Who's Been Running The United States?
News1 min ago
Why not ignore those dratted atheists?
52 Answers
Yet again the plaintive cry has been heard that those dratted atheists who dare to rock the rickety boat of religion with frequent gusts of rationality are preventing the faithful from discussing their beliefs as they would wish to discuss them here. The fact is if the faithful choose not to enter into discussion with those who oppose their views, it is their choice. No one is imposing that choice upon them. At the risk of stating the obvious, why don’t they and their apologists do what they do with their religious literature and simply ignore the contradictions? They are not going to stop anyone contributing to any thread – and nor should they attempt to - but at least if they disregard what they see as negative comments, they can waffle on between themselves to their heart’s content. Just an idea.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
seadogg //If the religionists think the atheists are a waste of space and vice versa, why do they waste so much space together?//
I don't see it as a waste. The exposure of the tenets of religious philosophies is a worthy pursuit. The theists inevitably show their position to be untenable yet doggedly continue to hold on often to the extent of being ridiculous.
The more this is demonstrated to young people not yet infected with religion the more atheist attitudes will prevail across the planet. Knowledge is the antidote to the deist poison.
I am grateful that the theists readily give us the opportunity to reveal the true nature of their beliefs in their own words.
I don't see it as a waste. The exposure of the tenets of religious philosophies is a worthy pursuit. The theists inevitably show their position to be untenable yet doggedly continue to hold on often to the extent of being ridiculous.
The more this is demonstrated to young people not yet infected with religion the more atheist attitudes will prevail across the planet. Knowledge is the antidote to the deist poison.
I am grateful that the theists readily give us the opportunity to reveal the true nature of their beliefs in their own words.
Zacs, sorry if my answer appeared condescending. Quite unintentional I assure you. Apart from the fact that some of the religious here claim they are prevented from posting in this section because the atheists are hostile, which of course is not true because they really do have a choice, some religions do not offer a choice insofar as if a dissident chooses incorrectly the consequences can prove rather unhealthy - and that is what I was referring to in my response to your post.
@JohnySid
Your common themes, which you return to again, and again, and again, ad nauseum - marxism/post-marxism. post-structuralism. moral
relativism. Science less able than Religion to offer moral guidance.You seem,to me,to be obsessed with trying to categorise people
into pidgeon holes of your own interpretation, offering no grey areas, but only black and white distinctions. I suppose we can be
thankful at least that you are not pimping your own blog, this time around....
In your world, Materialism cannot make a distinction between what can be considered good and what can be considered evil.
Materialism, to you, is Amoral - total,Moral Relativism, with no facility to distinguish between good and evil. This is simply
untrue.I would reject your definition of Materialism, by the way - it is, to me, an essentially an outmoded term - and offer a more
nuanced term, which would be Physicalism.
1. Religion does not equal Morality, although they try very hard to convince you otherwise.
2. Authority and the Establishment are no longer the final arbiters of Cultural or Moral values. Individuals are now far more
inclined to create their own moral codes and cultural values, based upon a bedrock of shared values derived from family, education,
prevailing culture.This is, broadly speaking, a Good Thing.
3.Mankinds progress has travelled hand in hand with greater personal economic wealth, certainly for what constitutes the developed
world. Communities are much less homogenous than they once were.Cross cultural pollination and exposure to cultural diversity has
increased with improved travel links and migrants, mostly of the economic variety.Consequently,a degree of cultural and moral
relativism is perfectly acceptable.
4. With economic growth and increasing financial security, there has been a huge development in equality -especially for women - and
that will continue. We are now grown up enough as a species to recognise that minorities deserve to be treated fairly and equally.
5.This is why advocating Moral Absolutism is so problematic. Such a code cannot easily adapt to changing cultural norms. Witness the
problems Churches around the world still have, in 2012, with issues like birth control, abortion, equal rights for women, equal
rights for gays, gay marriage etc.The pain and suffering of people - and communities of people - who are impacted by such entrenched
absolutes should not be trivialised.
A moral code has to evolve in line with changing cultural norms.Some degree of relativism is therefore necessary.That having been
said, there are some actions which, by any cultural standard, will be considered reprehensible,sick, wrong,repulsive, inhumane.The
most accepted term for this moral stance is Moral Universalism.
I am personally, uncomfortable with the use of the terms "Good" and "Evil", because of the religious overtones such terms bring. In
the absence of some convenient, widely accepted alternative terms, I can however understand what most people mean by the terms.
Not all Atheists are Scientists. Not all Scientists are Atheists.Not all Scientists and/or Atheists are Physicalists, or Marxists, or
Post-Marxists, come to that.
