Why are atheists and agnostics so sad?

[crispybits]

Okay, here's pure relativism: I have no idea what to think about slavery. Other people did it 1000 years ago, and some people do it today. It's like relative, man. Can't decide on whether or not it's wrong. (this is the consistently logical implication; it's where vulgar relativism brings you--but most pure relativists don't sincerely want to take it this far, so they're really not pure relativists).

Here's absolutism: Slavery in any situation and at any time is immoral. (it's a universal stance)

Here's RAA: Slavery in today's world should be morally impermissible.


We can't settle with absolutism because of its strict adherence to the universal. We can't settle with pure relativism because it fails to guide us to any morally correct solution (adherence to pure relativism can also shun any use of logic, so it's a stupid/incorrect system for establishing guidelines).


Also, I should clarify a few things. I'm talking about two things at the same time:

(1) 'moral policy' recommendations at the meta-level,
-e.g. how shall we deem what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect?
-----some suspects: logic, emotion, some mix in between,
-----lesser meta-level: utilitarianism, 'rawlsianism', Aristotelian virtue ethics, etc.


(2) positive and normative analysis of various examples.
---ermerhgerd, group X mutilates female genitalia. '
---Eskimos kill off their elderly in times of great scarcity (positive: that's what happens, and it makes sense given the scarcity. Normative: ermehgerd, they should be forbidden from doing that. Ermehgerd, they shouldn't be forbidden from doing that).

I'm not talking about pure vulgar individualist relativism. That states "the truth of an ethical proposition is entirely subjective and depends only upon the individual who interprets the proposition." A more accurate view of relativism would be to say "the truth of an ethical proposition depends on the wider framework of the culture and standards of society which apply to the individual who interprets the proposition." Which is pretty close to your RAA position, except it doesn't even begin to hold anything as even approximately absolute.

Maybe it's the semantics that bug me, because I don't like claims that seem to over-extend themselves in the way that RAA seems to me to over-extend itself by claiming that it is an absolute truth claim, at least for the here and now. A relativist can say that slavery during Roman times was OK, because without it many people would have starved to death and the economy would have been badly impacted leading to an overall worse condition for humanity, therefore slavery during that time was acceptable (just like murder during wars is sometimes acceptable, or repossession (theft) of a criminal kingpin's assets could sometimes be acceptable). But that doesn't stop the same relativist saying that slavery right now is morally reprehensible, it just requires that relativist to look at the whole picture in order to make a moral judgement in each case, without falling back on "X is wrong in the modern day" as an RAA and not properly evaluating all of the consequences of X and not-X.

[crispybits]

What I've learnt from you guys is that it is not only Christians who can't agree with each other...

You have discarded logic by adhering to circular reasoning. You can't enjoy a superior position while becoming a fool.

Using what you think is clever terminology to appear more intelligent than another person on an online forum...

Basic philosophical discussion being written off as "clever terminology" aside, this is kind of what we've been saying for a while now. Atheism and agnosticism don't give you any other standards to apply to anything than the rejection of the God(s) hypothesis. Whether you believe in ethical relativism or absolutism, whether you lean left or right politically, whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, whether you prefer strawberry or chocolate ice cream, all of these things are not dependent and derived from the atheist position, but entirely separate from that and derived using a variety of other tools. That's why atheism is not a world view or a religion, because other than "I do not believe that God exists" you won't find a single preference call about ethics, politics or metaphysics that you can get agreement on from us as a group (in contrast with religion which gives you at least a starter set of answers for the big questions that all adherents agree on)

[chang50]

What I've learnt from you guys is that it is not only Christians who can't agree with each other...

I'd be disappointed if we did,why on earth would a group of disparate individuals,ie atheists,agree about anything other than the ONE thing that qualifies them as atheists?This is a strength,but I understand why adherents to religions cannot see it as such,having already surrendered a large slice of their individuality and critical reasoning skills to the party line.

[chang50]

What I've learnt from you guys is that it is not only Christians who can't agree with each other...

