Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

Crashfrog presented you with the Golden Rule as his basis for morality, and you responded that there is a problem with that basis because it is subejctive.The 2nd Greatest Commandment according to Jesus in the Bible is to love your neighbor as yourself -- which is the Golden Rule in a nutshell.By insinuating that there is a problem with Crashfrog's moral basis, you insinuate that Jesus presented a faulty commandment in the Bible.

But you aren't tryign to debate whether *atheism* is rational.Atheism is not a worldview to start off with so you cannot prove your point by showing that any particular atheist's worldview has problems. So what you need to actually show is that it is atheism itself that is the problem. And how do you intend to do that without a comparison with theism ? Your worldview is MORE central to your claims since you presumably regard it as having solved the problems. So the rational argument would be to present YOUR worldview to show that theism does NOT have the same problems.

Oh.. ok.I understand what you mean now, but don't you see that this entirely misses the point of what we are debating???I did not say I disagree with Crashfrog, in fact I do agree with him in a sense. My point is that this answer does not make sense within the context of an atheistic worldview. Again, this is an internal criticism of atheism. Within the context of atheism, his answer is irrational. In fact, as you corectly pointed out, he in a way even presuposes the Christian worldview in order to make sense of the world. He does this(as do most atheists), yet denies the very maker and justification of such laws.

quote:

---

2)Hitlers Germany said it was not wrong to kill jews. Was it wrong for Hitler to kill millions of jews?
Explain why or why not.

---

This raises a relevant issue. Given the Nazi worldview - by your own statement - it was not wrong and could well have been the morally correct thing to do.So unless you wish to take a radically subjectivist view in which the Nazi viewpoint would be as valid as yours, simply having a worldview that states that certain acts are or are not objectively wrong is insufficient.

If I have to ask you to support these assertions one more time, I'm going to scream.QUIT SAYING IT'S IRRATIONAL AND SHOW US WHY YOU THINK SO ALREADY! This is complete and utter nonsense. Crashfrog does nothing of the sort. No one needs to "presuppose the Christian worldview" in order to live by the Golden Rule. It's plain to see that if you do not like the reality of action X, then it is appropriate that you do not make action X a reality yourself. Or, conversely, if you DO like the reality of action Y, then you should make action Y a reality. The historical evidence seems to indicate that Christ was not the "maker" of this law, seeing that it was being professed by Siddhartha Guatama some 500 years before Christ came onto the scene.BTW - Buddhism is atheistic.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-29-2004]

I think Grace is talking about irrational concept of "grounding" your morality; that is defending it against the infinite regress of "why's". He thinks that God can somehow ground morality and that atheists cannot do this since they do not believe in God. What I think he misses is that every moral system is based on axioms, such as "Do not treat others as mere means" or "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you", and that his system is no exception. I would say he acts under the axiom, "Whatever the Father does is good" or something to that effect.I don't see how you can defend how one should act (the concept of a moral action) without following with the statement "if you abide by the X principle(s).I may be completely off, so I'm sorry for interjecting if that is the case. I think morality is a sort of controversial atheists and theists alike. We are all on the same boat

Do they want to be raped?You misunderstood the justification. It's not based on "do unto others as you want them to do unto you." It's "do unto others as you would have them do unto everybody."So, what you want is irrelevant, insomuch as you have no particular desire for personal misfortune. The majority of society doesn't want to be raped, so being raped will be illegal.If you want to rape people, that's fine - you just can't do it here. If you can't play by society's rules, then you don't get to live here. It may be that if you do something bad enough, you don't get to live anywhere.It's totally subjective, yes. It's based on the observable fact that societies determine their own morals. You're free to play by those rules or go somewhere else. It makes a lot more sense than the theistic worldview, which can't explain how to tell the difference between the divinely-inspired moral code and the human- or devil-originating morals that work just fine anyway. If the animal is capable of expressing its discontent, then I suggest that you let it go. Other than that I don't think any reasonable people expect animals to care about their own sense of self-determination, if they even have it. Honestly I don't see the relevance of this question here. There's plenty of moral relativists who think you shouldn't own animals, or even eat them. But like all moral choices it ultimately comes down to society's preferences.