Moral codes have to be flexible enough to cope with human social,cultural, technological and biological evolution, and the changing
cultural norms that such evolution will bring.
Religion and the Establishment are not the final arbiters of what constitutes morality.Neither are you.Increasingly, people are free
and willing to set their own moral compass, subject to a few key shared, moral/cultural absolutes derived from family, peers,
education, and the brownian motion of human interaction.
Your common themes, which you return to again, and again, and again, ad nauseum - marxism/post-marxism. post-structuralism. moral
relativism. Science less able than Religion to offer moral guidance.You seem,to me,to be obsessed with trying to categorise people
into pidgeon holes of your own interpretation, offering no grey areas, but only black and white distinctions. I suppose we can be
thankful at least that you are not pimping your own blog, this time around....
In your world, Materialism cannot make a distinction between what can be considered good and what can be considered evil.
Materialism, to you, is Amoral - total,Moral Relativism, with no facility to distinguish between good and evil. This is simply
untrue.I would reject your definition of Materialism, by the way - it is, to me, an essentially an outmoded term - and offer a more
nuanced term, which would be Physicalism.
1. Religion does not equal Morality, although they try very hard to convince you otherwise.
2. Authority and the Establishment are no longer the final arbiters of Cultural or Moral values. Individuals are now far more
inclined to create their own moral codes and cultural values, based upon a bedrock of shared values derived from family, education,
prevailing culture.This is, broadly speaking, a Good Thing.
3.Mankinds progress has travelled hand in hand with greater personal economic wealth, certainly for what constitutes the developed
world. Communities are much less homogenous than they once were.Cross cultural pollination and exposure to cultural diversity has
increased with improved travel links and migrants, mostly of the economic variety.Consequently,a degree of cultural and moral
relativism is perfectly acceptable.
4. With economic growth and increasing financial security, there has been a huge development in equality -especially for women - and
that will continue. We are now grown up enough as a species to recognise that minorities deserve to be treated fairly and equally.
5.This is why advocating Moral Absolutism is so problematic. Such a code cannot easily adapt to changing cultural norms. Witness the
problems Churches around the world still have, in 2012, with issues like birth control, abortion, equal rights for women, equal
rights for gays, gay marriage etc.The pain and suffering of people - and communities of people - who are impacted by such entrenched
absolutes should not be trivialised.
A moral code has to evolve in line with changing cultural norms.Some degree of relativism is therefore necessary.That having been
said, there are some actions which, by any cultural standard, will be considered reprehensible,sick, wrong,repulsive, inhumane.The
most accepted term for this moral stance is Moral Universalism.
I am personally, uncomfortable with the use of the terms "Good" and "Evil", because of the religious overtones such terms bring. In
the absence of some convenient, widely accepted alternative terms, I can however understand what most people mean by the terms.
Not all Atheists are Scientists. Not all Scientists are Atheists.Not all Scientists and/or Atheists are Physicalists, or Marxists, or
Post-Marxists, come to that.
Moral codes have to be flexible enough to cope with human social,cultural, technological and biological evolution, and the changing
cultural norms that such evolution will bring.
Religion and the Establishment are not the final arbiters of what constitutes morality.Neither are you.Increasingly, people are free
and willing to set their own moral compass, subject to a few key shared, moral/cultural absolutes derived from family, peers,
education, and the brownian motion of human interaction.
naomi24.. The problem is that the atheists know for certain that the God of the old religious books cannot exist. The cosmology is wrong. This leads to arrogant and gang behaviour by atheists.
What I was pointing out above is that even though the cosmology is wrong and primitive ideas of God are false there are problems that are addressed by religions that science cannot tackle. Atheists should be less arrogant and examine the foundations of their own beliefs.
What I was pointing out above is that even though the cosmology is wrong and primitive ideas of God are false there are problems that are addressed by religions that science cannot tackle. Atheists should be less arrogant and examine the foundations of their own beliefs.
LazyGun, you seem to be inventing a straw man to serve in my place.
I have not said that science is less able than religion to offer moral guidance but I have said that materialist science cannot help us to decide moral issues because it deals in the relations between things rather than things in themselves. Many of those who shout loudest about morality use the relational approach of materialist science and have no moral code or believe in a morality based on cultural norms. I have pointed out that this is highly dubious.
In the twenty first century the mass media are the prime determinant of cultural norms. People do not just spend an hour on Sunday imbibing propaganda, they spend several hours each night doing so. I know you hate the term "postmodern" but our media culture is indeed postmodern and poststructuralist. The people who write and edit for the media have only one object in mind: sales.
