The Assertion That Atheism Logically Requires The Philosophical Acceptance Of Nihilism And The Rejection Of Moral Absolutism

[Moontanman]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a universal creator. Some people deny the existence of a creative force, some people outright reject the idea, some people don’t know about the concept, some people claim that they know that no such force exists. These would all be atheistic thinkers. I could be labeled an agnostic atheistic thinker. I know exactly what atheism "means".

Atheism with no qualifiers means only one thing, a lack of belief in gods, why is this so difficult for you?

 

 

So it was on purpose? It was decided? Though what intention did we evolve?

Evolution is deterministic in regard to the environment, I was really hoping you would figure that one out yourself. It's no accident that animals evolve to fit their surroundings or that their behaviors evolve to fit the animal's behaviors in those surroundings.

 

From Merriam-Webster

 

Full definition of ACCIDENTAL

1

: arising from extrinsic causes : incidental, nonessential

2

a : occurring unexpectedly or by chance

b : happening without intent or through carelessness and often with unfortunate results

 

We are intrinsic to the process of evolution. We are a part of it. What caused the process?

I am really trying to not be insulting here, you have no idea what biological evolution is or how it works, until you school yourself on this subject I suggest you stop making such sweeping statements about it..

 

 

How would I do that? Why do require me to do that? My assertion is PHILOSOPHICAL. What is your definition of accidental?

Accidental is having no purpose, evolution by natural selection is not accidental by definition... Evolution via natural selection is deterministic... 

 

 

Human existence would not be accidental if their were a conscious entity who intentionally created us.

Of course not but that is nothing but an argument from ignorance...

 

 

We assign rules rationally (sometimes). Did humans assign our morals rationally, or at all? All available evidence seems to suggest that our moral evolved arbitrarily and separate from our reason.

Our behaviors evolved along with our social structure as social animals.

 

 

If a god hardwired us to feel that killing is wrong then the belief that killing was wrong would be objectively valid.

If if if, you keep making this argument from ignorance.

 

You seem contrarian; as though you are arguing less against my assertions and more against aspects of my wording.

Your wording is either obscuring what you are asserting or you have no clue as to what you are asserting...

 

 

Appeal to majority? Evidence of statement? I doubt that even two people can be found who agree on all things morally.

Meaningless drivel, the morals of your society are driven by a majority of people agreeing on some level about what is right and wrong, these morals are part of our social structure which has evolved to further our species, not always perfect but then evolution is not about perfection but about what works...

 

 

No I am not. Atheism does not assert anything. Atheistic thinkers assert many differing things depending on personality, experience and the “lack of belief in a god”.

To be an atheist requires only one thing, lack of belief in a god or gods, past that atheists are free to assert there are rings around Uranus or a orbiting tea pot, or that homeopathic medicine works. Saying that some atheists take it further is meaningless in this context..

 

You are completely ignoring my assertion that ultimate value objective to the human condition is dependent on some form of universal consciousness, i.e., a god.

I am not ignoring anything, I suggest you backup your assertion that man cannot be moral without a god or gods.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Moontanman

[layman]

 

 

It's really that simple. I honestly don't understand why people always get so confused about morality...

 

 

 

perhaps we're all chuckleheads and you're not.

[motherengine]

I would suggest that all morals are subjective, evolution is not random and neither are evolved morals, atheism is not nihilism because it is possible to be an atheist and have morals, I believe you maybe confusing anarchist with atheist or something.

 

Atheism is a stance on one issue only, the existence of gods, nothing else can be asserted from that one premise.

 

Nihilism by your own definition encompases far more than simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, you have made the positive assertion, please tell us how the two philosophies are the same in anyway other than lack of belief in gods...

I have not asserted that atheism and nihilism are the same.

 

Atheism, which I fully and absolutely understand, leads to the assertion that human morality is not consciously ordained by a cosmic creative force (i.e., a god). This implies that values and meaning are transitory and subjective which leads me to speculate that, sans a god force, there is no such thing as absolute value or meaning to existence.

