tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post3282642527597973368..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Theism, Atheism, and Justifying HarmAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-37102512650732077372009-06-04T15:53:05.510-06:002009-06-04T15:53:05.510-06:00Eneasz
"Disingenuous - lacking in frankness,...Eneasz<br /><br />"Disingenuous - lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity"<br /><br />I hope not. I am trying be nothing if not sincere and frank in my comments.<br /><br />What I meant by the statement that "theists do not exist" is that a theist is a descriptive term about a person who believes in a God, but is not in itself, the belief. Is just a derivative descriptor. A person considers them self Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc, not a Theist.<br /><br />An Atheist is different- that is the practical label one applies to oneself of they do not believe in God. Lots of people call themselves Atheists, the same way a person would call themselves a Christian, Muslim, or Jew.<br /><br />For that reason, I am claiming it is acceptable make practical comparisons of Atheism to specific religions, rather than its conceptual opposite, theism.<br /><br />Also, I should rescind the statement , "-then they are not of that religion." I meant to just propose that you can't say your are something, and then disavow a definition of that something. A Christian must believe the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ forgives original sin- or else they are not really a Christian.<br /><br />Also let's say that a particular Theist is <i>liable</i> instead of bound to any subsequent propositions made on behalf of their religion, including those that advocate murder. For example, I think it is acceptable to challenge a Christian about how Dr Tiller's murder relates to their beliefs, as long as the murderer attempts to cite Christian scripture -the source of Christian belief- to commit the murder.<br /><br />I would be just as liable if I purported some ideology whose propositions could advocate a crime- atheist or not. Atheism, at it's conceptual core does not advocate anything other than negating religiously divined propositions. <br /><br />Therefore, I was arguing that it is inaccurate to suggest a crime could motivated by Atheism, equivalent to the way a crime may be motivated by the scriptural propositions of a particular religion. There must be other propositions at work.<br /><br />The conclusion I offer, is that Atheism should not be thought of as a religion or value system, and we should not let it be considered one, lest its meaning get diluted or co opted by another ideology. We should not worry about future Atheist murderers, we should worry about the statements of anti-religious bigots turning into violence. We should also be worried that the media might try and conflate anti-religious bigotry with being an Atheist.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18988482515645653242009-06-04T14:01:46.536-06:002009-06-04T14:01:46.536-06:00Mike, I think you're being a bit disingenious....Mike, I think you're being a bit disingenious.<br /><br /><i>Theists do not exist, while Atheists do exist. There is no actual person who holds the simple proposition that at least one God exists</i>.<br /><br />In that case, no Atheists exist either, because there is no actual person who holds the simple proposition that at no god exists. They also hold other propositions as well.<br /><br /><i>particular Theist is bound to any subsequent propositions of their religion, including those that advocate murder – if not, that they are not of that religion</i>.<br /><br />Again, using this definition, there are no Christians (and probably no religions at all). There is no person on earth bound to all the propositions of Christianity. It is impossible to be so bound, because some of them directly contradict each other. People must choose which propositions to uphold and which to disregard.<br /><br />Kip-<br /><i>If I believe that God wants me to do X, and that if I do it, he will fulfill more & stronger future desires of all people (perhaps in heaven), but if I don't, then he will thwart more & stronger future desires of all people (perhaps in hell), then should I do X</i>?<br /><br />Speaking based only on my own understanding of DU, what someone believes has no impact on what she SHOULD do. If your hypothetical X is something that a person who has [all the desires and aversions that all people generally have reasons to promote in others: shorthanded to "good" for the rest of this comment] desires would do, then you should do it. If not, then you shouldn't.<br /><br />Of course what someone believes DOES have impact on what they WILL do. But that's a different question than what they SHOULD do. For example, someone who believes rat poison is delicious and non-harmful WILL feed it to their children, then tho they SHOULDN'T feed it to their children. That's why people have many strong reasons to have correct beliefs.Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74360385204647092172009-06-04T13:37:55.972-06:002009-06-04T13:37:55.972-06:00I can't say it is evidence but what I have got...I can't say it is evidence but what I have gotten from reading both theist and atheist writings. Of course I haven't read a lot of stuff by either but what I have seen written leads me to believe theist tend to hate more the atheist.<br /><br />I don't disagree with you about morals. All morals come from how we are raised and the rules applied within groups. You can look within the USA and see how different areas of the country have different morals based on mostly what someone within religion says their morals should be. <br /><br />I do wonder how peoples morals would be different if religion had never existed.Baconsbudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15575410885851841473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53979257935867113342009-06-04T11:33:28.861-06:002009-06-04T11:33:28.861-06:00Alonzo-