It is the use of poststructuralism in particular that I oppose, it was developed to insinuate the marxist dialectic into everyday culture and is deeply amoral. Your "bedrock of shared values derived from family, education, prevailing culture." has a subversive element at its heart that will not allow consensus morality to drift in a good direction.
I have not said that science is less able than religion to offer moral guidance but I have said that materialist science cannot help us to decide moral issues because it deals in the relations between things rather than things in themselves. Many of those who shout loudest about morality use the relational approach of materialist science and have no moral code or believe in a morality based on cultural norms. I have pointed out that this is highly dubious.
In the twenty first century the mass media are the prime determinant of cultural norms. People do not just spend an hour on Sunday imbibing propaganda, they spend several hours each night doing so. I know you hate the term "postmodern" but our media culture is indeed postmodern and poststructuralist. The people who write and edit for the media have only one object in mind: sales.
It is the use of poststructuralism in particular that I oppose, it was developed to insinuate the marxist dialectic into everyday culture and is deeply amoral. Your "bedrock of shared values derived from family, education, prevailing culture." has a subversive element at its heart that will not allow consensus morality to drift in a good direction.
The problem with allowing morality to drift with cultural norms is that the current morality will always appear to be good and true. The past will always appear immoral and you will embark on an endless journey to the sunlit uplands of always being better than those who went before. (Even if you end up tying Christians to stakes and feeding them to lions).
Can those "dratted atheists" really be proud of believing they have seen through religion and confident that relativism is a wonderful meme for mankind? Are those who see through this relativism, either because they have an absolute moral code or because they understand the background, right to be exasperated at atheist arrogance?
Can those "dratted atheists" really be proud of believing they have seen through religion and confident that relativism is a wonderful meme for mankind? Are those who see through this relativism, either because they have an absolute moral code or because they understand the background, right to be exasperated at atheist arrogance?
@JohnySid.
Its you erecting the strawmen, Johny.
From you.
"Now take away the cosmologies and focus on moral issues such as the nature of a moral action. Does science have a greater usefullness or accuracy in this area of philosophy than religion? The link I gave in my first post on this thread suggests that simple materialist science is hugely problematical when applied to morality."
But, and this is important, only you think that science is simply and purely materialist. I have already said to you that I reject materialism in favour of physicalism. Most scientists I know are the same.The authority of the Church to act as the arbiter of morality has been eroded with time, education and scientific progress. To suggest Religion as the custodian of human morality is hugely problematic also.Once again, I invite you to look at the mess they get themselves into whenever they attempt to discuss human sexuality, or birth control ,or abortion, or female and gay rights.The Church can no longer claim to be the Lodestone of Humanities Moral Compass.
You claim that Moral Universalism will inevitably slide in a direction away from "good".You offer no proof of that - its just your statement.
I believe you ascribe far too much real world importance to a philosophical movement. If poststructuralism is as pervasive as you claim, and so effective at "insinuating the marxist dialectic" into everyday culture, how come the majority of the western world is following a different course - a neo-libertarian, free market, "flexible work force", light touch regulation direction? Where in society is your evidence of deep amorality, caused by the marxist dialectic? Real World references and examples are your friend here.
So - nevermind all the verbiage and jargon.Offer up some concrete, referenced (not your blog), real world examples to illustrate your point.Then we can all join in with a proper discussion,minus the jargon, rather than playing Chucks suggested game. Were we to actually play Chucks suggested game, reading one of your threads and the responses would mean mass treatment at the local hospital centres for alcohol abuse - a strain the NHS could do without :)
I would agree that modern media - Internet, TV, magazines - will influence and shape cultural norms, although they will often respond that they are only reflecting the changes they see in society.This has always happened, and always will happen. Such effects can be recognised, discussed,abd perhaps ways devised of limiting the less desirable effects (once, of course, you gain agreement in a secular democracy as to what exactly is undesirable), but to attempt to stop it would be as futile as Canutes attempt to stop his feet getting wet.
The alternative to moral universalism, (limited moral relativism), would have to be Moral Absolutism. A rigid, inflexible, unchanging moral code.Universal Truths, laid down by - well, who? Once upon a time, when most people believed that there was a personal, omniscient, omnipotent god, with the ability to punish, such moral absolutes may have had some weight, and indeed, may have had some value. But now? No, I don't think so.How many Commandments do you have, Johny? More or less than 10?
Such a code is far more restrictive and dehumanising than allowing for some degree of relativism.It relies on the unproven assumption that there are Absolute Truths governing human behaviour and interaction, universally applicable to all cultures. I would agree that there are probably some, but not many.