 

If a god made us to be moral then my killing someone would actually be wrong. Without such a force, who on this earth actually has the authority to judge my action as wrong? You can declare that my action is wrong based on your own feelings and beliefs or someone else's feelings and beliefs, of course. But if those feelings and beliefs evolved from amoral processes (processes with no moral intention directing them) then I can declare my action right and either we are both correct subjectively or we are both simply spouting temporal opinion without any universal support. No God equals no moral absolutes.

 

There is a connection. Why is it eluding you?

[Moontanman]

I have not asserted that atheism and nihilism are the same.

 

Atheism, which I fully and absolutely understand, leads to the assertion that human morality is not consciously ordained by a cosmic creative force (i.e., a god). This implies that values and meaning are transitory and subjective which leads me to speculate that, sans a god force, there is no such thing as absolute value or meaning to existence.

 

If a god made us to be moral then my killing someone would actually be wrong. Without such a force, who on this earth actually has the authority to judge my action as wrong? You can declare that my action is wrong based on your own feelings and beliefs or someone else's feelings and beliefs, of course. But if those feelings and beliefs evolved from amoral processes (processes with no moral intention directing them) then I can declare my action right and either we are both correct subjectively or we are both simply spouting temporal opinion without any universal support. No God equals no moral absolutes.

 

There is a connection. Why is it eluding you?

I never said there were moral absolutes, only that morality is not connected with a god, morality is what society says it is, We evolved to be social animals, society is how we get along, societies that allow certain behaviors seldom last, but societies that allow other behaviors do, the ones that do last make the rules we follow..

[motherengine]

Atheism with no qualifiers means only one thing, a lack of belief in gods, why is this so difficult for you?

 

Accidental is having no purpose, evolution by natural selection is not accidental by definition... Evolution via natural selection is deterministic...

 

I am not ignoring anything, I suggest you backup your assertion that man cannot be moral without a god or gods.

 

If if if, you keep making this argument from ignorance.

 

Your wording is either obscuring what you are asserting or you have no clue as to what you are asserting...

 

Meaningless drivel

1- Atheism is not a word existing in a vacuum. If you reject the idea of a god or gods then you HAVE to reject the idea of cosmically ordained morality. The only way in which to avoid this issue would be to completely ignore the implications of one’s lack of belief (which do exist whether or not this fact is inconvenient to your argument)

 

2- Something can be both predetermined and without purpose. Purpose implies intent and, as far as anyone seems to know, intent requires consciousness.

 

3- I never asserted that morality requires a god or gods in order to exist.

 

that is nothing but an argument from ignorance...

 

“If if if, you keep making this argument from ignorance.”

 

“Your wording is either obscuring what you are asserting or you have no clue as to what you are asserting…”

 

“Meaningless drivel”

 

You are simply being condescending and insulting without actually expressing anything. Perhaps you should just assume my ignorance and move on with your life.

Edited July 21, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

when confining one's thinking to only explaining things through physicality, to make sense of meta physical things, they can only be seen as drivers of physical action.  the universe is trying to get some where and "thinking" is just one force it's using to get there, just like it uses other forces.

thinking is likely not elemental to the system, like there like isn't a physical field that maps out to "thinking". but none the less it is a driver of action so it is a force of some kind. in that way we can't say hitler was wrong, but we can and did say we disagree, and because we disagreed  enough, we stopped it and because we stopped it, it was the universe that said it was "wrong", even though it remains potentially true that we can in fact be like hitler.

 

that can be translated to the universe talking to itself, it's saying "hey we should do things 'this way'.....mulling it over and replying 'no we shouldn't".

and so it then does become "wrong" to be like hitler because the system decided.

 

our thinking and debating is in itself meaningless because we will eventually think of everything than can ever be thought. we are compelled by the contradiction to keep scratching at the meaning of it all without realizing by scratching we are fulfilling the meaning of it all. we help to manifest the system's potential into actuality.

