|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The boasts of atheists (Atheist self-deception) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Robin's nausea and Robin's philosophical point may be getting hopelessly confused in this thread.
purpledawn writes:
unknown poster writes: The claim that morality cannot exist without belief in an archaic mythology is simply false. By my own existence as an atheist and a man of exemplary moral character, my existence (as well as the vast number of moral atheists out there) I disprove the first premise. Thus, the entire argument is invalid. The author used himself as an example to disprove this premise:
robin writes: 1. If God exists, then God and God alone decides what is (truly) right and wrong. Without God there could be no ultimate standards of morality. Just because you don't know anyone with a moral character worth imitating (exemplary), doesn't mean that those people don't exist. The idea that without God there could be "no ultimate standards of morality" does not contradict the idea that atheists may have high moral standards of their own, as I believe Robin has acknowledged many times. In fact since he himself is an atheist who considers himself to have high moral standards, that *can't* be what he is saying. It's just that unless there is a God those standards cannot be "ultimate" but personal and subjectively chosen.
His statement also doesn't mean that he's never had to weather life's storms. He's not saying that everything always works out perfectly for him. I don't think Robin is questioning the truthfulness of any of the "boasts," just that they are personal choices, and that makes them subjective, and to brag about them fails to grasp this fundamental point he keeps trying to make. There's got to be more to the GI upset than that but I don't know what all he has in mind.
PD writes: So why do you feel the need to regurgitate because someone claims:
unknown poster writes: I have no criminal record. I have committed no crimes that aren't victimless (such as speeding). I sacrifice for the good of others in various ways. I am honest and care for people in my locality. I am the best, most loyal friend you will ever have if you are so lucky as to earn my regard. I have a carefully considered moral code that I adhere to strenuously. I hope Robin will explain what he means by the nausea, but rather than treat it as merely a reaction to boasting, maybe more can be made out of the overall context of this discussion as an expression of what the Existentialists were trying to say, which is what it brings to mind for me. Jean-Paul Sartre for instance wrote a novel titled Nausea which is all about the problem of existence, and that problem for the Existentialists began with the Death of God in the 19th century: Basically the meaninglessness of human life without an ultimate purpose or cause. Doesn't mean that people don't invent meanings and moralities and happiness, but does mean that they do so in spite of this lack of ultimate meaning, and the very necessity of doing so is felt by these philosophers as a sort of plague. "The freedom that man is condemned to," the "absurdity" of life, etc., are the preoccupations of the Existentialists. Freedom to do whatever you want, no God to tell you what to do, no objective moral underpinnings, you have to make them up yourself, etc. etc. etc.
Art, perhaps, is the way to transcend the nauseating predicament of human nothingness in the face of pure existence. As Sartre emphasizes time and again, the human condition is that of complete freedom: we are our own maker. Through creatively exercising the freedom that man is condemned to, Roquentin can perhaps find a cure for his nausea. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905—1980) Nausea Summary & Analysis | SparkNotes Funny, though, the existentialists do a terrific job of describing the moral and every other kind of emptiness of life in the absence of an ultimate or objective purpose, but yet they go on to propose their own morality, rather dogmatically and stridently, as if it were in fact objective and absolute, as if they'd forgotten they'd already declared such an objective absolute morality impossible and nonexistent. Only Nietzsche, an earlier Existentialist, was completely consistent about the death of morality as a result of the Death of God. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : changed sentence about Existentialists' dogmatic morality for clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is not the point. Nobody has said nonChristians don't have moral standards. All that has been said is that without God there are no ABSOLUTE or ULTIMATE or OBJECTIVE moral standards, but only ones we choose, subjective standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And so far no one has shown that there are any ABSOLUTE or ULTIMATE or OBJECTIVE moral standards if there is a GOD, so what is the point? This thread like all the others robin has started seems to be a stream of unfounded assertions based on fallacious reasoning. It's a humorous escapade into the realm of nonsense and fantasy. No, this is a hypothetical logic problem. Nobody has even SAID there ARE objective, ultimate absolute moral standards. What has been actually SAID is that there are none UNLESS there is a God. Logically speaking, in other words, just following through on this hypothetical situation, even if there WERE a God there MIGHT not be any. Sticking to the logic of the proposition, there is no call to try to specify what the standards might be IF there were a God and IF He gave absolute standards. That is not what is being discussed.
