Imagine my surprise when I heard that atheism was based on a search for truth. We all know that’s false.
Let’s examine a couple recent examples.
Patrick claimed that I did not provide any links.
You’ll note the complete absence of any links…
I provided links. Patrick lied.
KN claimed that Immanuel Kant was an atheist philosopher.
KN lied,
Patrick demands morals of others while denying that there are any objective moral obligations.
Why do atheists care about what is true and what is immoral?
Why do atheists attack the object of their ignorance?
Barry’s purse.
Barry’s purse. Therefore atheists are liars who have no morals.
I thought you were asking for philosophers who thought that slavery was immoral on objective grounds and whose arguments for that assertion were not based on theism. I didn’t realize you were insisting on atheistic philosophers.
That’s not lying; that’s making a mistake.
Then again, since you are a Christian, I never attributed to you an overabundance of intellectual integrity or common decency.
Kantian Naturalist,
He’s just going to have a butthurt thread every now and then. It’s probably cathartic for him – he knows what he is, just like we do. Such is the price of open fora.
Why do Christians generalise?
Another example of someone assuming, without evidence, that they understand what’s going on in someone else’s mind.
FMM ‘knows’ I believe in god, Mung ‘knows’ we all know ‘that’s false’.
Apart from anything else, theists like Mung and FMM seem to have abandoned that quest. So somebody has to care, as it’s not them!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11979235/Muslims-and-Christians-less-generous-than-atheists-study-finds.html
The meanness and bitterness of spirit as evidenced in this OP seems to flow down to their physical world also.
And let’s face it, their morals change depending on what god they are worshipping. Their morals change depending on what interpretation they are using for whatever book they are stealing them from or whatever leader is in vogue. And that book stole from cultures before that and claimed the insights as unique. Moral? Hardly.
And most of all their morals often seem to change depending on what they can get away with. And of course, what does it do to your moral sense when you know you can sin and then be forgiven? Over and over. There is always hope!
And has been shown most recently on the slavery thread, any verse can be interpreted to mean the opposite of what it seems to plainly mean, depending on what the theist needs to justify. Slavery? Instructions on how to mange your slaves given in the bible. Freedom? Mandated in the bible for all. Both at the same time apparently.
So, why do atheists care about truth and morals? This one has seen what people who claim to believe in an objective morality have done in the world and rejects it utterly. This one has seen the twists and turns the theists make when justifying their claims. I see nothing like that in any other sphere except politics. And as there it’s a means to an end. Nothing more.
And for all of the claims made by the likes of Mung and FMM, do theists and atheists behave significantly differently overall?
Mung, FMM? What say you?
I think some people just need to feel superior.
Of course atheism isn’t “based on a search for truth”. That would imply all people become atheists for the same reasons and in the same way.
One may become and atheist because one values a search for truth, incidentally. Some people become atheists for bad reasons, some people become atheists for good reasons. Some people were never raised to become believers in the first place, so never become convinced out of their atheism.
Atheism CAN be based on a search for truth, but it isn’t intrinsically.
And no single person is a representative of atheism (like Patrick), or how to become one, just like no single person is a representative of christianity (like Mung) or how to become one.
So do I.
There is nothing inconsistent about that. One can subjectively demand morals of others.
You keep making this point about a lack of objective morals as if it entailed a complete nonexistence of any morals. Yet subjective morality clearly exists.
As atheist individuals we can only answer for ourselves, as I will do now.
I care about truth and morality because I’m curious about how the world works and because I have emotions like empathy and love. I’m an individual who cares.
That’s why and that is all it takes.
Please clarify. What object are we talking about?
I suspect they cannot understand why people behave in what they would call a moral way without the threat of infinite punishment after death constantly hanging over their heads. To me it indicates a failure of character – without that threat they are aware that they would prefer to behave other than the way they are behaving. And at some level that makes them angry.
Atheists that don’t go a-killin’ and a-rapin’ and a-stealin’ – they’re the worst of the lot.
OMagain said:
I think that a lot of atheists in the West reject the idea of objective morality with similar “reasoning”, but that motive really doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Rejecting a thing because people used that thing to justify doing something evil doesn’t make the thing itself evil or even less valid. That’s not reasoning, that’s just an emotional response. Science has created lots of very horrible things, and has been used to justify some very horrible things, but that doesn’t make science itself a horrible thing.
Properly reasoned, OMagain’s rejection above becomes pure self-defeating hypocrisy; if there are no objective moral grounds to reject the behavior of others as immoral, one has logically positioned both that behavior and their own as moral equivalents. If there is no objective way to determine what is and is not moral, on what basis is Omagain rejecting the behavior of moral objectivists in the first place?
A better reasoned view would be that (1) objective morality exists, and (2) not every behavior claimed to be objectively moral or immoral is a valid claim, so (3) I reject the views/behavior of some moral objectivists as not true because, objectively speaking, those views/behaviors are immoral. IOW, some moral objectivists are in error about what is and is not moral, but the grounds by which to claim this would necessarily be one that assumes morality is indeed objective.
