my purpose is my own and my beliefs are my own. for a long time i was a sheltered tyke, who believed only the best of the world and of people- that was brought crashing down around my ears by religious types. never, ever have i been so gutted by the actions of others. i was placed innocently under the care of what seemed like great people for a day, then was brain washed and left morally bereft when these "people" had gotten their satisfaction from "saving" another soul. it was painful to say the least. from that day i have never been able to see the benefits of being religious when it can cause others to do that to someone who is vulnerable to ideas (i.e. kids)- especially when i had no idea what i was getting into and neither did my parents. atheism fits with me because it puts no restraint on my thoughts and allows me to think freely- i have had many great thinking debates, going along all avenues of thought without having to give bias to any particular idea. if i had a purpose against religion it would be to show the harm it creates, it is nice for moral values but the eventual religious person is defensive and always a zealot. however, religion gives comfort to many as well so maybe sometime in the future when people are ready to stand as humans on their own two feet will it be time to leave archaic thought forms behind us. my purpose is my own, but my aim is to make those around me feel like they ARE the world. there is no greater feeling than acceptance, that is what i would like to spread.
kazakhan Hello!! I like the fact that I'm not the only one who has cought Tiassa's meaningless drible!!!. Fact is there is a word for that she much dislikes "non-sequirtus". I don't want to get to personal attacks on anyone, it's only purely observation, really!!. I mean this person could actually write a book about sciforums posts she has made in the past, 6Kplus posts would make an interesting non-sequirtus book!!. The topic on hand: THE PURPOSE OF ATHEISM What most people fail to see is that there is no purpose to atheism it is a personal choice, just as well as deciding to be Muslim, Catholic, Christian, Buddahist, etc...For that matter what is the purpose of religion?. History dictates that religion has brought much missery to the world, it has slowed progress, it has taken over governments. The purpose of religion is to "control" the massess!!.
tiassa, do you think atheism failed, in your case, because still it could not completely cut-off from the religous 'presummption' on morality.. or are you insearch of alternative moral code for atheism, independent of the existing one.. if it is the later, it would be better and by the responses you 've received, forget it... for atheism frees one's mind to choose anything as he/she pleases. the choice vary from self-indulgence to furthering the concern for the society,as in your case apparently, and unbiased search for truth. the higher ends are rare and that you know atleast by now..!
Sorry if I rehash, I haven't the time to read past all the posts... I subjectively place a very high value on what I consider 'truth'. I consider the best tools for finding 'truth' to be logic and skepticism. This has lead me to atheism. The only goal or end to this is the search for truth. Tiassa, It isn't so much as filling the void as removing the need for the void to be filled. I also place a subjectively high value on what I consider 'happiness'. I wish to be happy which in turn leads me to wish other humans to be happy. This is the backbone of my ethics. If everyone in the world abandoned their perceived objective morality...would we be cast back to the stone ages? I don't think so. People would generally reach the same moral conclusions...they already have subconsciously. Does atheism offer anything to the world? I think so. It is not a neatly wrapped package of how to think and behave. It is the result of a way of perceiving the world. It allows freedom and creativity of thought. So...what is the purpose of atheism? There is no purpose...it is a result. What does atheism offer a religious person? Nothing, if that person does not value the search for truth. *Edit for spelling
Keep the plebs in check, lest they would steal the goldPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! fadingCaptain, I agree with your comment. Does it get any simpler? I can't believe I'm still on this thread, to much :m:
Re: Tiassa, stop wasting my time! The question is valid. Note that tiassa did not ask how the ethical structures of atheism work (there are none, since atheism is limited to disbelief in the existence of God or gods). Rather, he asked how individual atheists form and maintain their ethical structures. Since atheists would not rely on religion for their ethical structures, they must find some other way, which I have addressed above. True, everything is open to question. But just because atheists might share similar values with religionists, that does not mean that they are "keeping what they like" about religion. For example, most religions say murder is wrong, but I would not say that atheists "keep" this value that religion has provided them. Values such as these can be attained independent of religion. I know it's wrong to kill people because I wouldn't want other people to kill me.