None other than Robin said "Except in a practical sense, it will not do to speak of such things as happiness and morality." That pretty much sums up the options, the practical world of those he quotes compared to some impractical world of chimera he inhabits This is a complete misreading of what he is saying. He has over and over said he personally inhabits that practical world in which in a practical sense one speaks of such things as happiness and morality, and this, he says, is because he doesn't believe in God, and this is all that anyone can do who doesn't believe in God, subjectively invent a practical kind of happiness and morality. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
1. Premise. If there is not a God the only kind of morality and happiness anyone can have is subjective, practical.
2. As stated, this doesn't not necessarily mean that things are any different if there IS a God. 3. The way an atheist "should never speak" is about happiness and morality in any terms OTHER than practical and subjective. 4. What this further means (I guess. Robin can correct me) is that honesty requires a more sober assessment of happiness and morality in the absence of a God /absence of absolute standards than Robin thinks is expressed in what he calls "boasting" tones. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hooray, you're getting it, Phat.
I don't think Robin is a depressive at all however. He just thinks seriously about the meaning of life and it makes him sick when people talk about it lightly, make so much out of temporary subjective modes of happiness, as if death weren't the #1 enormous looming threat to us all that it is. William Law is one of a few dozen greatest exhorters to the Christian life in my opinion. I've been very surprised at how Robin the atheist-nihilist seems to be drawn to Christian writers, even Jonathan Edwards who is hated by so many. I still haven't figured out for sure if Robin's nausea is just about a distaste for boasting. I think it has to *really* be more about his sense that life is bigger than such pleasures and standards as people are boasting about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, if I'm mindreading I'm mindreading myself when I was an atheist too, because I had many of the same feelings Robin is expressing, primarily a disgust with the very common seeming denial and trivialization of the human predicament.
I can't say he'll end up a Christian although I did, but of course I hope he does since of course I believe it is what human life was made for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The storm before the calm... Unless it is simply drowned out by the duties and demands -- and pleasures -- of life or drink or drugs or the like. Which apparently some can manage without ever turning to God. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Believe me I've interrogated him via email and he's not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually he didn't say anything much different than he's already said on the board here. Nothing to indicate to me that he's a Christian.
But he HASN'T said atheists all believe a certain thing. In talking about atheist boasting, that's just about the atheists who boast, not all atheists, but a KIND of boasting that an atheist would do if an atheist boasted And I don't see this bit about how he's supposedly claimed to know what others think or believe. All a nihilist is is someone who believes there is no ultimate meaning to life. Most of you all here are nihilists, but you bury it under meanings you invent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course. But a far less dangerous position to occupy that the self-satisfied-all-is-well-with-the-world stance Yes, that is why we have hope for Robin, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All a nihilist is is someone who believes there is no ultimate meaning to life. Most of you all here are nihilists, but you bury it under meanings you invent.
Well, Christianity is nihilistic as well, so we are all in the same boat. Don't see what you can possibly mean by this. Christianity gives an ultimate meaning to life. The opposite of nihilism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I just can't handle the "wonder of life" syndrome. Yes, that makes more sense of the issue than "boasting" does, to my mind anyway. It's like I feel like throwing up at the song "We are the world, we are the children" and other such mindlessness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
According to Nietzsche. Ha ha ha.
There's nothing nihilistic about Christianity concerning this life OR the next.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Seems a little odd as an atheist to talk about anybody either being or not being one's "Lord" don't you think? The whole concept of Jesus as Lord is alien to anyone but us Christians.
What if he said "I don't believe Jesus is God" or "I don't follow Jesus" or something like that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Jesus is Lord is a little different from Jesus is MY Lord or NOT my Lord. But I have no doubt he can say it even if it does sound odd to him. He's not a Christian, Iano. What Christian would play such games anyway?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024