You have discarded logic by adhering to circular reasoning. You can't enjoy a superior position while becoming a fool.

Using what you think is clever terminology to appear more intelligent than another person on an online forum...

Basic philosophical discussion being written off as "clever terminology" aside, this is kind of what we've been saying for a while now. Atheism and agnosticism don't give you any other standards to apply to anything than the rejection of the God(s) hypothesis. Whether you believe in ethical relativism or absolutism, whether you lean left or right politically, whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, whether you prefer strawberry or chocolate ice cream, all of these things are not dependent and derived from the atheist position, but entirely separate from that and derived using a variety of other tools. That's why atheism is not a world view or a religion, because other than "I do not believe that God exists" you won't find a single preference call about ethics, politics or metaphysics that you can get agreement on from us as a group (in contrast with religion which gives you at least a starter set of answers for the big questions that all adherents agree on)

This elementary concept seems beyond the comprehension level of so many (not all) with religious mindsets.Is it a lack of empathy borne out of being in the majority for so long?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

This elementary concept seems beyond the comprehension level of so many (not all) with religious mindsets.Is it a lack of empathy borne out of being in the majority for so long?

Are you serious?

What I've learnt from you guys is that it is not only Christians who can't agree with each other...

I'd be disappointed if we did,why on earth would a group of disparate individuals,ie atheists,agree about anything other than the ONE thing that qualifies them as atheists?This is a strength,but I understand why adherents to religions cannot see it as such,having already surrendered a large slice of their individuality and critical reasoning skills to the party line.

You misunderstood my point. You guys have been cracking into Christians for being unable to agree on certain points, yet if you skim through the past couple pages it's been atheists arguing with eachother like they were bunch of these religious people you speak of

And ours has gone way over your head,we are not theists you are.You are making all the claims we are making none,other than we disbelieve yours about the existence of God,this is the only thing we need to be consistent on.You have the religion,the worldview,the numerous outrageous claims,and with it goes the burden of proof..and the expectancy you can agree on most of it.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

and with it goes the burden of proof..

Do expand on this.

The person or group making a positive claim has the onus on them to prove it,not the group that says I'm not convinced by your argument.If I claim there is a teapot orbiting the earth the burden lies with me to demonstate this not with you who would rightly be skeptical..an example borrowed from Bertrand Russell.

[Gillipig]

and with it goes the burden of proof..

Do expand on this.

The person or group making a positive claim has the onus on them to prove it,not the group that says I'm not convinced by your argument.If I claim there is a teapot orbiting the earth the burden lies with me to demonstate this not with you who would rightly be skeptical..an example borrowed from Bertrand Russell.

True, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's basic stuff 3haha.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[john9blue]

Basic philosophical discussion being written off as "clever terminology" aside, this is kind of what we've been saying for a while now. Atheism and agnosticism don't give you any other standards to apply to anything than the rejection of the God(s) hypothesis. Whether you believe in ethical relativism or absolutism, whether you lean left or right politically, whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, whether you prefer strawberry or chocolate ice cream, all of these things are not dependent and derived from the atheist position, but entirely separate from that and derived using a variety of other tools. That's why atheism is not a world view or a religion, because other than "I do not believe that God exists" you won't find a single preference call about ethics, politics or metaphysics that you can get agreement on from us as a group (in contrast with religion which gives you at least a starter set of answers for the big questions that all adherents agree on)

although atheism (in theory) may not cause certain behaviors, it correlates with certain behaviors. is that not good enough cause to dislike atheists, if you dislike the behaviors that correlate with atheism?

also, haha3, good luck trying to get these people to see how rejection of a theory requires evidence as well. they are so heavily indoctrinated with the idea that everyone but them has a "burden of proof" that they will avoid even the most direct questioning.

[chang50]

and with it goes the burden of proof..

Do expand on this.

