Atheism, Regimes and belief systems

I'm sorry but what is your basis for saying this at all? i have a purpose in life, to enjoy life and explore the world. It sounds like you are trying to add in some outside purpose that will never work with lifeforms with choice

The idea is that without a Creator God there is no objective absolute purpose for human life as such, and it has been acknowledged many times already that yes of course people make their own personal subjective purposes, which is not the point.Edit to eliminate irritable tone.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-16-2006 12:35 PM

Man, Quetzal! You make me scramble to keep up with your definitions of words and your world view of reality! I did a bit of researchinto philosophies and their origins, and conclude so far that I am an a-priori kind of guy. You could say that one of several antithesis to that is empiricism: So by my assertion that knowledge originates with God, I am at an impasse with the atheist who would assert that I am an atheist toward all but one god. I would maintain that he/she is a theist by default, since human wisdom is still the origin of rational thought, in their belief.Im still learning these terms and the implications of them, however.Some of the other terms I looked at were Positivism and Pragmatism.
One preacher called pragmitism a "tool of the devil", so it must be quite interesting!

An atheist does not believe in any gods, she might believe in telepathy, astrology, or that the spirits of the dead walk the earth, as none of these things hinge on the belief in gods.What you describe sounds more like scientism or materialism, these are atheistic philosophies for sure, but you do not have to subsscribe to them just because you do not believe in gods.

This does not logically follow. Some people might for instance that the pupose of all life is to breede and enable the survival of the species, as an animal this is then the absolute objective purpose of human life.I do not hold this conviction myself but it is logically consistent with atheism.That was just one possibility of holding an absolute meaning with human life.

'Morning, Faith.You are right: this discussion is off-topic for this thread. The OP asked what we would do if it turns out that there is a god after all. I've already explained the possible reactions I would have.Cheers.Added by edit:Oops. Wrong thread.Nonetheless, the discussion between Faith and I (concerning whether or not an objective moral standard is possible, and whether the existence of a deity is any help in resolving this) is getting to be a bit off-topic.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 17-Apr-2006 04:23 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)

Such a purpose is not objective--it's something somebody thought up. A purpose is that for which something is made. We were made by nature, which had nothing in mind when it made us. Nature has no mind. So we have no purpose.

Yes, and since my argument is that one way, and perhaps the only way, we would have an objective moral system would be if there is an omnipotent omniscient Creator God who made everything, then atheists can have no objective basis for morality. I was asking if maybe you could point to an objective absolute reality atheists believe in. A purely physical material reality isn't a basis for any morality at all. Atheists have to refer to their own thoughts and feelings about any given situation to arrive at their morality just as we all do, as there is no objective absolute basis for morality unless there is a God. At least I haven't been able to find one, although I think if everyone everywhere agreed on a particular moral standard, that might constitute one, but I'm not even sure about that. Not sure it is, crash. At least, I don't see that you've shown any basis for an objective absolute morality from "reality" at all. The existence of "reality" doesn't demand any particular moral code that I can see.

Ah, okay. Now I've got you. In that case, I don't disagree with you at all. Thanks for the clarification.

I would argue that perhaps morality could be seen as individually subjective and collectively objective through an agreed upon consensus.To you, Faith, the atheist is lumped together with all those who believe in the "wrong" gods...and so perhaps you see the result as a society with a hierarchy not unlike the pyramid with no Capstone...
(Jesus) and the eye of Baal (representing the false idea of human wisdom) at the top. I am speculating as to how you view the situation, however.

So in a spiritual sense, what you are describing all originate with human spirit....am I correct?

Actually, it appears Kongstad beat me to the response. See his/her message 34 (immediately after the message to which I'm replying). I couldn't really say it better. All the philosophies and approaches you mention are logically consistent with atheism, but do not necessarily derive from atheism - at least in the sense that atheism doesn't require those philosophies. An atheist can believe in all kinds of weird things - the only defining element is a dis-belief in deities.If you're trying to pigeon-hole atheism, at least as an attempt to figure out what all the fuss is about, you may be in trouble. Atheism - or at least all the philosophical approaches that may or may not have led someone to atheism - is pretty subjective.

Is my Tower of Babel analogy akin to how you view the Big Picture, Faith?Looking at the pyramid on the dollar bill, novus order seclorum actually means a new secular order. Some have suggested that society (masons=builders) and the architects of human society have sought secularism as a preference over religion because they wanted nothing to do with Jesus as the Capstone of the whole "building".Thats just one interpretational flow, however...yet it axplains atheism as logical by human reasoning standards.

Seems to me, Phat, that I'm merely applying myself to trying to figure out objectively if there are any conditions in which we can claim there is an objective absolute morality that is binding or at least applicable to all human beings everywhere always.All I've been able to come up with are two possibilities: one way such an absolute morality would exist is if there is an omnipotent omniscient Creator God who made all of it as His moral code would naturally be the definitive rule of behavior for creation as He conceived it.The only other way I can think of is if all human beings everywhere in all times agree on a particular moral standard -- that might be enough to establish that moral standard as objective and absolute.

I see your point and I agree.There is no objective standard for atheism apart from my assertion of belief in human wisdom. We all could be said to be ascribed to that anyway...believer and non-believer.There is no way to prove that God is an objective Spirit outside of us yet in communion through relationship.No pidgeons, today!