 

that to me says the universe doesn't have to have a "god" but it has inherent meaning by virtue of it's existence and the potential contained therein.

if one say my morality exists but is of no validity then they are saying something the system created is not valid.

that is not possible.

 

in looking at things that way, it deposes the need for logical but ultimately philosophical arguments.

what is philosophy if it is not an interpretation of the system........which is in itself a physical express of the system.

I am for philosophy to learn how to operate within the system, but not for it to try to explain what the system is.

I believe that the universe (i.e., all the stuff occupying space in a void) moves along a predetermined course with no actual purpose; a course determined by idiot processes. That is to say, I think that human awareness is an aberrant aspect of a meaningless flow. Our thoughts are like rain drops coursing down a window pane, predetermined patterns without purpose, yet because we have been made capable of perceiving our thoughts they seem to have meaning and definitive purpose. I use the term aberrant to differentiate an aspect of self that requires meaning where there is (or may be) none from all other aspects which simply serve the flow. Does moral thinking stem from an amoral process wherein symbolic communication, emotional response and memory merge and produce a seemingly divergent thing?

 

Hitler was stopped, but I cannot see this as the universe declaring his ideas and actions ‘wrong’. People like Hitler have not been stopped and have ruled until cessation. I believe that the Nazi party was predestined to fail, not because of any moral ideals, but because of amoral processes that operate beyond our moral goals. Of course the war was not fought against Hitler with knowledge of the Final Solution so it was less a moral war then a war fought against forced conquest. This kind of conflict has been lost as in the Americas with the tribal nations. I see no balance or consistency to moral laws other then force and fear making people comply to the collective desires of some governing body. And then there is the desire for relative comfort. None of this is moral. So when we moralize how are we not temporary agents misinterpreting the amoral patterns of the universe?

 

It may come down to semantic arguments when we discuss meaning and value, but the differences which exist concerning what we individually perceive and believe to be meaningful and of value and the seeming disconnection the universe has to these things (e.g., a rising culture destroyed by a meteor or a group of freed slaves and those who freed them annihilated in tsunami) leads me away from any idea of an absolute value or meaning to anything but the consistency of violent universal change.

 

I also believe that understanding the system is essential to functioning within it. But then we seem to live in a system largely based upon death and devouring. I cannot perceive a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ in this place outside of the phenomenon of awareness. I cannot perceive the rising of righteousness in a sea of amoral conflict to be in any way shape or form universally ordained.

 

But again, this could be an issue of differing definitions for the same phenomenon.

Edited July 21, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

But if by "nihilism" you mean a person doesn't think its sensible to think there's some kind of universal "meaning" decided for us, then yes of course atheism is nihilism.

Nail on the head.

 

Obviously theistic morality is as subjective as any other idea of morality; every single theist is using their own judgment as to what they consider "really God's will". Round up 10 people who believe in objective morality, and you get exactly 10 different ideas of what that objective morality "ought to be".

Of course theism is related to the belief that God has communicated to us through specific dogma, which leads to the conclusion that we can know what God wants from us, morally speaking.

 

The point I wanted to raise was, whether it is a theistic or an atheistic person, each one of us gets our morality from our idea of what kind of society we would like to live in, and what actions we expect would lead into that type of society.

I agree. Even political nihilism is a moral rejection of a society based on what kind of society a person wants to live in and whether or not the current social order can even allow such a place to exist.

 

As part of our world conception, we really do have the capacity to imagine ourselves in the place of others. We call it empathy, and it arises simply as part of how do we generate expectations regarding the actions of other people (a very useful ability to have in social environment).

Empathy is central to moral behavior and moral belief. But people are trained, like other animals, to feel as if something we are doing is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ based on comfort and convenience as well. It is simply not comfortable or convenient to have the family pet urinate on the rug or tear up the carpet just as it may not be comfortable or convenient to have your child draw on the walls. This is elevated to a more complex form of morality when we talk about murder, stealing, molestation, etc., but the principal aspects of comfort and convenience remain (along with other emotional/non-rational aspects like empathy).