After more consideration, I now understan...Alonzo-<br /><br />After more consideration, I now understand my conceit expressed in the original post.<br /><br />I think, as an Agnostic, I hold my resulting values superior to those of the theists of the dominant religions, because my values are universal. Most religious values as they exist are not- they are only meant for those that belong to the particular religion.<br /><br />Additionally, a majority of theists of the prevailing religions hold ideas that I think are inferior to mine, because their beliefs, at their scriptural foundation, include a certain amount of bigotry- notably an assumption of a greater entitlement to life, liberty, and moral superiority<br /><br />Agnosticism/Atheism by definition, merely negates those assertions- resulting in my only claim that they are not superior, and we are in fact equal. The only superiority that I claim to possess that of universality and equality. <br /><br />Did I infer otherwise? Am I wrong in my conceit of the superiority of Universality?Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63705225075432237822009-06-04T11:03:44.009-06:002009-06-04T11:03:44.009-06:00By "bash", I mean to strongly criticize....By "bash", I mean to strongly criticize. I said bashing "theism", the belief, not the person. I think that bashing false beliefs can be a very good thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-16648577210388672392009-06-04T10:43:21.003-06:002009-06-04T10:43:21.003-06:00No one should engage in or support the 'bashin...No one should engage in or support the 'bashing' of anyone. Atheists do equal wrong as anyone when the generalize, mock, stereotype, and insult people for their particular religion. That is not an Atheistic or Theistic concern, that is a universal ethical proposition. Any Atheist who also wishes to be 'good', should condemn such acts be mindful of avoiding violent language when confronting religious propositions and persons, even those that are bigoted.<br /><br />From my experience, when debating important issues with a Theist of a particular religion, it's not useful to have even a reasoned and respectful debate over the existence of their god- rather it is better that I would argue for my right and for the possibility that we can live in a moral and free society irrespective of the proclamations of their God(s).<br /><br />Atheism should not be relevant in moral debates or considerations beyond one objective- negating moral propositions for reason of God's will- especially when we are looking for universality in morality. Those who are looking for to make the world a better place, should want equally that the concepts of God, and no-God to have no bearing on universal moral considerations for our civilization. Otherwise, we would fail to achieve Universality.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-82154200949931834892009-06-04T09:56:29.174-06:002009-06-04T09:56:29.174-06:00The implication of those bashing theism, is that i...The implication of those bashing theism, is that it leads to other false beliefs, which can lead to poor decisions, and immoral actions. Theists bash atheism for the same reason.<br /><br />Which reminds me of a question I had regarding DU:<br /><br />If I believe that God wants me to do X, and that if I do it, he will fulfill more & stronger future desires of all people (perhaps in heaven), but if I don't, then he will thwart more & stronger future desires of all people (perhaps in hell), then should I do X?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47395189320670058162009-06-04T09:41:05.088-06:002009-06-04T09:41:05.088-06:00First off, I regret that my post implies the “athe...First off, I regret that my post implies the “atheist superiority over theists.” I do not support that claim. On a theoretical level, I agree that it is fallacious to compare Atheism to particular theistic religions, rather than to it's logical opposite, 'Theism.'<br /><br />On a practical level, though, I can defend the comparison. Theists do not exist, while Atheists do exist. There is no actual person who holds the simple proposition that at least one God exists. That person holds a proposition that a particular god or gods exist, and demands we do <i>x</i>. However, there are people who simply hold the proposition that God does not exist, and have no subsequent propositions based on that assertion- other then proposing a negation of assertions attributed to the will of Gods of specific religions. <br /><br />Furthermore, there is no societal conflict between Atheists and Theists. There is a societal conflict between Atheists: those who assert god does not exist or is relevant in public discourse, and the assertions of specific religions: asserting a particular god exists, is revealed in scripture, and says we should do <i>x</i> in our public sphere.<br /><br />It does us no good to debate generic claims of Theism vs Atheism. In a real-life situation, a debate between an Atheist and a Theist is not a debate on the existence of a god in the generic sense. It is always a debate about the existence and proclamations of <i>their</i> god versus that god’s non-existence, and the subsequent negation of that god’s claims.<br /><br />Getting back to our Atheistic-motivated murder of a religious person- I guarantee the Atheist will be choosing a particular target based on his or her hatred of that particular religion. This should not spark a debate about the morality of Atheism vs. Theism- but a discussion about the bigotry and bias that murderer has towards the particular religion of the victim. It is incorrect to consider Atheism being responsible for such a murder- it is another indirectly related set of propositions that resulted in the murder. Not necessarily true for a ‘Theist’ – as a particular Theist is bound to any subsequent propositions of their religion, including those that advocate murder – if not, that they are not of that religion. This is not to say that Atheism is superior to Theism- this is to say that Atheism is not a religion or value system- rather it is a negation of values based on the proclamations of Gods.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-24431601904274527742009-06-04T05:32:39.874-06:002009-06-04T05:32:39.874-06:00Baconsbud
I can ask whether you believe this beca...Baconsbud<br /><br />I can ask whether you believe this because you are driven to it by the evidence or whether your will to believe it colors your interpretation of the evidence.<br /><br />One thing I can say is that religious morality comes from somewhere - and that somewhere is NOT God.<br /><br />Instead, it is invented by humans and assigned TO God.<br /><br />There is nothing to prevent people from inventing exactly the same moral principles and assigning them to a secular source, such as intrinsic value, a moral sense, or an evolved disposition.<br /><br />Because no God exists, religion itself does not have a divine source. It has a secular source, as does the morality written into that religion.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58706593854093390512009-06-04T03:13:44.388-06:002009-06-04T03:13:44.388-06:00This is a very good point and one I never thought ...This is a very good point and one I never thought about. Basically until something is written about beliefs neither can be said to provide anything more then a view. I would still say that there are a lot more written words that different theist use which can be used to justify acts of hate while atheist writers as I know them tend to avoid hate.Baconsbudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15575410885851841473noreply@blogger.com