No, it makes perfect sense.Where would societies get morals if there's no God around to deliver them? Why, they make them up themselves.If they're making them up themselves, which morals will the choose? The ones that most of the people living in the society can agree with.Even in a religious autocracy, morality is democratic. It's theism that can't rationally account for the vast plurality of valid, functional moral codes in the world.

Ok. I think we agree that it does exist.
This comment however is quite interesting..... 1) What is your justification for this statement? Why can’t it be used to abuse a lesser being.
2) Doesn’t this statement clash with what an atheistic worldview would imply(in particular an evolutionary one)? Shouldn’t that be allowed? To abuse lesser beings so your being could better survive and evolve to a better standard?
3)Do you not see, how from an internal criticism, this statement seems arbitrary and subjective yet you assume it is true? In other words, you say human dignity basically exists and it is basically good as long as it is not used as a justification to abuse lesser beings. In context with a naturalistic atheistic worldview, how is this a rational and consistent statement? It is in a Christian worldview because that lesser being is created in Gods image as we are and is of equal worth to God. Ok, we agree.
4)But my question is, how can this be rational within the context of an evolutionary atheistic worldview?
5) In a worldview where God doesn’t exist, what is the justification behind having a fundamental ethical principle such as the Golden Rule?
6)You say that it is wrong to own a slave because it is against your personal moral view and societies accepted morality. Does this then imply that the slave owners in the past were justified in owning slaves? Can you say today, that they were wrong in owning slaves?
7)What about the crusades? Was it wrong for Christians to go and kill muslims in the name of Christ? And yes again, was Hitler wrong for killing the jews?It seems to me that you are forced into a strange and irrational sequence of thought that must conclude that Hitler was not wrong in killing the jews. This is diametricely opposed to what the human experience tells us about whether Hitler was wrong or not. You must subjectively decide that morality is simply a subjective entity because this is the only way it will fit within your worldview. In doing this however, you are denying what the human experience would tell us about such actions.Furthermore, your comment: demonstrates your inability to NOT borrow from theism. You are making statements, assuming that there is some moral truth in existence. You say that the latter is not a great moral offence in itself.
8)By whose standards? For you? What about for me? You see, you refer to some absolute moral authority, even though you deny one exists. You still expect others to adhere to this moral standard do you not? I suppose this is an attempt to fault God for not commanding the abolition of slavery am I correct? You see, the problem contained within atheism. It is quite clear that this response is not adequate philosophically. It is entirely subjective to your beliefs. It is arbitrary in that you simply pick and choose what is ok and what is not.
9)Atheism requires that we have evolved from naturalistic processes. Would you agree?
10)What then is the difference between a human slave and an animal slave?There is a difference but atheism can not account for that difference in a rational and coherent way. You suggest that it is because they can not partake in human society as you have arbitrarily defined it. The slaves from Africa certainly could not partake in society as the slave owners knew it. This also introduces a problem since it might suggest that if someone can’t partake in society then they can be lorded over and perhaps be enslaved.
Do you not see that there is a fundamental, self-evident difference between humans and non-humans, one that atheism can not adequately explain? This is what human dignity is.It seems as if the position you maintain is that human dignity is simply a byproduct of the desire for man to follow the golden rule which is subjective depending on the society or person.11)What I don't follow is how can you then hold other societies responsible for past actions if their society allowed such actions.You see, there must be an absolute moral authority in existence somewhere. You might not think its the Christian God, but there must be one in existence else a worldview can not account for that part of human experience.12)So if morality is subjective to a society or a person, is it ok for a state to torture political prisoners as the case was in Argentina a couple decades ago?
13)Who are we to judge their actions if their society sanctioned such crimes as torturing individuals for political gain?So my next question then is:
14)Please explain to me the justification behind judging other peoples actions in a world void of an ALL moral God. To be specific, explain why it was wrong for Hitler to enslave millions of Jews in concentration camps. If you don't think he was wrong, please state this.15)Suppose a country such as the USA did something like this today -against a minority. Would you say it was ok for them to do it?16)Should I be allowed to enslave someone who was blind,deaf,mute, mentaly handicapped and couldn't contribute to our society-similar to how a pack mule could be viewed?17)Should we kill off the elderly when they get sick and become a tax on the economy since they can adversly effect the survival of our species? Why or why not?Now, to answer your question, By todays standards of what slavery is, the answer is no. To justify this answer, I would refer you to the nature and character of God as revealed in the old and new testaments. This nature is the standard of our understanding of morality since all moral inclinations are a direct reflection of His glory. So from an internal critique of Christian theism, there is no contradiction and no arbitrariness. If you think there is, you’ll have to demonstrate this (without presupposing a humanistic ethic).If I have misunderstood you in any of your comments, my apologies.Regards,

