2 2
mbohu

Inconsistencies with Atheism

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Skwrl said:

I'll take it a step further: one could be a Theist (using your definition) and not have a moral code either.  One could believe in a God or a transcendent or something beyond the physical and still not then conclude, "aha, I should do this or that..."  If there is a transcendent reality, how do I know what it wants me to do?  The one (atheism/theism) doesn't address the other (moral ethics).

Absolutely. There is certainly a kind of theism one can imagine that would be completely amoral. An amoral God would actually solve one of the biggest arguments that theists usually have to defend themselves against, which usually goes something like: "If God is good, why does he kill and torture all these innocent children all over the world (via war, horrible diseases, natural disasters, etc.)"
I actually find it likely that, if there is a conscious being that is the source of everything that exists (and in my view would have to--in some way--not be separate from this creation; so would also experience all that suffering himself--and isn't that what Jesus is a symbol for in the Christian belief?), this being would naturally have to at least have a very different understanding of morality than we do.
(For the religious people: Such a being would not negate religious beliefs--at least not all of them--but would leave them intact as various "stepped down" interpretations and translations into a human language of something that would be completely incomprehensible to the human mind. Same for atheism: Such a being would be of such a different nature that saying "it doesn't exist" is almost as good of an approximation of it as any other definition--and of course all physical laws and scientific theories would have to be a part of this being's modus operandi)

To come back to your criticism of my argument (or the headline I employed): Yes, physicalism may be a better word (if not completely encompassing). In my defense, I DID elicit one of the responses I was hoping for, which was that multiple people did write that they clearly believed that "brain=consciousness". And again, my argument was that, if that is your belief, then it begs the question where there could be a "conscious agent" whom we can assign "morality" to (without redefining the word to mean something like a simple "program" that runs on auto-pilot and is nothing but an effect of physical laws. In that case physical laws (or chance, if we include quantum effects) would be the "moral" agent).

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Thanks for the link, Coreece. I think that article points to some part of what I'm trying to get at, which is that the belief that "atheism is purely rational" is simply not true in most cases.
My experience is that most people do not fully think this trough all the way, and hold their rationalistic, physicalistic, atheistic "belief" on one side and then have a separate set of moral, humanistic, social codes they live by, some of which actually contradict the former completely.
Now, certainly this would be just as true for theists and religious or "spiritual" people, but they generally do not argue that their entire worldview is based on pure rationalism, so THEIR inconsistency is therefore perfectly consistent. :rofl:

Share this post


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

To come back to your criticism of my argument (or the headline I employed): Yes, physicalism may be a better word (if not completely encompassing). In my defense, I DID elicit one of the responses I was hoping for, which was that multiple people did write that they clearly believed that "brain=consciousness". And again, my argument was that, if that is your belief, then it begs the question where there could be a "conscious agent" whom we can assign "morality" to (without redefining the word to mean something like a simple "program" that runs on auto-pilot and is nothing but an effect of physical laws. In that case physical laws (or chance, if we include quantum effects) would be the "moral" agent).

And again, you're positing nothing more than a god of the gaps. You are begging the question by demanding that an atheist reponse has to be framed in the context of a human being a meat robot. It doesn't.

 

Quote

My experience is that most people do not fully think this trough all the way, and hold their rationalistic, physicalistic, atheistic "belief" on one side and then have a separate set of moral, humanistic, social codes they live by, some of which actually contradict the former completely.

There is no contradiction between having rational atheist beliefs and a moral code. They are sperate things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hi jakee,

And I am at a loss as to why people cannot understand this.

Each of is unique, no two of us are the same.

Jerry Baumchen

Does that mean that Professor Kallend told me an untruth?

He said, (Paraphrasing), since the universe is infinite, anyone, and anything already has been, and will be. 

If I understand infinity correctly, in regards to that statement above, then somewhere in the universe, there is an infinite number of you, and me, and we could not, by default, be unique.

Just like everyone else!

 

Share this post


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

If I understand infinity correctly, in regards to that statement above, then somewhere in the universe, there is an infinite number of you, and me, and we could not, by default, be unique.

That is not the theory of the uni (one) verse. That is one theory of a multiverse. No one understands infinity correctly. It is beyond comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
27 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

That is not the theory of the uni (one) verse. That is one theory of a multiverse. No one understands infinity correctly. It is beyond comprehension.

John Does.

 

Seeeeeeeeeee!

 
Quote

 

guardianlv.com/2014/01/observable-universe-is-likely-infinite/

In an infinite universe anything that can happen will happen - an infinite number of times.

 

 
Edited by turtlespeed

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