 

It's really that simple. I honestly don't understand why people always get so confused about morality...

I would suggest that people get confused about a whole lot of so-called ‘simple’ things.

 

But I think/believe that morality is especially problematic because morality often involves a subjugation of intellect by emotion. Emotions are always 'correct' in that they represent actual undiluted aspects of self, but the intellect operates according to analysis and understanding which can only be distorted by emotion (e.g., prejudice is a natural amoral response to discomfort related to difference whereas racism is an intellectual idea which distorts itself, and the available factual information one may have acquired, in order to justify the emotion when there is nothing remotely rational about the emotion itself.

 

In other words, there is a very complicated dance between the emotional and the rational whenever morality comes into play.

Edited July 21, 2015 by motherengine

[Moontanman]

1- Atheism is not a word existing in a vacuum. If you reject the idea of a god or gods then you HAVE to reject the idea of cosmically ordained morality. The only way in which to avoid this issue would be to completely ignore the implications of one’s lack of belief (which do exist whether or not this fact is inconvenient to your argument)

Again, being a atheist means only one thing, I do not believe what theists are claiming, that is it nothing more...

 

2- Something can be both predetermined and without purpose. Purpose implies intent and, as far as anyone seems to know, intent requires consciousness.

Again, "evolution" is neither predetermined or accidental, the environment molds the genome, not a conscious mind. There is no intent, no purpose other than adapting to the changing environment, no mind, no intent no predetermination...

 

3- I never asserted that morality requires a god or gods in order to exist.

 

that is nothing but an argument from ignorance...

Fine, I'll give you that since we seem to agree, it could be my fault for not understanding what you were getting on about.

 

“If if if, you keep making this argument from ignorance.”

 

“Your wording is either obscuring what you are asserting or you have no clue as to what you are asserting…”

 

“Meaningless drivel”

 

You are simply being condescending and insulting without actually expressing anything. Perhaps you should just assume my ignorance and move on with your life.

If indeed you feel I am not responding properly to your posts i suggest you use the report button

[AnssiH]

Of course theism is related to the belief that God has communicated to us through specific dogma, which leads to the conclusion that we can know what God wants from us, morally speaking.

Yes of course. So many people assume - without thought - that having a personal belief about what God wants, is the same thing as knowing objective morality. You'd think that it should be very easy to point out how absurd position this is, but then so many people are ready to put in an incredible amount of effort to defend that very idea. I don't believe "professional apologists" are actually missing the logical absurdity of such a position, but I believe they are putting in all the effort because they honestly believe that spreading theistic concepts is a great way to control people into acting "good".

 

And that in itself leads into pretty despicable moral framework, and horrible moral choices by people who would otherwise make rather more rational choices. It is an excellent way for good people to do horrible things, while believing that in order to be "good", they are morally required to do those choices.

 

And I don't just mean the obvious cases, the people flying planes into buildings or cultures where murdering one's own daughter to regain honor of the family in the eyes of God is the morally GOOD act. (And btw, it is a mistake to assume these acts are only committed by few insane madmen. Cultural rules can be powerful in the minds of people who are taught to not think, and theistic moral framework is excellent breeding ground for these mechanisms.)

 

Also the so-called moderate theists are making a lot of "moral choices" that are somewhat absurd from the point of view of a rational analysis. Some with more some with less devastating consequences.

 

Another relevant example to make is the revivalist churches in third world countries. Revivals are seen as the restoration of the church itself to a vital and fervent relationship with God after a period of moral decline. Mass conversions of non-believers are viewed by church leaders as having positive moral effects (<- quote from Wikipedia).

 

The reality of the situation is that the western revival churches are fueling belief in superstition and magic, and thus fueling witchhunts. That is right, for these western institutions, the supposedly "morally right thing to do", is to distort rationality into theistic dogma to make people act morally right, even though that in doing so they also make them burn "witches" out of superstition in the thousands every year.