Grace, if it's not too much to ask, I'd like you to directly address post #69 of this thread. It seems to me that many of the lines of argument you are advancing in your response to PaulK were adequately refuted in this post, and that you seem to think it's okay to continue arguing them as though they have not been refuted as long as you ignore that post.

Dealt with in my post #14 where I said:

quote:

---

Evolution doesn't "suggest" any type of behavior any more than a theory of gravity would "suggest" that people should be pushed off of high cliffs in order to follow their natural geodesic. Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive.

---

I noticed you had no response to that post. Dealt with in my post #80 where I said:

quote:

---

It's plain to see that if you do not like the reality of action X, then it is appropriate that you do not make action X a reality yourself. Or, conversely, if you DO like the reality of action Y, then you should make action Y a reality.

---

I noticed you had no response to that post. Dealt with in my post #69 where I said:

quote:

---

Your question above is about as nonsensical as if I'd asked you: "Suppose I think doggy doo-doo is delicious, does this mean you think doggy doo-doo is delicious too?" Of course not! And neither does it follow that he should think rape is moral from the simple fact that you do. We are each autonomous sentient beings capable of making independant moral evaluations, and there is no force in the universe which requires them to be perfectly aligned.

---

I noticed you had no response to that post.EDIT: Found one more... Dealt with in my post #53 where I said:

quote:

---

It seems to me, from having witnessed you proffer this assertion repeatedly, that what you believe to be "self-evident" is in reality something the existence of which you cannot actually demonstrate and must therefore postulate without any substantive support. Things that are "self-evident" to you, are not so evident to myself nor many of the other atheists on this forum -- quite falsifying your claim that they are self-evident. Your only recourse is to either accompany your assertion with an appropriate demonstration, or insist that we're all simply bind to the truth. In a situation where person A claims to observe something that person B does not, there are two possible explanaions:
1.) Person B is blind to the truth
2.) Person A is confused, hallucinating, imagining the thing, etc...

​

Neither option should be discarded a priori, so in order to settle it we must propose objectively testible hypotheses that would differentiate them. Since it is your claim that these "self-evident" things exists, what objective tests could we conduct that would unambiguously confirm position (1) from above?

​

Short of an answer to this problem, all of your assertions are unfounded and baseless. I insist that before you continue to post them, you support them with actual evdidence lest you be found in violation of the forum's rules.

---

I noticed you had no response to that post.The rest of your questions are covered by at least one of those rebuttals if not all of them. Why don't you address these for a change?[This message has been edited by ::, 01-29-2004]

