge.  Knowledge is a subset of belief.  

An agnostic doesn't think that they can know anything about the nature or existence of a god.  An agnostic does not believe that there can be evidence for the existence of a god.

An atheist does not have a belief that a god exists, it is not a belief that a god does not exist.  An atheist expects there to be sufficient evidence for a god before belief can be justified.

Anti-theism is the belief that a god doesn't exist.  

Edited by skycatcher68
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mbohu said:

But you still need to accept SOME kind of "spiritual" reality, it seems to me, in order to say that you have ANY kind of moral position. (By "spiritual" I mean something non-physical, such as the concept of "meaning" or "values", etc.) If you believe that all you do, is pre-determined by simple physical interactions of atoms, which combine into brain cells, which then regulate muscles, etc. then THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY of morality. There is actually no person in there, who could be blamed or lauded for their actions.

I think that's pretty self-explanatory, no?

Incorrect. While we don’t really know how consciousness works we certainly have the appearance of free will, so might as well assume it exists. Pre determinism is actually a much bigger philosophical problem for religious people who believe in an omnipotent god. How can a fundamentalist Christian be moral if he believes he is simply acting out God’s plan?

 

That aside, your fundamental question about atheist can be answered very easily by looking at reality. We know that morality doesn’t come from religion, because our current moral thought doesn’t match the written teachings of any religion. Morality must be a living societal construct because there’s no other basis to be found for its current form. There is then absolutely no reason I can think of to claim that atheists are less able to engage with it than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mbohu said:

They hold the belief that nothing other than physical reality exists.

Are you a physicist? Have you looked at or made an effort to understand current theories of the nature of the universe? Even within the confines of "physical reality" there is a lot of room for beliefs. You can try to define what atheism means in your mind, but it will only apply to you. Just as no two Christians will proclaim the exact same beliefs. It is the nature of being human that each of us has our own individual struggle with the nature of existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mbohu said:

But you still need to accept SOME kind of "spiritual" reality, it seems to me, in order to say that you have ANY kind of moral position.

I strongly disagree with this. And the reason is right in your sentence. You have put "spiritual" into quotes. Why? Because you know that it can not be defined. I would hold that the reason it can't be defined is that it is essentially meaningless. It is simply a term used to denote that which we feel but can not show. A lot like "truthiness".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I strongly disagree with this. And the reason is right in your sentence. You have put "spiritual" into quotes. Why? Because you know that it can not be defined. I would hold that the reason it can't be defined is that it is essentially meaningless. It is simply a term used to denote that which we feel but can not show. A lot like "truthiness".

Right. For instance I am self aware. I can think and feel, and I know other do the same. Does that count as being outside purely physical reality and therefore “spiritual”? If it does, great - the OP must accept that atheists can be spiritual and therefore moral without needing to believe in any woo-woo. 

 

If that doesn’t count as being spiritual, he must explain why anything more is required to enable morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I've heard self-described atheists from each of those camps. The difference between them and people who self-identify as agnostics seems to be that the "I don't care" atheist believes that there needs to be some evidence for them to believe in a god, but they're open to the concept. The "there is no God" atheist is not really. And the agnostic is simply more open to the concept; maybe they think our representation of God is simply a stand-in for whatever we don't understand.

Either way, there's going to be some crossover. Consider what ethnicity people consider themselves to be -- there are people who self-identify as black, white, or Asian, who look pretty much exactly alike. Gowlerk put it very well indeed when he said that people are essentially social creatures; as a whole, we require society, and we seek it.

Wendy P.

So we need another protective acronym like LGBTQIAPK to produce higher awareness.

AAAGFWSCBHPMU

(Atheist, Agnostic, Anti-Theist, God Fearing, Wiccan, Satanic, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Poly, Mono, Unaffiliated)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, timski said:

From my perspective, religion was spawned from the necessity of a "moral code", once man kind started to develop "societies", or social structure...

Might be splitting hairs here, but adding my opinion.

I think religion or a belief in an invisible being with power is human kind's natural reaction to loathing unclear circumstances. We tend to want to be able to explain what is going on. The ongoing search for "why".

I think organized religion has always been about power and the ability or need to control. Morality is just the other side of the coin of "or else".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Are you a physicist?

No. I studied Physics at the Technical University Vienna, but changed to Philosophy, and later Computer Science.

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Have you looked at or made an effort to understand current theories of the nature of the universe?

Yes. In spite of not graduating in physics, I am still fascinated by theoretical physics and keep up on a lot of the new theories. However, I find that MOST people who are not actual physicists and base their belief systems on scientific rationalism do so mostly on the assumption that Newtonian way of seeing reality is still pretty much intact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mbohu said:

However, I find that MOST people who are not actual physicists and base their belief systems on scientific rationalism do so mostly on the assumption that Newtonian way of seeing reality is still pretty much intact.

What do you mean by “belief systems” in that context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2