The Anguish of Nonbelievers

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
His main thesis (paraphrasing) begins with the assumption that atheist do not believe in absolute good/bad. I also cannot see how an atheist could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many atheists/agnostics who think about it do not believe in absolute good/bad (they often also don't think god would change that situation). Others may accept Kantian type arguments that offer absolute morality without any god.

I'd make a mess of explaining Kant so I'll leave it to others.

chez

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am seriously interested in what atheists think.

Siegfriedandroy’s perspective about atheism is fairly close to my own. His main thesis (paraphrasing) begins with the assumption that atheist do not believe in absolute good/bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumption is easily refuted by counterexample: I am an atheist, and yet I do in fact accept an objective (or 'absolute') morality, or code of ethics. (Whether that morality is "correct" is a separate question.) The only assumption you can make about an atheist is that, by definition, he or she lacks a belief in "god."

[ QUOTE ]
I also cannot see how an atheist could. (Of course, we can have agreed upon good/bad for a number of reasons.) If this is incorrect, (that instead atheists do indeed believe in absolute good/bad) then what is the source of these absolutes? What are the absolutes? Does the atheist have a formal logical proof (or even scientific theories) for these absolutes? (The only answer I have found that comes close is David S.'s apologetic for lap dances.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I can't speak for other atheists, but I try to uphold absolute moral standards rather than obey moral rules (Although some rules may be logically derived from the standards).

The "source" of those standards (for me) is complicated to completely explain, but the the short answer is that they are logically required according to man's nature to live, as the ancient Greeks would say, the good life. In general, I adhere to an ethical theory known as ethical egoism .

[ QUOTE ]
Siegfried Androy makes the point regarding atheism that there is no rational reason to care (or not to care)about..pick a topic. Is this a true statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not true. You again make the elementary mistake of equating atheism to nihilism. The only thing incompatible with atheism is theism. You cannot infer a particular set of positive philosophical beliefs from atheism, other than lack of belief in "god." In fact, I personally have much more in common ethically with some theists than I do many atheists.

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]
Siegfried Androy makes the point regarding atheism that there is no rational reason to care (or not to care)about..pick a topic. Is this a true statement? It seems to me it is. If it is true then that pretty well answers my basic interest.

Now, simply out of curiosity, if true (no reason to care or not to care) then why are so many scientist, to pick a group, interested and “worried” about, for example, Green (ozone and such) issues. What is the major motivation for such interest in the longevity of the human race? Seems like so much energy is spent on such things that could perhaps be spent on more immediate concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not well-educated, but deep down I've never been able to believe in a higher power. I've tried to, and oftentimes wish that I was capable of it, but at my core I'm just unable to.

I take an opposite view of Sieg's, though. Being atheistic in my worldview is my motivation. I'm watching the existence of life, seeing it in it's entirety and at it's full value. It's entirely rational to me to take the position that our conflicts on this earth, the challenges offered in this, our only existence, prompt us to choose survival. The challenges have evolved over the last 50000 (500000, 1 million?) years, but our instincts remain true.

If you look at the grand scheme, almost all people who have ever existed have just "been there". Most of us (definitely myself, so far) are nothing more than required window dressing in the grand display of history. Those who take it upon themselves to perform above that level and reach greatness aren't always rewarded in their lifetimes for their achievements. They do it because they can, for the challenge.

The people who would be Qin Shi Huangdi or Alexander the Great became Isaac Newton and Michelangelo who in turn evolved into Einstein and Edison. The larger the world's population, the greater the amount of exceptional human ability available. It's each generations duty to expand, in some form or fashion, on what it's been provided.

The atheist doesn't have to see the world as a circus of failure and compounding mistakes, I certainly don't. The greatness of mankind is its own reward and doesn't require a creator to hand down laws or provide absolute morality to avoid collapsing in on itself and disappearing.

Sorry for the long post.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, simply out of curiosity, if true (no reason to care or not to care) then why are so many scientist, to pick a group, interested and “worried” about, for example, Green (ozone and such) issues. What is the major motivation for such interest in the longevity of the human race? Seems like so much energy is spent on such things that could perhaps be spent on more immediate concerns.



[/ QUOTE ]


I think the central issue in this question is the word "care". Caring is an entirely internal thing, for a believer or a non-believer. Therefore, asking why someone cares about something is ultimately always an impossible question, it's like asking "why do you think the way you think?"

The related point which I think you may have been trying to get at is "Why should an atheist join a movement of any kind, being that there is no objective way to say that movement is morally correct?"

My answer to that is that there are internal reasons for me to join such a movement, as I believe in the relative good of some goal, and as a part of a movement I can achieve more than I could alone. In other words, I believe in acting on my own subjective morals. Furthermore, I have no problem with anyone else of different beliefs wanting to live out their subjective morals, so long as they don't inflict harm on others in doing so.

[kbfc]

A lack of absolute good/evil does NOT follow from atheism. Both are seperate and distinct conclusions that follow from basic reason. Furthermore, absolute good/evil does NOT follow logically from theism. Even given the existence of God, there is no way to define good/evil in an absolute sense that is not capricious or is informationally useful.

As for why the nihilist (who you really described) cares about anything, it's because it feels good. Why should I support a law against abusing dogs? Because I have a pyschological reaction (which isn't really based on any rationality) to it that is unpleasant enough for me to take action to avoid it. Likewise, I feel an urge to do certain things that might promote the longevity of the race. I don't claim that there is any particular rationale behind this things, but I feel that way nonetheless. It's an evolutionary advantage for people to feel this way, so it shouldn't be surprising.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His main thesis (paraphrasing) begins with the assumption that atheist do not believe in absolute good/bad. I also cannot see how an atheist could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many atheists/agnostics who think about it do not believe in absolute good/bad (they often also don't think god would change that situation). Others may accept Kantian type arguments that offer absolute morality without any god.

I'd make a mess of explaining Kant so I'll leave it to others.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,


Don’t you ever sleep over there? ( I know it is still early over there. Besides drinking all that beer, you have to go to the bathroom every 2 seconds, who could sleep?)

That is what I was thinking - what you said.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,


Don’t you ever sleep over there? ( I know it is still early over there. Besides drinking all that beer, you have to go to the bathroom every 2 seconds, who could sleep?)

That is what I was thinking - what you said.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Just got back from the bathroom when I read this [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Midnight here, my day is just beginning.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
That assumption is easily refuted by counterexample: I am an atheist, and yet I do in fact accept an objective (or 'absolute') morality, or code of ethics. (Whether that morality is "correct" is a separate question.) The only assumption you can make about an atheist is that, by definition, he or she lacks a belief in "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you guys have different denominations, too.

[RJT]

Why does it not surprise me that you are a vampire? Or are you a werewolf - nevermind, you aren't in London.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does it not surprise me that you are a vampire? Or are you a werewolf - nevermind, you aren't in London.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in London