Again? Tiassa, I don't think atheism has much to do with why murder is wrong do you? I look at is as pure selfishness. Murder is wrong because I don't want to be murdered. As such, I take responsibility for my own actions, and will not murder based on the fact that I don't want to be murdered. It's theft. It's taking away that person's future and that simply isn't fair. I want to be treated fairly, don't you? We can really only be treated as such if we both agree that we shoudn't do things to each other that we don't want done in general. Thusly, murder is wrong, theft is wrong.. blah blah. IMO, it's pure selfishness that makes murder wrong. IMO, pure selfishness is the only way to understand why it's good to help other people ya know? What does atheism have to do with it?
Aetheism lacks purpose entirely. Be agnostic instead, like me!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Instead of saying there is no god(s), you admit that there may or may not be a god, but that it would be impossible and/or insulting to try to understand the situation. Now that's the smart approach.
Seeing is how that 'why is murder wrong?' question keeps on popping up, I am going to give my outlook on it. The very definitions of right and wrong (to an individual) are actually opinions on what levels of altruism & explotation are acceptable / expected. So with this said, there is no inherent right / wrong... good / evil in the universe? Bingo! Ok, so why don't 'I' murder? In general violence, pain, and suffering don't make me happy while the absence of these items DOES make me happy. Murder is also against the law, so there would be consequences if I were to murder and those consequences would not give me any kind of happiness. Does this mean I would never murder someone? Not at all. For example, if someone were to rape my wife and I had the opportunity to confront this person without our legal system knowing about it... then sure I would kill him and would feel quite good about the fact that this person would not be causing the world any more strife. -moo
Agnosticism describes your take on epistemology, it says nothing to your position on god(s) (well, it maybe be telling, but doesn't explicitely describe that position). You are a "weak athiest" regarding the issue of the existence of god(s).
Hmm, you want to an atheist to give a reason why murder is wrong without referring to God as some moral yardstick? I deem murder to be a source of pain and suffering to my fellow man. I do not wish to inflict suffering and pain on my fellow man. Ergo, I deem murder to be wrong. The important part is that I deem it so, for my own reasons and by my own standards, gained through experience. To all intents and purposes, I don't need to lean on God, I can stand on my own thank you. I get the feeling I'll be flamed, but I'd rather you picked holes in that and at least continued this thread as a debate, not a flame war.
Buddhism Vs Atheism "One fundamental belief involves reincarnation: the concept that one must go through many cycles of birth, living, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana - a state of liberation and freedom from suffering." "Sila: Morality: Samma vaca: Right speech: no lying, criticism, condemning, gossip, harsh language Samma kammanta: Right conduct by following the Five Precepts Samma ajiva: Right livelihood; support yourself without harming others " "The Five Precepts: These are somewhat analogous to the second half of the Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity -- that part of the Decalogue which describes behaviors to avoid. Do not kill Do not steal Do not lie Do not be unchaste Do not consume alcohol or other drugs " http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism1.htm Buddhist morality does not vary individual to individual - it is ordained by the dharma itself as part of the eight fold path to attain nirvana, freedom from cycles of births and deaths. Do the buddhists agree that they are not the cousins of atheists..?!