OK lets start with some basics.1) If it is wrong to abuse animals then doing so on the basis of human dignity is wrong. That would seem to be reasonable would it not ?
Do you suggest that humans may treat animals in any way that they wish based solely on human dignity ?2) Since evolution's only relationship ot morality is that it offers a partial explanation of the origin of morality there can be no clash. What you are invoking is a form of the Naturalistic Fallacy. In fact theism would offer a better justification for this sort of thinking. (Assuming a moral Creator God, then since nature as God's creation the ordinary operations of nature - including evolution - must also be moral. In an atheistic view nature is amoral).3) You ask how it is a rational and consistent statement. Well what is irrational about it and how is it inconsistent with anything else I've said ? Did you even consider what I wrote on the nature of morality ?4) See answer to 3 above.5) See answer to 3 above.6) What do you mean by justified ? The vast majority of them would have beleived that they were justified. Unless it is really true that it is self-evident that slavery was wrong in which case they would have known that they were not justified. Were they justified according to the current morality of Western society ? No, Nor were they justified according to my personal moral views.7) What about the Crusades ? Since you bring them up don't they demonstrate that Christian morality is not a fixed objective structure, but something that has changed over time - it is itself subjective.
I would have chosen the Churches' attitude to Usury as an example myself. And I've already shown how the example of Hitler undermines your argument. For all these examples MY answers are much the same as that for 6 above. Just remember that each of these had a worldvew were morlaity was objective and THEY were right.I would add that using a well-known phrase to illustrate a concept that is generally known and accepted does not constitute a significant "borrowing from theism". You really ARE desperate to get that in aren't you ?8) Since I did NOT refer to any absolute moral authority this point is in erorr. Also I have no wish to fault God for anything since God does not exist.9) I disagree. There are many views compatible with atheism.10) Animals can't be slaves by definition. I already eplained why animals are treated differently. Calling a clear fact an "arbitrary definition" as you do is laughable. If you beleive otherwise then please start a campaign to give pet cats and dogs the right to vote. And if you really beleive that the African slaves were incapable of partaking in human society then - well you're saying that the slave owners were right.
I am not denying the differences between humans and other animals - although you have just done so by calling the distinction arbitrary and you have suggested that the African slaves shoudl be classified with animals If you do not realise that you have done these things then you really don't understand what you are tryign to refute.And no, I did not say that human dignity is solely the result of rying to follow the Golden rule.11) Why can I not use my moral standards to judge other societies ? That is what moral standards are for is it not ? What I can't do is state that my standards are objectively correct. But then, in truth, neither can you. SO how do I need an absolute standard ?12) I explicitly stated that both socities and individual standards were relevant. Also consider the Golden Rule.13) See answer to 11.14) see answer to 11.15) see answer to 1116) No. They're still humans and recognised as part of human society.17) No, they're still part of society.Now to your answer to my question.
Christian scripture implictly condones slavery. Nowhere does it forbid the keeping of slaves. So you have no objective basis for sayign that you cannot keep slaves based solely on Christianity. Your moral views are, at least in part, subjective even given your worldview (which is yet another piece of subjectivity).Now lets get to the central point.
Either there is an objective morality or there isn't. Either view is compatible with atheism. (e.g. Objectivism - while explicitly atheist - claims to be able to objectively prove their moral code - and if you accept their worldview they can).Either we can show that a view is objectively moral - without appealing to questionable assumptions - or we can't. And the fact is that we cannot. So whether there really is an objective morality our morals are still subjective views.So we either admit that our moral views are subjective or we pretend that they are objective truths. Theism is one way to support such a pretence. And that is the difference that underlies your arguent.It is not that atheism is inadequate - it is that theism is a convenient way to prop up a view that cannot be defended on its own merits. And even if that were desirable theism is not the only way.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-30-2004]

Yes it is. Why? Because my entirely subjective morality states that rape is wrong. Societies entirely subjective morality also states it is wrong, so if they can catch you they will punish you for it. Yes it was. Why? Because my entirely subjective morality states that it was wrong for him to do so.There is no external to humanity criteria on which to base these judgements. None. At all. Ever. Anywhere. It is not a fact about the universe that it was wrong for Hitler to murder jews. There is no right/wrong facts about the universe. None. No-where. Ever.

Only an idiot uses science as a basis for morality. That's like claiming that the theory of gravity means I should run in circles round fat people. Who said anything about assuming truth? There is no truth in morality. It is entirely subjective.

grace, please indicate if you intend to reply to me in the "Confused" topic in this forum.