RE the OP: I think a lot of atheist aren’t lying a lot of the time, they just suffer from a rather severe form of anti-theistic cognitive bias that borders on a derangement syndrome. This bias affects how they hear, read and interpret theists, and how they process responses. It’s a “give no quarter” mindset, as expressed by Lewontin, no foot allowed in the door. Objective morality must be denied no matter the cost, even though it leads to rational absurdities and hypocrisies, because it clearly leads to a conclusion of theism.
There is a basis, but you are unable to understand it as it’s been explained to you many times. You are wrong, that is all.
Out of interest, when your child was abducted from it’s mothers womb overnight how did you know it had been abducted and how did you know it had returned?
Once you explain that I might be more likely to take lessons on reasoning from the likes of you.
Truth, also, is a concept sacrificed at the altar of anti-theistic derangement, which leads to a whole other world of self-defeating, hypocritical perspectives and statements, reducing all knowledge to Keithian Knowledge*.
You don’t even understand what Lewontin was saying, so any conclusions you draw from it are invalid. I think a lot of theists aren’t lying a lot of the time, they just suffer from a rather severe form of anti-reality cognitive bias that borders on a derangement syndrome. This bias affects how they hear, read and interpret everything, and how they process responses.
Lewontin was not saying that no divine foot in the door is allowed. But you’ll never admit you are wrong as it’s a useful tool. Just like KF will continue to use the Lewontin short quote so will you.
Why don’t you provide the full quote William? Then once you’ve provided it try reading it.
I’m sure once Keith has been abducted by aliens and the true ways of the universe revealed to him, as they have been to you, he’ll change his tune.
William J. Murray,
So, many cliches; where to begin? I know – here:
William, now:
William, then:
I know many atheists who believe in objective morality, so your claim here literally can not be true.
In fact, most atheists I know are moral realists of some sort. Atheists like me who are moral skeptics or moral nihilists are a minority among atheists.
I think given some metric an objective morality can be derived. I.E. the golden rule maximises your ability to achieve but not at the expense of others. But objective for me does not mean ‘provided by a 3rd party such as a deity’. There is an objective direction (so to speak) water will flow. Downwards. There is an objective mechanism for the human shaped matter beings to behave to maximise their potential. We might not know it explicitly for all cases but there it is. But no deity required. No magic realm required of libertarian free will where causally disconnected decisions can be made. Just humans.
Lewontin!
I see keith is still quote-mining.
Rumraket said:
Even if what you say is true, that being true cannot make my actual statement “literally not true” unless it was my claim that all atheists deny objective reality. This is an example of the anti-theistic cognitive bias I mentioned.
Some such responses are cognitive bias (being unable to properly interpret/understand what a theist says/writes); others, like OMagains, just demonstrates a profound lack of basic reasoning skills:
OMagain just strings incongruent phrases and sentences together as if just writing them that way will make it true, or even possible. Like saying, “I can draw a 4-sided triangle” somehow magically makes the stated or written proposition possible.
You cannot have moral behavior without uncaused free will. It’s a logical impossibility (without redefining “morality” and/or “free will to meaninglessness)”. Humans cannot be imbued with universal oughts in any way other than being created for a purpose. Purpose is what gives a thing oughts and ought nots; there is no purpose in a thing without a sentient creator or designer.
You cannot have objective morality without a creator/designer, and you cannot have moral behavior without free will.
Termites cannot be imbued with universal oughts in any way other than being created for a purpose.
Anyway, about that overnight baby alien abduction….
Let’s see if William can defend his stance on objective morality on a site where he can’t silently ban people who persistently disagree with him.
He keeps claiming that objective morality is fact and can’t be effectively disputed. Yet he has repeatedly failed to explain how this can be true when fundamental morals are different between cultures, are different within cultures over time, and change for individuals over time.
Even Barry’s much repeated “torturing and killing babies for pleasure is objectively wrong” is not universal. Some pre-Columbian cultures practiced child sacrifice and believed that it was morally acceptable.
What about killing someone? Or suicide? Or cannibalism? Or homosexual sex? Or sex outside of marriage? Or taking the lord’s name in vain? Or polygamy? Are any of these objectively wrong? Or is a better explanation that due to the subjective nature of morality, whether or not these are morally wrong will depend on the society being examined?
It you don’t understand what I’m trying to express, perhaps I’m expressing it badly. Quite probably.
William just strings incongruent phrases and sentences together as if just writing them that way will make it true, or even possible.
Oh, and which is it William. A creator or a designer? A creator implies god, a designer implies aliens. I know you believe aliens exist and you have already said it does not matter if god actually exists or not. So, is it a designer? What color is it if so?