3,000 words, more or less Oh ... my ... where to start? So here's the thing - For All: I've gone through this a couple times in hostile contact with others, and now that it's Thursday morning (well, not quite Thursday afternoon, here, but I generally only see the last hour of AM. so ... but I digress. At any rate, it's time now to go through this in a more general, less-polarized fashion. - Is murder wrong? Well honestly, after a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it isn't. Nothing that can occur "shouldn't". (Dr. Lou) Some days you simply say, "Good enough," and move on. This is not one of those. In fact, this is a thoroughly intriguing answer that I can't just move past. It is almost exactly what I was hoping to find in terms of grounds for future discussion, but I do admit that part of it puzzles me. The way I go about that phrase, essentially, would be: Is murder wrong? Well, after a bit of thought, I still think so but I can't prove it to you. So Dr. Lou has my attention. More on that in a minute. A couple more direct points that warrant immediate consideration: Siddhartha: I'm not going to disagree with you, nor will I flame you. In fact, your paragraph on the wrongness of murder sounds quite familiar to me. As a practical argument (and for whatever it's worth) I not only accept the argument, but I approve of it as a progressive and functional examination of the issue. Like I said, for whatever it's worth .... And Crunchy ... as with Siddhartha, I don't disagree at all ... It's important to me to establish that the issues I've been fighting with people about have been the source of tension because I feel that they were distractions. The question of why murder is wrong is a philosophical examination. It is, simply, a striking example of how our "objective" reality is essentially and truly subjective. To digress to a couple more responses: Everneo: Atheism failed in part because of the nature of people, but the critical and direct factor was one of my own invention. Having rejected a fundamental notion such as an established good and evil or right and wrong in the Universe (a symptom of "small" or specific gods; a symptom of religion), I sought an objective foundation upon which to weigh right and wrong. In fact, I insisted on it. This path led straight to nihilism, and it was an interesting dance at the edge for longer than it should have been. What drove the last nail into atheism was an abstract and incomplete citation from Anselm which provided a working definition of God that, in the metaphysical, was hard to argue with. And while I certainly interpret the idea differently from Anselm, the result of it was that gods no longer had consequences of their own, but only those which people award them. In the end, there's a working definition of God that I "cannot" reject; it is inappropriate for me to call myself an atheist. My acknowledgment of the idea of God says nothing about establishing a right and wrong "from the horse's mouth". But in the same sense that some interpret "God's Universe" as a pretty mystery to be savored and figured, I do seek some fundamental objective anchor; once such a thing is established, people can hang their hopes on it and stop mucking around with petty gods. In the meantime, I admit that a chorus-line of atheists chanting, "There is no God, stupid!" just isn't helpful. fadingCaptain: I'm starting to see that I'm having an odd difference of interpretation with people about the void. I'm not talking about the poetic void of loneliness, and so forth. In fact, I find the presence of the idea (e.g. "invisible friends" arguments) rather odd, but that's for another time when the heat requires a nitpicking of such a point. However, if a Christian stands before you and converts to atheism, where "murder" and "adultery" were simply wrong by the nature of things in the Universe, those presumptions are gone. The moral structure stands atop a gaping abyss, and as long as one doesn't look down, the structure seems to hold. There is a void of moral or ethical justification left behind. There are, for instance, bits and pieces of James Joyce, J.D. Salinger, Lysander Spooner, Emma Goldman, GWF Hegel, Aleister Crowley, Albert Camus, and of late certain ideas irresponsibly adopted from Sufism (filling my canon of moral justifications); Raithere, for instance, mentioned social contract and social Darwinism, both of which have practically-applicable aspects. In allowing freedom of thought, though, atheism has no inherent limitations; a classic phrase (Noah Webster, I think) goes Too much liberty is tyranny. And while even I hope for the best from free thought, and see perhaps immeasurable value in it, I'm also aware that it leads to the sort of behavior that Christians call sinful, some Buddhists call inefficient, and most of the rest of us just plain think of as wrong--e.g. murder, having sex with your kids, violent repression, &c. And so I have great interest in understanding what shapes atheists' thoughts and ethical structures. And if the person "does not value the search for the truth" ... by what standard is that measured? It seems as subjective as anything else, which is sort of a running theme for me in this topic. Jade Squirrel: You wrote, Values such as these can be attained independent of religion. It is exactly this that I'm after: the process of attainment. The method of search. The how and the why of the what. Wesmorris: We so need to drink together sometime. And while atheism and the wrongness of murder are directly