 

I for one think that "morally" rational thing to do would be to try to prevent the spreading of theistic morality in third world countries (and all the countries really), and instead spread the dogma of rational thought. As in, build schools where they teach humanities and scientific principles, instead of shipping bibles into Africa, and telling them that we are morally bound to fight supernatural evil in the world.

 

It is absurd to think that tricking people into not thinking themselves can lead into generally better moral choices, yet that is probably the most common attitude to this matter in the world. I think the so-called atheistic movement in the US is making a big mistake when they take the attitude that science somehow proves their arguments. I think they should not be directly focusing into fighting theism, but they should focus into fighting non-thinking. It is much harder to argue against someone who is merely promoting rational and objective thought, and fighting the opposite ideas (although some people will argue directly against rationality, but most don't take it seriously at that point)

 

I would take one more step back from this issue and comment on the bigger picture a bit. It seems that people in general can be divided into two categories. Those who believe there is real evil in the world and it is morally right to destroy it by any means necessary. End justify the means, and sometimes you need to sacrifice good people to destroy evil and so on and so forth. Then there are those who believe there is no such thing as real evil, there is only paranoia and ignorance in the minds of people who believe they are destroying real evil, causing all the violence and suffering the world. That Hitler did not get up in the morning thinking what evil things he could do next, but he actually believed he was fighting real evil and thus saw himself as a champion of good moral choices.

 

Generally you will find the these two categories of people agree among their peers on very many large political questions.

 

Party A is constantly arguing how we must use force and violence for our own security, and party B is arguing we are creating the problem with that violence.

 

Party A thinks people in general can't be trusted to be good on their own, and they ought to believe in the dogma they themselves happen to believe in, even if they need to be tricked or forced to do so. Party B thinks people in general always try to be good, and can believe whatever makes them feel good as long as they are respectful of others.

 

Party A thinks that if large groups of people have problems, it is generally their own fault and they ought to better themselves. Party B thinks there's always those who fall through the cracks, and it is our moral duty to help them by the system.

 

You see, you either have the attitude that people in general can be trusted to be good and helpful to each others, or you can have the attitude that it is pretty much up to yourself to defend yourself from the cold hard world. I think it is blatantly obvious how our own growing experiences play a critical role in leading us into one or the other category of people.

 

In the US where there's the two party system, it is obviously recognizable how people are generally divided based on this one simple attitude choice. I'm sure you can easily recognize which party represents A and which represents B. I find it hilarious how you can already tell how people argue about big political and moral issue basically based on whether their mother comforted them as a baby or not... :D

 

Empathy is central to moral behavior and moral belief. But people are trained, like other animals, to feel as if something we are doing is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ based on comfort and convenience as well.

I think it's not just about our cultural training but simply there is a degree of selfishness in the genes. I mean, not a degree; the genes are completely selfish to be accurate, it's just that social interaction has been useful for individuals as well, in which case altruism is also selfishness. So, that's what I meant by our sense of empathy also being judged against selfish considerations. Should I place my own life in danger to save someone else's baby? This weighting between selfish aspects and sense of empathy is exactly what we mean by moral choices. Why otherwise would anyone think about bettering the lifes of people living on the other side of the world (such as stopping witch hunts in africa), if not via imagining themselves in the place of others? At the same time, I'm not exactly buying a plane ticket to africa right now, am I...

 

-Anssi

[Doctordick]

I remember something which happened when I was about four years old. I was somewhat confused as to exactly what kind of behavior was acceptable and I asked my mother, "how does one know what the correct behavior is supposed to be?" My mother answered in a very simple way. She said, "you need to go with what feels like the right thing to do!" If it turns out to be wrong, whatever you actually did is forgivable! However, if you do something which felt like the wrong thing to do, even if it turned out to be OK it is an unforgivable act. At that point I asked her about my father who often seemed to do things counter to "what was supposed to be right!" When I asked her that question, she laughed and said, "anything your father does is forgivable because he always thinks he is right!" That has stuck with me my whole life and is the reason I almost never think things out -- I just go with my gut. As far as I am concerned it has been, for the most part, the correct decision. I think my mother's attitude was the underlying source of what I would call a successful marriage.