The person or group making a positive claim has the onus on them to prove it,not the group that says I'm not convinced by your argument.If I claim there is a teapot orbiting the earth the burden lies with me to demonstate this not with you who would rightly be skeptical..an example borrowed from Bertrand Russell.

You confuse "proof" for evidence.
You cannot prove to me that this wondrous universe is the result of utterly accidental clashes of particles and energy (the general assumption when God is thrown out of the origin of the universe theories).
I cannot prove that God exists (like you imply that I claimed- which I didn't) to you, likewise you cannot prove that He does not exist.
We can both only supply evidence.. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, your lack of faith ironically requires faith in itself.

I also cannot prove Russell's teapot does not exist and neither can you...fair enough replace 'the onus is on those making the claim to prove it' with 'provide evidence for',and my statement stands.Would you honestly expect anyone to provide evidence for all of the countless things they disbelieve in,as opposed to the things they actively believe in?
Btw I've never heard anyone describe the origin of the universe as you have quoted, maybe you were alluding to the big bang theory,but it's irrelevant to my atheism anyway...

[chang50]

Basic philosophical discussion being written off as "clever terminology" aside, this is kind of what we've been saying for a while now. Atheism and agnosticism don't give you any other standards to apply to anything than the rejection of the God(s) hypothesis. Whether you believe in ethical relativism or absolutism, whether you lean left or right politically, whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, whether you prefer strawberry or chocolate ice cream, all of these things are not dependent and derived from the atheist position, but entirely separate from that and derived using a variety of other tools. That's why atheism is not a world view or a religion, because other than "I do not believe that God exists" you won't find a single preference call about ethics, politics or metaphysics that you can get agreement on from us as a group (in contrast with religion which gives you at least a starter set of answers for the big questions that all adherents agree on)

although atheism (in theory) may not cause certain behaviors, it correlates with certain behaviors. is that not good enough cause to dislike atheists, if you dislike the behaviors that correlate with atheism?

also, haha3, good luck trying to get these people to see how rejection of a theory requires evidence as well. they are so heavily indoctrinated with the idea that everyone but them has a "burden of proof" that they will avoid even the most direct questioning.

Not at all anyone is free to reject any theory not just atheists,a perceived lack of evidence for a theory alone is reasonable and sufficient evidence for rejecting it.

[tzor]

I can't counter if you don't give us a clear definition of slavery. If you leave the definition vague, then sure, you're very much 'correct' (but not really). For me, slavery is clear. Someone owns another person without their consent. Slavery requires an involuntary exchange. The property rights which one definitely possesses over oneself becomes violated when someone else engages in a good-bad exchange. That someone would pull out their gun and says, "I own you." Really? How can slavery be so vague?

The definition is "clear" but the "devil is in the details" and the terms and conditions have changed wildly over time. No one would pull out a gun and say "I own you." That typically wasn't accepted by any society, and you need the enforcement of the society in order to secure your "property." In some cultures, prisoners of war of loosing armies were sold as slaves. In some cultures there was a statue of limitations for the duration of slavery. In some cultures it was possible for a slave to "buy" his own freedom.

Now, I can't think of a single culture where the various terms and conditions would have made it a "good" thing; but clearly there is a vast different between the status of slaves of first century Rome and that of nineteenth century United States.

[crispybits]

Basic philosophical discussion being written off as "clever terminology" aside, this is kind of what we've been saying for a while now. Atheism and agnosticism don't give you any other standards to apply to anything than the rejection of the God(s) hypothesis. Whether you believe in ethical relativism or absolutism, whether you lean left or right politically, whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, whether you prefer strawberry or chocolate ice cream, all of these things are not dependent and derived from the atheist position, but entirely separate from that and derived using a variety of other tools. That's why atheism is not a world view or a religion, because other than "I do not believe that God exists" you won't find a single preference call about ethics, politics or metaphysics that you can get agreement on from us as a group (in contrast with religion which gives you at least a starter set of answers for the big questions that all adherents agree on)

although atheism (in theory) may not cause certain behaviors, it correlates with certain behaviors. is that not good enough cause to dislike atheists, if you dislike the behaviors that correlate with atheism?

also, haha3, good luck trying to get these people to see how rejection of a theory requires evidence as well. they are so heavily indoctrinated with the idea that everyone but them has a "burden of proof" that they will avoid even the most direct questioning.