Were it not for some degree of relativism, we would not be seeing the progress of the various equality movements towards becoming part of the mainstream that we have today.Thats a good thing.
Keep your commandments, Johny. Keep your absolutes. I reject your claim that anything other than absolutism is amoral, or that some degree of relativism is "evil", with all the religious overtones that word has.
Its you erecting the strawmen, Johny.
From you.
"Now take away the cosmologies and focus on moral issues such as the nature of a moral action. Does science have a greater usefullness or accuracy in this area of philosophy than religion? The link I gave in my first post on this thread suggests that simple materialist science is hugely problematical when applied to morality."
But, and this is important, only you think that science is simply and purely materialist. I have already said to you that I reject materialism in favour of physicalism. Most scientists I know are the same.The authority of the Church to act as the arbiter of morality has been eroded with time, education and scientific progress. To suggest Religion as the custodian of human morality is hugely problematic also.Once again, I invite you to look at the mess they get themselves into whenever they attempt to discuss human sexuality, or birth control ,or abortion, or female and gay rights.The Church can no longer claim to be the Lodestone of Humanities Moral Compass.
You claim that Moral Universalism will inevitably slide in a direction away from "good".You offer no proof of that - its just your statement.
I believe you ascribe far too much real world importance to a philosophical movement. If poststructuralism is as pervasive as you claim, and so effective at "insinuating the marxist dialectic" into everyday culture, how come the majority of the western world is following a different course - a neo-libertarian, free market, "flexible work force", light touch regulation direction? Where in society is your evidence of deep amorality, caused by the marxist dialectic? Real World references and examples are your friend here.
So - nevermind all the verbiage and jargon.Offer up some concrete, referenced (not your blog), real world examples to illustrate your point.Then we can all join in with a proper discussion,minus the jargon, rather than playing Chucks suggested game. Were we to actually play Chucks suggested game, reading one of your threads and the responses would mean mass treatment at the local hospital centres for alcohol abuse - a strain the NHS could do without :)
I would agree that modern media - Internet, TV, magazines - will influence and shape cultural norms, although they will often respond that they are only reflecting the changes they see in society.This has always happened, and always will happen. Such effects can be recognised, discussed,abd perhaps ways devised of limiting the less desirable effects (once, of course, you gain agreement in a secular democracy as to what exactly is undesirable), but to attempt to stop it would be as futile as Canutes attempt to stop his feet getting wet.
The alternative to moral universalism, (limited moral relativism), would have to be Moral Absolutism. A rigid, inflexible, unchanging moral code.Universal Truths, laid down by - well, who? Once upon a time, when most people believed that there was a personal, omniscient, omnipotent god, with the ability to punish, such moral absolutes may have had some weight, and indeed, may have had some value. But now? No, I don't think so.How many Commandments do you have, Johny? More or less than 10?
Such a code is far more restrictive and dehumanising than allowing for some degree of relativism.It relies on the unproven assumption that there are Absolute Truths governing human behaviour and interaction, universally applicable to all cultures. I would agree that there are probably some, but not many.
Were it not for some degree of relativism, we would not be seeing the progress of the various equality movements towards becoming part of the mainstream that we have today.Thats a good thing.
Keep your commandments, Johny. Keep your absolutes. I reject your claim that anything other than absolutism is amoral, or that some degree of relativism is "evil", with all the religious overtones that word has.
Johnysid, I ask again: what has all this got to do with ordinary, commonsense atheism which is no more than a refusal to believe in the absurd? And why do you introduce relativism into the subject? You seem fond of using verbiage to make something tediously simple sound profound.
I would be quite happy to discuss some of those other things with you but perhaps on another thread; they are irrelevant to this one.
I would be quite happy to discuss some of those other things with you but perhaps on another thread; they are irrelevant to this one.
LazyGun: "only you think that science is simply and purely materialist", no, I mentioned physicalism earlier. Physicalism includes the possibility of agencies such as the geometrical form of spacetime affecting events whilst materialism is generally limited to the transfer of energy between material objects. Nineteenth century philosophical ideas are heavily influenced by materialism, as an example, Marxism is a materialist philosophy.
LazyGun: "To suggest Religion as the custodian of human morality is hugely problematic.." Agreed, but so is materialism or physicalism. Materialism is especially problematical because it leads to the moral relativism of postmodernism (anti-foundationalism) and postmarxism.