 

Logic is generally a waste of time because even the most complex logical analysis is limited to a rather small set of premises many of which could be wrong. Gut feelings, on the other hand, are a consequence of thousands of years of survival! They may occasionally be wrong, but they are not generally apt to lead to dangerous activities. The main thing is the fact that I seldom listen to what "authorities" tell me. That, in my opinion, believing "authorities" are right is actually the worst possible mode of behavior.

 

Have fun --Dick

[motherengine]

Again, being a atheist means only one thing, I do not believe what theists are claiming, that is it nothing more...

Before you were aware of theism you lacked a belief in a God. Now you not only lack belief but you reject what theists offer as a possible ‘truism’ concerning existence. And, whether you like it/or not, "being an atheist" means different things to different people; I am not somehow a 'false' atheist for thinking about the cosmic and moral implications of my atheism and linking these thoughts to nihilism. I would suggest that your atheism affects your beliefs in a similar manner based on what you claim to believe concerning evolution.

 

Again, "evolution" is neither predetermined or accidental, the environment molds the genome, not a conscious mind. There is no intent, no purpose other than adapting to the changing environment, no mind, no intent no predetermination...

You are contradicting yourself. You define ‘accidental’ as “having no purpose” yet you communicate that evolution has “no purpose“. If evolution is not on purpose than according to your own definition it is an accidental process.

 

And predetermined does not always mean with conscious intent.

 

Predetermine - (Merriam-Webster) "to impose a direction or tendency on beforehand."

 

Processes and events can be predetermined by non-conscious forces, such as (possibly) the patterns of what we call evolution.

 

Fine, I'll give you that since we seem to agree, it could be my fault for not understanding what you were getting on about.

Why is it that even when you acknowledge your own misunderstanding you have to word it as though I am somehow rationally and/or intellectually inferior to you (e.g., “getting on about”).

 

If indeed you feel I am not responding properly to your posts i suggest you use the report button

Any manner in which you respond is ‘proper’ as far as I am concerned. But you only make yourself look foolish when you directly attack what I am communicating without any actual rational retort.

 

As far as using a “report button”, at this point I simply find your arguments largely circular distractions and your insulting manner annoying. I think that referring to people as "ignorant" without demonstrating one’s own knowledge (or even giving an example of ignorance) has less to do with discussion/debate then it does some kind of insecurity.

Edited July 29, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

I think it's not just about our cultural training but simply there is a degree of selfishness in the genes. I mean, not a degree; the genes are completely selfish to be accurate, it's just that social interaction has been useful for individuals as well, in which case altruism is also selfishness. So, that's what I meant by our sense of empathy also being judged against selfish considerations. Should I place my own life in danger to save someone else's baby? This weighting between selfish aspects and sense of empathy is exactly what we mean by moral choices. Why otherwise would anyone think about bettering the lifes of people living on the other side of the world (such as stopping witch hunts in africa), if not via imagining themselves in the place of others? At the same time, I'm not exactly buying a plane ticket to africa right now, am I...

A problem with spreading reason is that reason is not an sound launching pad for moral thought. Reason cannot give one a reason to live or act a certain way, but only an explanation of the variables of existence and more articulate appeals to a commonality of fear/desire. I am absolutely intellectual amoral because I can find no rational aspect or justification for moral belief. I see nothing 'wrong' or 'right' with anything. All evidence I have experienced/gathered suggests to me that humans are complicated accidental patterns which foster/court absurdity through self awareness and the subsequent development of morality. I cannot isolate religion as a central problem because I see far too many hypocrisies and delusions in secular humanism as well.

 

I truly believe that societies are cults and that we all slaves to some form of delusion.

 

I also find reason to be a terrifying bedfellow when the closet door begins to open at night; but that's me for you.