The smaller numbers of pirates on the seas these days inversely correlates with the averaged out temperature of the polar ice caps. I think that the polar ice caps are important for the ecological and meteorological balance of the planet and should be kept as cold as possible to maintain their beneficial effects on the ecosystem, so by your logic I should like any campaign or movement that increases maritime piracy. Or, shoe size correlates with academic ability, the higher the shoe size of a child the better they are, in general, at reading, writing and problem solving. Therefore I propose that elite schools stop basing their admissions policies on expensive to measure academic grades and achievements, and instead just measure student's feet and allow any student who wears over a certain size into their establishments.

I theorise that there is a race of blue goblin-like creatures living under the surface of one of the moons of Saturn, and they have communicated telepathically with me. I'm lobbying government to pass laws and spend money on the premise that these aliens exist and are in desperate need of humanitarian aid due to the drought they had this summer destroying their food crops. What evidence can you show to refute my claim and stop me spending your tax dollars on mounting a rescue mission or restricting your freedoms because the aliens are offended by aspects of your lifestyle? Or is it reasonable that you should dismiss my wild claims without evidence that these little blue men do not exist?

[tzor]

I theorise that there is a race of blue goblin-like creatures living under the surface of one of the moons of Saturn, and they have communicated telepathically with me. I'm lobbying government to pass laws and spend money on the premise that these aliens exist and are in desperate need of humanitarian aid due to the drought they had this summer destroying their food crops. What evidence can you show to refute my claim and stop me spending your tax dollars on mounting a rescue mission or restricting your freedoms because the aliens are offended by aspects of your lifestyle? Or is it reasonable that you should dismiss my wild claims without evidence that these little blue men do not exist?

There are a lot of problems with your example, especially given that it is impossible to verify (at least not without difficulty) that you are telling the truth. I have a very simple political philosophy here; if you want to spend the people's money or change the people's behavior then you have to convince the people.

[chang50]

I theorise that there is a race of blue goblin-like creatures living under the surface of one of the moons of Saturn, and they have communicated telepathically with me. I'm lobbying government to pass laws and spend money on the premise that these aliens exist and are in desperate need of humanitarian aid due to the drought they had this summer destroying their food crops. What evidence can you show to refute my claim and stop me spending your tax dollars on mounting a rescue mission or restricting your freedoms because the aliens are offended by aspects of your lifestyle? Or is it reasonable that you should dismiss my wild claims without evidence that these little blue men do not exist?

There are a lot of problems with your example, especially given that it is impossible to verify (at least not without difficulty) that you are telling the truth. I have a very simple political philosophy here; if you want to spend the people's money or change the people's behavior then you have to convince the people.

Yet Crispy's example is no less fantastic than what Christianity expects us to believe,both contain wild claims lacking in evidence and should be dismissed as such until reasonable evidence emerges.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[john9blue]

although atheism (in theory) may not cause certain behaviors, it correlates with certain behaviors. is that not good enough cause to dislike atheists, if you dislike the behaviors that correlate with atheism?

also, haha3, good luck trying to get these people to see how rejection of a theory requires evidence as well. they are so heavily indoctrinated with the idea that everyone but them has a "burden of proof" that they will avoid even the most direct questioning.

The smaller numbers of pirates on the seas these days inversely correlates with the averaged out temperature of the polar ice caps. I think that the polar ice caps are important for the ecological and meteorological balance of the planet and should be kept as cold as possible to maintain their beneficial effects on the ecosystem, so by your logic I should like any campaign or movement that increases maritime piracy. Or, shoe size correlates with academic ability, the higher the shoe size of a child the better they are, in general, at reading, writing and problem solving. Therefore I propose that elite schools stop basing their admissions policies on expensive to measure academic grades and achievements, and instead just measure student's feet and allow any student who wears over a certain size into their establishments.

