Atheism, Regimes and belief systems

One can believe anything, but I see no logical justification for this belief, if one is an atheist.

The only reasonable position for an atheist, in my view, is nihilism.

In addition, a concept of an absolute morality is consistent with atheism. One certainly gets the impression that the traditional Marxists, atheists as most of them are, felt that their beliefs and ethics were absolute.(And, on the other hand, there is nothing to prevent a theist from believing that morality is subjective, either.)

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

What the Marxists believe, or atheists about the absoluteness of their ethics and morality, or what theists believe about theirs, or in fact what anybody at all believes about their own ethics and moral standards, does not determine whether their ethics and morality are ACTUALLY absolute or otherwise. What people believe is subjective.For ethics or morals to be absolute or objective, there must be an EXTERNAL standard that is recognizable as such. This is supplied by the Bible for instance. It needn't be recognized by everybody as binding in order to be recognized as an absolute standard, but it is clearly presented as an absolute standard given by the Creator, and it is for that reason outside all subjective moralities and ethics. It doesn't matter what anyone THINKS about it, it is an absolute objective standard simply because it was given by God. You can dispute that it was given by God but it is still an absolute standard by definition because it is imputed to God.All other standards held by anyone for whatever reason, are subjective standards, because they are human-originated, determined by one's own personal feelings, or a particular system of thought, or a culture or whatever, but human-originated. The only way a human-originated standard could be considered to be objective or absolute is if all human beings always recognized it as absolute. In other words, I can't see how an atheist can ever claim to adhere to an absolute standard. There will not be 100% agreement on his standard and he certainly will not impute his standard to God, so on what basis could his standard be absolute? If you say "Well, it's absolute to ME, I consider it binding and inviolable," that doesn't make it absolute. {ABE: Possibly, if you consider your standard to be absolute and binding on all human beings as well as yourself, that would qualify it as absolute. Since it's just you thinking this up, however, I'd have a hard time going too far with this idea, but it's a thought.}This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2006 02:11 PM

Well, if an atheist could believe that there is an objective, absolute reality, why couldn't he believe that that reality implies an objective, absolute morality? In other words, if a given situation that provides a certain choice can be presumed to objectively, absolutely exist, then why couldn't that choice be presumed to have some number of morally right alternatives and some number of morally wrong ones?Makes perfect sense to me. I don't believe it, of course, but it seems as logically sound as anything. If one is able to believe in the reality of making a choice, then one should surely have no problem with the reality of the outcome of that choice being morally right or wrong.

Do atheists believe there is an objective absolute reality, or that there is an objective absolute reality that supplies a basis for morality? If they believe in an objective absolute purely physical material reality, what basis could there possibly be for an absolute morality? I don't know what you mean. Choice? Given situation? Please clarify.

Hi, Faith.

quote:

---

What the Marxists believe, or atheists about the absoluteness of their ethics and morality, or what theists believe about theirs, or in fact what anybody at all believes about their own ethics and moral standards, does not determine whether their ethics and morality are ACTUALLY absolute or otherwise.

---

I agree with this completely. What anyone believes or does not believe may not reflect what is true in reality.All I intended to do was to point out that existence of God and existence of an absolute moral standard are logically independent. One can believe in the existence of both, believe that neither exists, or believe in one but not the other without any logical inconsistency.-

quote:

---

For ethics or morals to be absolute or objective, there must be an EXTERNAL standard that is recognizable as such.

---

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but if you mean what I think you do, then I probably agree with you.I will point out, though, that it is possible to believe that there is an external standard without knowing what this standard is, and/or without fully understanding how this standard comes about.-

quote:

---

In other words, I can't see how an atheist can ever claim to adhere to an absolute standard.