irrelevant as many people have pointed out, well ... I think I did this part somewhere above. While I flat-out agree with your reasoning, the larger point that comes next is that we're still, even without God, smack amid a jungle of subjectivity. As to the connection between selfishness and atheism ... this topic suggests, by the participation of several atheists, that the connection is that atheism can and does lead to pure selfishness if one does not give proper consideration to the ethical structures. But there is a larger and more important consideration coming. This morning I am utterly delighted to find the foundation stones almost all in place to proceed. Dr. Lou, in fact, has given me a device by which I might be able to skip part of the process and (blessing of blessings?) move more quickly to the endpoint. Dr. Lou (redux): I have to admit, I'm at a loss for an argumentative response to murder not being wrong. At the absolute core, I can almost agree because "right" and "wrong" seem quite conventional. But ... you've handed me something I didn't expect to get, partially because I was thinking in other terms of influences. I was thinking more along the lines of philosophy and literature and other communicative ideas that may have had some impact; we could then examine the nature of the impact ... I promise there's a larger point at the end of the process, but it's starting to feel anticlimactic, so let that serve as a disclaimer. You know, I smoked so much dope last night after reading your post. You blew my mind. I might disagree with instincts, but I won't flinch in disagreement with the notion that there is a code to live by or even that it is (somewhat) obvious. Okay, so I might temper a couple of the points with different adjectives, but .... Part of my problem, of course, is the notion of "instincts" While that could be a whole topic of its own, suffice to say that there are degrees of instinct, and even when speaking casually with behavioral researchers I find it difficult for everyone to settle on a definition of "instinct". So I hope to encourage the growth of this idea in discussion in order to see the larger form. Because I may be about to ask for the same answer from a different direction. Do you find among other animals and life any patterns which suggest the possibility that an objective answer might be found in terms of a "purpose of life"? To that end, I'll suggest my ultra-sketchy phrase: Life is. That's all I can figure out at this point. Species evolve out, 'tis true, but this is generally perceived as a failure to evolve to maintain within the environment. A failure to adapt, not an adaption out. (The illustrative point, I suppose, is that human beings, if they extinct themselves through warfare or environmental-waste issues, can be said to have chosen extinction; can any other species say the same? I suppose some whales could all beach themselves simultaneously, but ....) So what does life do? It consumes, it generates, it procreates; it rearranges matter and energy in the Universe while perpetuating and even augmenting its capacities to do so. Or is there some yet-unobserved process to which life responds? On at least one level, life appears to be nothing more than a balance of matter and energy in the Universe that is capable of perpetuating itself. Certes, there are lightning bolts that will burn for another 150,000,000 years out there in the galaxy, but they'll run out of fuel at some point, and can a lightning bolt perceive and respond to its diminishing fuel? Can it pick up and move somewhere else in the Universe? Life simply is, in one respect, and what it does is not that much different from fire or stone or dead wood or a star or ..... But the question remains: Is there an objective truth to be had in there somewhere? And the question must arise at some point, How does this relate to atheism? Well, as it stands, the atheistic assertion is as invalid as the theistic assertion. The basis of the rejection of the idea of gods, the denial of God, or however one chooses to phrase it, centers around reason, logic, and rational consideration of objective data. But reason, logic, rationality, and even objective data only go so far. Enough real data exists that one can reasonably and even prosperously function at the current level of sublimated subjectivity--you will not find me asserting that atheism is inherently dysfunctional. But it does seem a little odd to reject a godhead for lack of logic while clinging to equally-irrational moral constructions. Especially in light of the seeming association between gods and moral structures. Does this mean that the atheist should just give up and go back to religion? Quite obviously not. It seems a no-brainer, but the atheist dwells on right and wrong like anyone else, and the atheist has ways of coming to their own conclusions. But what if all we're doing is looking at it wrongly? What if the purpose of life is merely that? Can we find anything suggesting an objective anchor applicable to the curiousity called Life? I admit that yesterday, as I wound up tighter and tighter, I was flabbergasted by the nature of the response. And there's a reason for this. What most Sciforums atheists don't seem to realize--though it's been long enough that some wouldn't know without reading three-year-old topics--is that I'm actually "on atheism's side". I, for one, would like to see atheism blossom. But I'm also a realist. Humanity won't just chuck its gods to the wind. So to me it seems that what must