FFS, man, i even said right there in my post that there was a correlation WITHOUT causation. it wasn't even a long post. at least read that shit before responding to it.

your second example wasn't too far-fetched, though. schools already base admissions on imperfect measures of academic ability, like standardized testing. if shoe size were a better indicator than that, maybe it would be a good idea.

I theorise that there is a race of blue goblin-like creatures living under the surface of one of the moons of Saturn, and they have communicated telepathically with me. I'm lobbying government to pass laws and spend money on the premise that these aliens exist and are in desperate need of humanitarian aid due to the drought they had this summer destroying their food crops. What evidence can you show to refute my claim and stop me spending your tax dollars on mounting a rescue mission or restricting your freedoms because the aliens are offended by aspects of your lifestyle? Or is it reasonable that you should dismiss my wild claims without evidence that these little blue men do not exist?

as far as we know, goblins don't exist and have no reason to exist, and saturn's moons cannot support complex life, and telepathy is impossible. so i'm calling bullshit on your theory, like any smart person can call bullshit on any variation of russell's teapot. the only people who would actually think that's a legit example are people like chang who won't bother to think critically about it.

[chang50]

I theorise that there is a race of blue goblin-like creatures living under the surface of one of the moons of Saturn, and they have communicated telepathically with me. I'm lobbying government to pass laws and spend money on the premise that these aliens exist and are in desperate need of humanitarian aid due to the drought they had this summer destroying their food crops. What evidence can you show to refute my claim and stop me spending your tax dollars on mounting a rescue mission or restricting your freedoms because the aliens are offended by aspects of your lifestyle? Or is it reasonable that you should dismiss my wild claims without evidence that these little blue men do not exist?

There are a lot of problems with your example, especially given that it is impossible to verify (at least not without difficulty) that you are telling the truth. I have a very simple political philosophy here; if you want to spend the people's money or change the people's behavior then you have to convince the people.

Yet Crispy's example is no less fantastic than what Christianity expects us to believe,both contain wild claims lacking in evidence and should be dismissed as such until reasonable evidence emerges.

That is a gross overstatement. There is quite a lot of historical evidence for Christ and the resurrection. All that aside it's called "faith" for a reason.
I do not know how you live life the way you do. Do you sleep in the same bed as your wife? If so, why? How do you know she will not stab you in the back overnight and kill you in your sleep? You have no empirical evidence that she will not do so, all you have is pure faith that she is reliable. It's the same with Christ really.
This "you guys need to physically show me God before I budge" attitude does no one any favours, and is quite egotistical to be frank.

It's not about how we get thru our daily lives,or it shouldn't be,for me it is about what is most likely to be true.Adherents to Christianity appear to have very low standards matched against that particular criteria..

[chang50]

although atheism (in theory) may not cause certain behaviors, it correlates with certain behaviors. is that not good enough cause to dislike atheists, if you dislike the behaviors that correlate with atheism?

also, haha3, good luck trying to get these people to see how rejection of a theory requires evidence as well. they are so heavily indoctrinated with the idea that everyone but them has a "burden of proof" that they will avoid even the most direct questioning.

The smaller numbers of pirates on the seas these days inversely correlates with the averaged out temperature of the polar ice caps. I think that the polar ice caps are important for the ecological and meteorological balance of the planet and should be kept as cold as possible to maintain their beneficial effects on the ecosystem, so by your logic I should like any campaign or movement that increases maritime piracy. Or, shoe size correlates with academic ability, the higher the shoe size of a child the better they are, in general, at reading, writing and problem solving. Therefore I propose that elite schools stop basing their admissions policies on expensive to measure academic grades and achievements, and instead just measure student's feet and allow any student who wears over a certain size into their establishments.