Acartia,
Oh, he can defend it all right. 4, 5, 6 threads on the matter here. He’s just wrong, is all.
Why? I mean real evidence.
Why? I mean real evidence.
Why? I mean real evidence.
See, you say all of that, but provide no evidence that any of your claims are real, sort of a theme with you–subjective claims about objective morality.
How are you going to show that objectively?
Uh, yeah, why doesn’t your “morality” keep you from making statements that are objectively unsound, that you can’t and don’t back up? Once again, objective morality fails to keep you from merely smearing people in your smarmy ignorance, hence you’re a poor advertisement for what you never could provide the least bit of evidence in the first place.
Glen Davidson
William:
Just quoting, actually.
Why would anyone bother quote-mining you when your true positions are so ridiculous and inconsistent?
Anyway, about that overnight baby alien abduction….
You are correct. I have amended my statement.
“Let’s see if William can effectively defend his stance on objective morality on a site where he can’t silently ban people who persistently disagree with him.”
Is that better?
http://www.stopabductions.com/
THE THOUGHT SCREEN HELMET STOPS SPACE ALIENS FROM ABDUCTING HUMANS.
IT’S BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY BY FORMER ABDUCTEES FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS.
Inventor Michael Menkin wearing a thought screen helmet and pointing to Velostat protective lining. Photo copyright Michael Menkin 2009. All Rights Reserved.
That’s why I’ve never been abducted.
Glen Davidson
That helmet and my merkin renders me immune to all E.T. phenomena.
How does objective morality relate to alien abduction, William? Are aliens just a bunch of anti-theists, or what?
Real evidence this time.
If objective morality can’t even keep babies from being abducted by aliens, I really fail to see why it was decreed, or whatever, in the first place.
Maybe aliens are Lewontinites.
Glen Davidson
Chick magnets, too.
They’re, uh, somewhat different, however.
Glen Davidson
Oh so what you’re saying is that, for those atheists who deny objective morality, they do it because they think it leads to theism?
Let me instantly refute that: I don’t believe that morality would have an objective basis even if god existed.
So that can’t be the reason I (or other atheists) deny objective morality either. You have to find some other reason.
To declare that the reason your interlocutors don’t accept your arguments and conclusions is because of a “cognitive bias” is really just an ad-hoc excuse you subconsciously invent because of your cognitive bias.
I hope that with this response I have made the irony of your statement apparent. And it’s utter fruitlessness for the purposes of this kind of discussion.
Acartia,
Just needs to stop at ‘morality’, and it’ll be fine!
eta – I don’t give Willam credit for much, but the courage of his convictions, I do.
That something or someone creates you with a purpose in mind does not get you to you “oughting” to do something.
One cannot logically derive an ought from an is.
X created Y for the purpose of A, does not entail that Y ought to do A.
For example, even if it IS the case that God created William with the purpose of evangelizing for christianity, that does not entail that William OUGHT to evangelize for christianity.
You mean, for being obnoxiously closed-minded?
I wouldn’t deny it, but I don’t know what credit it deserves.
Glen Davidson
Arcatia said:
More evidence of either bad logic or cognitive bias. I’ve never claimed that objective morality is a fact. I don’t know what “effectively disputed” means.
I’ve answered this every time anyone brings it up: just because people from different times and cultures disagree about a thing doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t objectively exist or has no objective features. People from different times and cultures have disagreed about the nature of all sorts of things that are objectively existent, like what causes the transition from day to night or what causes sickness. More bad logic or cognitive bias.
Universal agreement is not required in order for a thing to have objective existence. Some people still believe that the earth is flat or hollow. Does this fact cast doubt on the objective nature of the physical characteristics of the Earth?
Rumraket said:
Many of them, yes.
Would one of the theists around here care to actually demonstrate that an objective morality exists? You know, rather than just assert that it does or blather about the possible consequences of beliefs in it’s non-existence, how about actually demonstrating that one exists?
Prove it.
GlenDavidson,
That’s somewhat different, and I’d agree. But the suggestion was one of hiding behind the UD banhammer, which, in the interests of fairness (though heaven knows why!), I’d refute.
Extremely bad logic, indeed.
Of course there are people who deny objective facts. We’ve read UD, Murray OPs, etc., so we know that. The point is not that no one can deny that unintelligent evolutionary processes gave rise to life’s forms, it’s that we have objective facts that indicate that they did. “Objective morality” lacks even the semblance of facts that indicate that it exists, and bringing up the lack of agreement is (properly) more of a way of backing up and exemplifying the lack of “facts” about “objective morality” whose absence in the first place is the primary issue.
As in, it’s really incumbent upon you to provide objective evidence for objective morality (and not your consequentialist nonsense), and not to shoot down counterexamples inadequately by falsely equating disagreement over objective matters with disagreement over subjective (by all appearances, at least) matters.
Glen Davidson
Are you a theist William? As commonly understood? Or are you just arguing on their behalf?