 

PS: I just quoted your last paragraph to tie in with your comments, though it is obviously not what I am directly commenting on.

Edited July 29, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

Logic is generally a waste of time because even the most complex logical analysis is limited to a rather small set of premises many of which could be wrong. Gut feelings, on the other hand, are a consequence of thousands of years of survival! They may occasionally be wrong, but they are not generally apt to lead to dangerous activities. The main thing is the fact that I seldom listen to what "authorities" tell me. That, in my opinion, believing "authorities" are right is actually the worst possible mode of behavior.

I am not sure what you were referring to, specifically, when you typed the word “gut”, but if I had only followed what I call my ‘gut’ I would most probably not be the only corpse on the playground at this point.

 

I agree concerning authority (though isn't that a logical assertion?), but I think that reason and logic developed out of both an interest (giving them a point, however subjective and temporal) and a need for some kind of immalleable and less subjective formula to refer to for the insurance of societal functionality.

 

Note that I am not suggesting people have done a particularly ‘bang-up’ job with all that.

 

Cheers.

Edited July 29, 2015 by motherengine

[Moontanman]

As far as using a “report button”, at this point I simply find your arguments largely circular distractions and your insulting manner annoying. I think that referring to people as "ignorant" without demonstrating one’s own knowledge (or even giving an example of ignorance) has less to do with discussion/debate then it does some kind of insecurity.

Possibly we both have somewhat slanted views of each other, from your post I would assume you are pompous and arrogant. who only wants to obfusticate the issues rather than actually discussing them. You seem to be of the opinion that you are correct and everyone else is incorrect and yet you display little to no understanding of evolution, and you keep building an atheist strawman. An atheist simply does not believe there is a god, it's the null hypothesis, in the face of total lack of evidence what ever you are proposing does not exist, if evidence shows up them my stance would be changed.

 

Atheism is not nihilism and atheists have morals, mine are based on harm to others.

 

Again, evolution is not a random process, it is driven by various factors one of which is natural selection, you also have genetic drift and sexual selection as well.

 

Now I did admit to misunderstanding your stance on morals, I agree there are no objective moral standards but this doesn't mean that everyone's idea of morals is valid.

 

We are a social species, we evolved as a social species and much like other species were are pre programmed with certain behaviors, as you would expect from evolution not all people will agree on morals but we as a group do decide what is moral behavior.

 

Look at the way wolfs organise themselves, they live relatively peaceful lives compared to their non social relatives.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Moontanman

[Moontanman]

BTW I am ignorant of many things, doesn't make me stupid just uninformed, ignorance is something we all share about some things.

[AnssiH]

A problem with spreading reason is that reason is not an sound launching pad for moral thought. Reason cannot give one a reason to live or act a certain way, but only an explanation of the variables of existence and more articulate appeals to a commonality of fear/desire. I am absolutely intellectual amoral because I can find no rational aspect or justification for moral belief. I see nothing 'wrong' or 'right' with anything. All evidence I have experienced/gathered suggests to me that humans are complicated accidental patterns which foster/court absurdity through self awareness and the subsequent development of morality. I cannot isolate religion as a central problem because I see far too many hypocrisies and delusions in secular humanism as well.

Well I would pretty much agree with that, except I would add an observation that using reason as basis for moral guidance is possible; one just has to recognize that it doesn't necessarily give you the right answers. But neither does closing one's eyes from reason and sticking to a single drug. How I see reason applied to moral guidance is not by pretending scientific knowledge is immutable, but as simply scientific principle; choose according to the best of your knowledge, and be ready to change your opinion if and as soon as there's reason to. We shouldn't expect ourselves to be successful at this all the time, but I think it's better than pretending knowledge where there's none.

 

I truly believe that societies are cults and that we all slaves to some form of delusion.

I think so as well.

 

-Anssi

[pgrmdave]

Atheism is not nihilism and atheists have morals, mine are based on harm to others.

Nihilists have morals too, speaking as an atheistic nihilist :-P