Interesting: what if you could be sure that a “bad” deed (i.e. harmful to others) you could do would never be punished? What if you could be sure that you would never have to reap what you could sow? What would prevent you from doing such a deed?
maybe some people just have no wish to harm others. for myself i know i would be punished even if i was never caught because guilt and self-hatred would overrun me.
It seems that a great deal of misunderstanding stems from the peculiar way I use the word “atheist”. I don’t make a claim about factual atheists, but about what I conceive of as logical atheists, atheists who are consistent with themselves.
Therefore it is not enough to say that you are atheist yet you don’t recognize yourself in my picture.
What is at issue, as Uccisore has seen, is on what grounds an atheist can promote some conducts which are judged to be of a high moral value (“lofty”) by the society.
what exactly do you mean by ‘athiests who are consistent with themselves’?
because it would seem that you are saying that there are 2 types of athiest:
-
athiests who are consistent with themselves and therefore have no reason to hold any moral values…
-
athiests who are inconsistent… in what way are they inconsistent?
or am i misunderstanding?
Of course there are atheists who are not consistent with themselves, just as well as there is the same kind of believers.
Doc Satanical does not believe that there is something like an atheist philosophy, but I disagree with him. Atheist philosophy arises when what he calls a “lack of belief” tries to find some justification. Or perhaps atheist philosophy is what brings about the “lack of belief”. It is interesting to note that there is a distinction between negative and positive atheism. The difference is that negative atheism is a lack of belief, as Doc Satanical puts it, but positive atheism is a belief that there is no god.
So I hold that if an atheist does not subscribe to what I am trying to pin down as the atheist philosophy, he is not logical.
Atheist philosophy, as I view it, is described partly in my two first posts. One of its claim (relevant to this discussion) is that since there is only this life, and that life is good, there can be nothing which is above one’s own life. Of course, if all that you can expect from the future is suffering, it is not the same story.
Keep in mind what I have said: what is the point in giving up my life for something which will not mean anything for me in the future (since I will no longer exist)?
well your question kind of implies its own answer.
you wouldn’t give up your life for something that would mean anything to you in the future because… as you rightly say… when you are dead, you have no feeling etc.
however, that doesn’t mean that while you are living you have no wishes for the future after your death.
it’s the same as anything… the only analogy i can think of is this one (since few things are similar to death… as far as i know…)
jimmy in 2005 is a massive Enrique Inglasias fan.
in 2006 jimmy is introduced to jazz and realises that enrique is rubbish. he realises the erros of his ways and stops listening to enrique
However, jimmy (2006) has in his top drawer a ticket to enrique’s concert in a month’s time. he has bought it in 2005 when he anticipated wanting to go to the concert. yet now he has no need for it.
do you see? you want things for the future based upon how you feel in the present.
therefore because i wouldn’t somoene i care about to die while i am living, i would lay down my life for them based upon my present feelings/beliefs.
make sense?
(also as i already said, morals are not really based upon reason. they’re emotional instincts. so if they seem irrational. that’s because they are. like phobias)
well your question kind of implies its own answer.
you wouldn’t give up your life for something that would mean anything to you in the future because… as you rightly say… when you are dead, you have no feeling etc.
however, that doesn’t mean that while you are living you have no wishes for the future after your death.
it’s the same as anything… the only analogy i can think of is this one (since few things are similar to death… as far as i know…)
jimmy in 2005 is a massive Enrique Inglasias fan.
in 2006 jimmy is introduced to jazz and realises that enrique is rubbish. he realises the erros of his ways and stops listening to enrique
However, jimmy (2006) has in his top drawer a ticket to enrique’s concert in a month’s time. he has bought it in 2005 when he anticipated wanting to go to the concert. yet now he has no need for it.
do you see? you want things for the future based upon how you feel in the present.
therefore because i wouldn’t somoene i care about to die while i am living, i would lay down my life for them based upon my present feelings/beliefs.
make sense?
(also as i already said, morals are not really based upon reason. they’re emotional instincts. so if they seem irrational. that’s because they are. like phobias)
and also, i may give up my life for the sake of others’ feelings in the future seeing as i will feel nothing then, but they will keep on living and it is them who will feel the consequences. so you do it for them. not for yourself. which is why it makes no difference that you won’t know about it; being dead: because it’s not about you in the first place.
haha!!
just realised there is enrique inglesias cd advertised under my post.
that’s so satisfyingly co-incedental
I just don’t see why not worshiping a noun-god means that an atheistics ethics are irrational???
Plus there is such a think as Christian A-theism…
-Restricts ‘god’ to transcendental equivalence of Being.