FFS, man, i even said right there in my post that there was a correlation WITHOUT causation. it wasn't even a long post. at least read that shit before responding to it.

your second example wasn't too far-fetched, though. schools already base admissions on imperfect measures of academic ability, like standardized testing. if shoe size were a better indicator than that, maybe it would be a good idea.

I theorise that there is a race of blue goblin-like creatures living under the surface of one of the moons of Saturn, and they have communicated telepathically with me. I'm lobbying government to pass laws and spend money on the premise that these aliens exist and are in desperate need of humanitarian aid due to the drought they had this summer destroying their food crops. What evidence can you show to refute my claim and stop me spending your tax dollars on mounting a rescue mission or restricting your freedoms because the aliens are offended by aspects of your lifestyle? Or is it reasonable that you should dismiss my wild claims without evidence that these little blue men do not exist?

as far as we know, goblins don't exist and have no reason to exist, and saturn's moons cannot support complex life, and telepathy is impossible. so i'm calling bullshit on your theory, like any smart person can call bullshit on any variation of russell's teapot. the only people who would actually think that's a legit example are people like chang who won't bother to think critically about it.

as far as we know,gods don't exist,and have no reason to exist,and the universe cannot support the supernatural,and suspending the physical laws of nature is impossible,so i'm calling bullshit on this theory because any smart person can see it is no more plausible than any variation of Russell's teapot.The only people who would actually think that's a legit example are people like john who fancies himself a critical thinker.

[crispybits]

FFS, man, i even said right there in my post that there was a correlation WITHOUT causation. it wasn't even a long post. at least read that shit before responding to it.

your second example wasn't too far-fetched, though. schools already base admissions on imperfect measures of academic ability, like standardized testing. if shoe size were a better indicator than that, maybe it would be a good idea.

So, you read my post and your first reaction wasn't that I was demonstrating the folly of not liking something just because it correlates (without causation) with something else you don't like, but that I was actually proposing that piracy levels have some sort of causal effect on the ice caps, or shoe size differences cause intelligence differences?



(By the way, there is a very real correlation between shoe size and academic ability in the pre-teen years, but if you engaged your brain for just a few seconds you'd realise that younger kids generally have smaller feet, and are generally in lower grades with less developed minds than the older kids with bigger feet in higher grades...)

As for the second point, this need no rephrasing imo:

as far as we know,gods don't exist,and have no reason to exist,and the universe cannot support the supernatural,and suspending the physical laws of nature is impossible,so i'm calling bullshit on this theory because any smart person can see it is no more plausible than any variation of Russell's teapot.The only people who would actually think that's a legit example are people like john who fancies himself a critical thinker.

[Gillipig]

Give it to him Crispy!!

[BigBallinStalin]

What I've learnt from you guys is that it is not only Christians who can't agree with each other...

You have discarded logic by adhering to circular reasoning. You can't enjoy a superior position while becoming a fool.

Using what you think is clever terminology to appear more intelligent than another person on an online forum...

I don't apologize for using words which i dun did learn from teh bookz.

You're still wrong, so good luck coming up with something better than fallacious reasoning.

[john9blue]

So, you read my post and your first reaction wasn't that I was demonstrating the folly of not liking something just because it correlates (without causation) with something else you don't like, but that I was actually proposing that piracy levels have some sort of causal effect on the ice caps, or shoe size differences cause intelligence differences?

yeah, that was my first reaction, because anyone that advocated piracy in that situation would HAVE to believe that piracy had a causal effect on the ice caps. otherwise, why would they advocate piracy? think about what you wrote...

as far as we know,gods don't exist,and have no reason to exist,and the universe cannot support the supernatural,and suspending the physical laws of nature is impossible,so i'm calling bullshit on this theory because any smart person can see it is no more plausible than any variation of Russell's teapot.The only people who would actually think that's a legit example are people like john who fancies himself a critical thinker.

provide evidence for:

- god has no reason to exist
- the universe cannot support the supernatural
- suspending the physical laws of nature (as we know them) is impossible

or are these all true by default? is the burden of proof still not on you? are babies born believing these statements??? lol