---

Nor can I see how a Christian (or other religious believer) can make such a claim. I merely recognize that some do. I also admit that, like the existence of God, I cannot completely prove that an absolute standard of morality does not exist. I can only explain why I believe that it does not, and hope that the explanation sounds reasonable, even if it doesn't convince the believer.Edited to correct a serious typo in the last paragraph.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 15-Apr-2006 06:44 PM

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Hi back Chiroptera, Then what the Marxists believe about the absoluteness of their own morality doesn't establish whether their morality is absolute or not, so you don't agree with your original statement as written? I don't see how, at least if you are talking about an omnipotent omniscient Creator God. His existence would certainly establish the absolute nature of any moral standard within His created universe. I don't think this is so. I think you must have an absolute objective external standard as the basis for the absoluteness of any moral or ethical system. You can of course believe in any of these things, but NOT without logical inconsistency. I really think the only truly absolute objective standard is a law-giving omnipotent God (no matter who does or doesn't believe in Him), but if there were such a thing as all human beings everywhere in all times agreeing on a particular moral standard I think I'd consider that standard to qualify as absolute and objective too. At least I consider that open to discussion. But such a situation doesn't exist. And I can't think of any other way an absolute standard could be arrived at. Words are hard to pin down. I mean: external to our psyches, our feelings, our likes and dislikes, our beliefs, external to culture, in fact external to any human-determined context (unless there is one that is absolutely universally shared by all, as I've said above). Something that all can agree is objectively given in the nature of things, rather than something we have any power to invent, determine, or affect. Since I believe in the fallen nature of humanity, which has distorted the original perfect reflection of God and His Law, I readily agree to this, but I'd need to know more about what you mean by it to be sure. My choice of words wasn't the best although I think you are using them in the same sense I did. Of course anyone can claim anything, but actually to adhere to an absolute standard is what I can't see any atheist doing, because there are no grounds for such an absolute moral standard if you are an atheist that I can see so far -- only an omnipotent law-giving Creator God or 100% agreement among humanity would make a standard absolute it seems to me. My point, however, was that a God-given morality -- as I've been defining it -- would not be subject to anybody's belief for or against. If such exists then it is absolute, whether you believe it exists or not.
==================================================================== ABE: I don't know how far off topic this is on this thread, if it is, but I think we should probably be arguing it on the Morality and Subjectivity thread. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2006 03:17 PM

Atheists do not have a belief in God.That's it. No other philsophical positions come under the heading of "atheist." It's like asking if atheists are people who prefer white or red wine. So the answer to your question is probably "both." Reality. The reality itself forms the basis for the morality. What are morals, if not statements about what it would be right and wrong to choose in a given situation?I say "given situation" because the idea of physical law can be described in a similar way - physical laws describe what will happen given a certain situation. In regards to people physical law determines what we can and cannot do. Moral law, on the other hand, tells us what is right and wrong for us to do. With me so far?I was simply trying to say that anybody who doesn't reject the idea of an independant, objective, absolute reality (in other words - is not a solipcist) could simply state that that reality implies an objective, absolute morality as a consequence. On the other hand, someone who doesn't even accept that a given situation is actually real certainly couldn't agree that there was an inherent, absolute moral right and wrong in that situation.Sorry if that's not much clearer.

There might be something called logical implications. If one believes such, one also has to accept such-and-such.

nonsense.logical implications are generally determined by people outside of the situation and people with their own biases. we've already suufered your 'atheist=materialist=nihilist' thread and no matter how much you and faith agree, that doesn't make it an accurate representation of the facts. atheism only ONLY translates to the lack of belief in any god. this does not demand that one disbelieves in existence or that one cannot believe in the perseverance of the human soul or in the lack of farandolae or the sky being pink or blue or the existence of invisible yet colorful animals....it means none of this. just because you think that these things logically follow does not mean they do. it is quite possible that the soul evolved. i don't see why not. i don't see why anything need be impossible. just because there is no supreme being to direct it means NOTHING.

Well, we can argue that if you like. For one thing, atheism means a lack of purpose in human life.

Anti-thiesm would be a program of trying to eradicate {other} religions, and while the logical conclusion is that this would apply to ardent and vocal atheists, you can also see similar persecution of other religions whenever you have a theocracy.Religions are generally intolerant of other religions - most religious wars are due to this intolerance.

nonsense. the purpose in human life is to perpetuate human life, just like all animals.atheism means that the purpose in life is not to "glorify god and enjoy him forever" but rather to try to make the world better for the next generation, or to get laid a lot, or to found a non-profit, or to solve world hunger, or to drink every wine there is. there could be lots of meaning. just as long as it's not "to glorify god and enjoy him forever."This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-15-2006 09:44 PM

How do you come to the conclusion that atheism is equated to a lack of purpose in human life?