happen is that gods must be rendered without consequence, and atheism is an excellent way to do this. You cannot promise objective reality through atheism, but the lesson to be learned is that you can promise a more rational state of being more dedicated to understanding what is not yet understood as opposed to falling over and worshipping it and confessing to it. Gods, without consequence, become delightful human mysteries, the kind to entertain and enlighten for a lifetime. And it may be that this will be the best people can achieve as far as bringing the population toward atheism. Humans will always tend toward the irrational, at least until love and hope are crushed beneath the weight of the scientific validation of their paucity and humanity considers making the mistake of throwing out the things that make us human. But imagine humanity capable of having that debate ... it's a far cry from our own time. When, for the lack of a better notion, will Sisyphus finally put down the damn rock and walk away and see what happens next? But of course, the value of these considerations in relation to what atheism can do involves a discussion of why people choose atheism. And since there are no real Vulcans yet, we can't ask Spock to forward us some transcripts of the logical debates pertaining to fundamental issues of existence. But when one chooses or concludes atheism ... it's not all about the self, is it? Other people remain a vital consideration, right? The discussion of why people choose atheism can help determine what people seek in the world. And here's the thing: for those who believe in general human progress of whatever sort, well? If you could suck the venom from religion and dull its blade, would you? For your own satisfaction, or for the betterment of humanity? And it's that latter issue worth focusing on, in my opinion. If the methods of consideration related to moral and ethical structures of atheists are made more accessible to those-not-atheist, right there atheists will be doing the world some good. And it seems a minimal effort, given the number of words people are willing to write on the subject of religions they don't believe in. But think about it, atheists: The people in the throes of religion will look at the alternative and see a huge question mark as far as fundamental issues of moral and ethical validation are concerned. This pretty effectively discourages the "leap of faith" into logic. People won't make the leap away from their religious bonds if they don't see anywhere to land. And sitting there and telling them to jump because the building's on fire ... you know, only the desperate jump when there's no place to land. And so you can be the firefighters and rescue workers moving the nets into place and sending ladders up the building, or you can be the camera eye on 9/11 following the final seconds of desperate human suffering as the body tumbles, seemingly in slow motion, downward, until the rudeness of the moment interferes jarringly. Short digression amid the tall grass: I'm convinced that one of the reasons so many philosophy students seem overridingly snotty is that philosophy is largely ridiculed in youth. The inquisitive mind often doesn't get to go through its rebellious and shallow period with ideas until meeting its first college philosophy class. What if subjective identity issues weren't such a stake? What if that study time was spent in more appropriate philosophical development? One of the ways we can bring such a condition about is by breaking the addiction to gods, which create fundamental identity issues. After Christianity, it took me four or five transitions of label before I finally figured out the point. I mean, I still adore some of my labels, but why wouldn't I? They're fun, but they're not really useful. Oh, and for the record, I didn't take any philosophy classes while in college; but I did fake a report on Sartre when I was in high school .... Can the atheist imagine a day when there's nothing about religion to complain about? When you can just get up and go about your life and "atheist" becomes the small facet of the self that it's supposed to be, and not a small idea with huge comparative implications? Atheists will never be 85% of the population, but can you imagine the day when they're formally half the population? And when they don't actually have the need to argue with the religious folk because there is greater understanding and communication as a result of a widespread stomping of extraneous identity issues? It should go without saying, but ... er ... well, okay. At any rate, it should go without saying that the Abramic monotheisms will not survive to this era in any form we would recognize. ("It should go without saying ...." Where the hell did I pick that up, because it's one of the dumbest wastes of words I've ever used.) Thank you, Dr. Lou ... you provided an excellent springboard with that excellent post. To turn this back to a general address: That's what this is all about folks. It's a simple question of influences which can have tremendous implications for the future. Seize the day. When comes the thought revolution? Why not today? Or, in a simpler sense: What is anybody waiting for? And if anyone tells me that "the masses" aren't ready, I'm only going to ask why. And from there we can go round and round the mulberry bush as much as we want. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edit: Parenthetic amendment of my remarks to fadingCaptain for clarification of a point I'd left hanging.