LazyGun: "You claim that Moral Universalism will inevitably slide in a direction away from "good"." No, I claimed that Moral Relativism (not moral universalism) will inevitably slide in a direction away from "good". This is because what is considered to be "good" at one time may not be considered "good" at a later date. Homosexuality was "bad" in 1950 but is "good" now. History tells us that people are capable of considering almost anything to be "good" from "final solutions" to public human sacrifice. It is chastening to realise that at any particular time the people will consider that the current morality is the definitive morality and that all previous generations were immoral.
LazyGun: "So - nevermind all the verbiage and jargon.Offer up some concrete, referenced (not your blog), real world examples to illustrate your point." You have already provided some excellent examples. To people in 1950 it would have been extraordinarily immoral to have made the great moral leaps forward that you have described. If you take a moral relativist viewpoint the present will always be the height of moral achievement and, according to the views of people in the past, the present will always be immoral. Moral relativism does not actually have a "right" and "wrong", it is amoral, despite the fact that each generation will think itself to be enacting the height of modern morality.
LazyGun: "I reject your claim that anything other than absolutism is amoral, or that some degree of relativism is "evil", with all the religious overtones that word has." No, I did not claim that absolutism is the only morality. I have simply pointed out that relativism is amoral and subject to being subverted. It has definitely been subverted by media moguls and by memes such as postmodernism.
Moral relativism will always lead to evil as defined by absolute moral codes or by moral codes prevalent at a particular time. This is the hilarious irony of normative morality/moral relativism, each generation will believe itself to be the height of moral achievement and each subsequent generation will see this as laced with evil.
LazyGun: "To suggest Religion as the custodian of human morality is hugely problematic.." Agreed, but so is materialism or physicalism. Materialism is especially problematical because it leads to the moral relativism of postmodernism (anti-foundationalism) and postmarxism.
LazyGun: "You claim that Moral Universalism will inevitably slide in a direction away from "good"." No, I claimed that Moral Relativism (not moral universalism) will inevitably slide in a direction away from "good". This is because what is considered to be "good" at one time may not be considered "good" at a later date. Homosexuality was "bad" in 1950 but is "good" now. History tells us that people are capable of considering almost anything to be "good" from "final solutions" to public human sacrifice. It is chastening to realise that at any particular time the people will consider that the current morality is the definitive morality and that all previous generations were immoral.
LazyGun: "So - nevermind all the verbiage and jargon.Offer up some concrete, referenced (not your blog), real world examples to illustrate your point." You have already provided some excellent examples. To people in 1950 it would have been extraordinarily immoral to have made the great moral leaps forward that you have described. If you take a moral relativist viewpoint the present will always be the height of moral achievement and, according to the views of people in the past, the present will always be immoral. Moral relativism does not actually have a "right" and "wrong", it is amoral, despite the fact that each generation will think itself to be enacting the height of modern morality.
LazyGun: "I reject your claim that anything other than absolutism is amoral, or that some degree of relativism is "evil", with all the religious overtones that word has." No, I did not claim that absolutism is the only morality. I have simply pointed out that relativism is amoral and subject to being subverted. It has definitely been subverted by media moguls and by memes such as postmodernism.
Moral relativism will always lead to evil as defined by absolute moral codes or by moral codes prevalent at a particular time. This is the hilarious irony of normative morality/moral relativism, each generation will believe itself to be the height of moral achievement and each subsequent generation will see this as laced with evil.
Chakka.. atheism has clearly got a better idea of cosmology than most religions but this leads atheists to an unwarranted arrogance about the rest of religious belief. Most atheists have no idea that they have no idea of the difference between right and wrong and this must irritate the religious no end.
jomifl: "Moral codes change with the circumstances within and without society, they have to, that is really why they exist, they are part of natural selection"
Well, the religious approach seems to be an attempt to stop this from happening. Almost all religions apply a moral absolutism to society. It is not just religions that would have a problem with your assertion because a continually shifting moral framework will be repugnant to anyone who follows a moral code. Certainly once you abandon moral absolutism you are likely to find your assertion will become true.
Well, the religious approach seems to be an attempt to stop this from happening. Almost all religions apply a moral absolutism to society. It is not just religions that would have a problem with your assertion because a continually shifting moral framework will be repugnant to anyone who follows a moral code. Certainly once you abandon moral absolutism you are likely to find your assertion will become true.
I was not stating that atheism was a religious belief, I was pointing out that religions have other content besides "God created the world" or even "God exists". Disproving the cosmology or even disproving God does not make some of the issues about world view and behaviour that are also contained in religious texts and traditions go away. I have raised the problem of morality as an example but there are other problems.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.