-Nound-gods are constructed from cultural values.
-Iddols are made in the image and likeness of humans.
For more on this check out Paul Tillich.
So where would they fall?
EZ$
i see all ethics as fundamentally irrational. but all equally irrational.
maybe someone could explain why theistic morals ARE rational.
?
(and to say thet they are rational because god is rational and they are god’s word doesn’t hold water until (a) the existence and (b) the ultimate rationality of god is proven. )
Then why did you even ask the question? You know as well as I that you'll never accept an argument for the existence of God- it will be come a internet argument that will end with some party dissappearing or an appeal to 'agree to disagree', as 90% of such conversations do. Basically, you're saying theists aren't allowed to speak on this matter until they convert you to their faith first, which is baloney. Luckily, it has nothing to do with rationality, so that's ok.
Rationality is about coherence. If God created a Universe governed by laws, (such as gravity, thermodynamics and whatever it turns out governs quantum behavior), and will is a fundamental part of His creation, then rules laws that govern the behavior of the will (ethics) could be just as objective as rules that govern the behavior of matter. [i]That[/i] is a rational system of ethics- it is a model for ethical behavior that includes a source of ethical pronouncements, a reason to consider then reliable, and a motivation to adhere to them. If you claim that God doesn't exist, you're disagreeing with the model proposed, not the rationality of it.
To disagree with the model, you've got two options. The first is to propose a 'better' model. You've already conceded that there's no such thing as a better model when you said,
Your option is to point out a part of the model that is irrational or incoherent. I get the impression that you think the existence of God is the weak link. Perhaps you have an argument for why the existence of God is impossible or unlikely?
My genes tell me to (sometimes) risk my life for people I believe are closely related to me, just like yours. When people work together, it benefits all of them, in most cases. I’m not sure why you think that all started because of religion though…
ok you have a point there.
that was a side-point ayways so let’s leave it to one side.
but i do take issue with you saying that i expect theists to convert to my mode of thinking because that’s simply not true. my point was that all morality is irrational… theist or athiest because it is simply an emotional reaction to an event of idea “that’s wrong” - vs- “that’s ok”.
whether the emotions have been conditioned by religious dogma or society is irrelevant.
and it’s not abou tgod being the weakest link. i’m sinply saying that basing your morality on god is no more rational than basing your morality on anything an athiest would base their morality on.
I'm saying just the opposite- in order for a theist to convince you their ethics were rational, they'd have to turn you into a theist first.
Samkah wrote:
Human beings are more than just rational creatures. If such our emotions shall dictate to us (seeking happines of others which threatns our own existence), despite being an athiest, the athiest may act irrationaly on the basis of that very human nature: having a heart. If he cannot get over his selflove to be selfless then he is no different from the many religious people who too, cannot get over this sin as they would phrase it.
Is not one of the basic principles of Buddhism selflessness? Is that not the goal? Is not Buddhism atheistic?
Buddhism is a peculiar case of atheism. I don’t want to touch on it here. Anyways, who is buddhist here?
I am now answering the 8:09 pm post of prove-it.
In your example, the guy bought a ticket because he thought that Enrique would still mean something for him later.
But the atheist does not think that anything will mean something for him beyond the grave.
The difference lies in this.
Would the guy have bought the ticket knowing that Enrique would no longer mean anything for him later?
Because if you let someone important to die, it would overturn one of the initial premises, i.e. that life is good. The amount of pain entailed by the disappearance of this loved person would outweigh the amount of pleasure expected from the remaining life.
If this “calculation” is right, I do not oppose it. It is hard to know.
Perhaps the mere fact that the expected amount of pain would outweigh the expected amount of pleasure is not enough to justify self-sacrifice. It may be a matter of proportions. Tough questions.
Really? I didn’t know that Buddhism even took up the issue of theist/atheist argument. Somehow, I got the impression that eastern thought simply accepted a fluid process universe without an external “God” And no, I’m not Buddhist, but I’ve read a little bit.
JT
What do you mean by “eastern thought”?
Just in India, there are at least nine great philosophical systems (Carvaka materialism, jainism, buddhism, nyaya, vaisheshika, sâmkhya (:D), yoga, mimamsa and vedanta.
And buddhism and vedanta are further divided into some sub-schools.
So there is some room for diversity, even if all the systems except materialism share some assumptions. Perhaps it is what you mean by “eastern thought”. However, substantialism, as far as I know, was not listed among these assumptions.
For instance:
Dvaita vedanta is substantialist and theistic.
Jainism is substantialist but not theistic.
Buddhism (a widespread interpretation of it) is neither substantialist nor theistic (they reject absolutism and theism which were known in India).