The question is not valid because it makes an assumption of ethics. I do not maintain ethical structures, my ethics will change to suit my best interest in any given situation, as will most people I believe. Atheism vs God Atheism is knowing 2 + 2 = 4 God is believing 2 + 2 = 5
Re: 3,000 words, more or less I'll just skip straight to the why. I've developed a problem with that type of thinking. Maybe you can help me through it. I cannot get past the subjectivity of the revolution you speak of. The problem is that MY though revolution is every day... I do a little bit to spread weirdness, kindness and amusing insights everywhere I go. I can't help it. I just say things to make people smile when I get the chance. I'm confused however when it comes to the core of them. Generally, they are of some religion so any attempt at tackling core philosophical issues is lost before it's started. If I were to approach it from the "hey, do you ever question your beliefs?" angle I'm not waiting, it's just that what I'm doing isn't really have a noticeable effect. *shrug* with no organization it may not be possible to have a "mind revolution" since no two people will be working toward the exact same goal. the problem is that most people who might seem fit to promote the cause you suggest are not the types of individuals who partake of the herd mentality... leading to an apprehension of joining groups and junk (especially religious or political orgs). blah, I know i sound pessimistic but damnit it's just the way things are... attempts to get people who aren't joiners to join a cause against joiners is a tough idea to sell.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! remember, as far as I'm concerned.. I'm already participating in a revolution of sorts... notice my vigilance in the religion forums... I've probably driven a lot of people to despise seeing a post from me there because I just will not give the religious people a break. well, I'm hoping you have some ideas here because I seem to be at a loss with regard to framing a directed change of thought as it stands in general society. I'd like to.. but I lack the manipulative skill or motivation it would take to actually make a difference. It's funny, generally to make a significant difference for a good cause it seems like you have to sacrifice your principles. Interesting that things are as such. IMO it speaks to the nature of thought that they are. :m:,
Tiassa, That last post was a good read. I am (perhaps naively) incredibly optimisic about the values and outcomes our world would gain from a more universal free thought. I believe it would inevitably lead to a more natural and harmonious existence for us. Would there be some rotten apples? Surely. But think of it this way...the US has horrible track record when it comes to such things as murder rates. Yet, the US is a largely religious society. Just because people would use a multitude of ways and resources to reach their particular morality doesn't mean lawlessness would rule the land. Laws would of course still be implemented by majority rule. Yes, it is a purely subjective value. I suppose you could measure it based on a sort of cost/benefit analysis to the human race. I would argue the 'search for truth' has been a major factor in propelling mankind above monkeys that can make fire. Placing a value on the truth is surely good for the human race. It runs much deeper than that for me. There is an inate sense in me that the truth is more important than anything. If given a choice between eternal happiness behind a facade (insert your favorite matrix/cave analogy) or a eternal pain with the knowledge of the truth...I think I would choose the latter. So, I am not sure. To me an objective truth is like infinity. The concept of infinity is true, but can we ever see it? We can count forever, getting closer to infinity with each digit, but we will never arrive at the destination. With free thinking, we also march toward an obective truth. We may never reach that truth, but we are ever getting closer.... Atheism is but a branch in the tree. Or maybe it is the trunk?
Wow, that must have taken a lot of stamina and determination to post tiassa. I understand now what you're doing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I agree wholeheartedly that in order to advance atheism it is necessary for atheists to get off their behind, stop slandering theism and start promoting atheism instead.
I noted something interesting. Religions tend to lead by all sorts of means; however, they rarely lead by example. Perhaps to 'sell' atheism, people simple need to see happy successful atheists going about their lives? This would most certainly be leadership by example (which by far is the best kind).
