Is a consistent atheism possible?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yes, Christian ethics, an oxymoron. Like what they did to the Aztecs, Mayans, and such, like what they did to the Australian aborigines, like what they did to the American Indians. You are right, Christian ethics extends far beyond scriptural exegesis.

If your statement is true them you shall state which Christian teaching they were following when those atrocities were perpetrated, if you cannot, nor will not, then you must conclude that the persons who perpetrated them were not indeed Christians, but something else, for a Christian, is one who follows the teachings of the Christ.

Originally posted by amannion
Okay then, there are no moral absolutes.
And yet, still we have morality ... go figure.

Not sure how you got that out of what I said. If human's are not making those
absolutes than we cannot change them, only be held to them.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'll give you this: the position of existentialism is so fraught with absurdities, it is exceedingly difficult to argue on its behalf while keeping a straight face.

Unquestionably, Sartre held that life without God necessarily removed any form of objectivity, completely obliterating the distinctions between morally permissible and morally impermi ...[text shortened]... matter could be found in that dull ache so easily found inside each one of them.

I'll give you this: the position of existentialism is so fraught with absurdities, it is exceedingly difficult to argue on its behalf while keeping a straight face.

I agree. I do not think existentialism is tenable. Why should we value freedom? Is such freedom even possible? How can we not commit bad faith?

Unquestionably, Sartre held that life without God necessarily removed any form of objectivity, completely obliterating the distinctions between morally permissible and morally impermissible.

I question that. You are merely begging the question here since the very point of my post was that Sartre's existentialism did not entail that objectivity is impossible, that all moral reasoning is equal or that life is essentially meaningless. Sartre had vehement political and moral beliefs which he propounded very publicly. The point of existentialism was not to remove the possibility of objectivity or to posit relativism but rather to recognise the need for the self to embrace its own responsibility as a free agent.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not sure how you got that out of what I said. If human's are not making those
absolutes than we cannot change them, only be held to them.
Kelly

Well I'm an atheist, so I don't believe there exists a supernatural creator fairy in the sky. And by your claim we humans can't have an absolute morality.
Therefore, as I see it, there is none.
Everything is subjective, and it seems to work pretty well for the most part. We mostly don't kill each other mindlessly. We mostly respect each other and each other's property. And we're mostly nice to each other. I'd say subjective morality is working.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'll give you this: the position of existentialism is so fraught with absurdities, it is exceedingly difficult to argue on its behalf while keeping a straight face.

I agree. I do not think existentialism is tenable. Why should we value freedom? Is such freedom even possible? How can we not commit bad faith?

Unquestionably, Sartre held that t rather to recognise the need for the self to embrace its own responsibility as a free agent.

As I read him, he posits that anything resembling objectivity comes as a result of individual subjectivity--- each man his own island, choosing for himself and only for himself what his standards are to be, sans influence from the opinions of others. I wonder if the irony of teaching such a position was lost on him!

Originally posted by amannion
Well I'm an atheist, so I don't believe there exists a supernatural creator fairy in the sky. And by your claim we humans can't have an absolute morality.
Therefore, as I see it, there is none.
Everything is subjective, and it seems to work pretty well for the most part. We mostly don't kill each other mindlessly. We mostly respect each other and each oth ...[text shortened]... 's property. And we're mostly nice to each other. I'd say subjective morality is working.

I am a Christian and I don't believe in a supernatural creator fairy in the sky
either, so we don't have to worry about either of us promoting such a fairy.

If everything is subjective you believe all things can be as we want them to be
no matter what? I'd say subjective morality is not working, because we do not
treat each other as we should since every day there are people who murder,
steal, lie, break oaths, who betray trusts, and so on. People have a million
excuses for such things from religion to past wrongs, but people always present
excuses for such things, good things they simply take credit for, because they
know they are good. So we are all quite aware of what is and isn't good,
we just don't aways acknowledge our part in it all, we excuse ourselves from doing
right for some reason or another.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
Well I'm an atheist, so I don't believe there exists a supernatural creator fairy in the sky. And by your claim we humans can't have an absolute morality.
Therefore, as I see it, there is none.
Everything is subjective, and it seems to work pretty well for the most part. We mostly don't kill each other mindlessly. We mostly respect each other and each oth ...[text shortened]... 's property. And we're mostly nice to each other. I'd say subjective morality is working.

I'd say subjective morality is working.

On which planet are you staying? For you it may be working, but not for the countless victims of murder, rape and theft we don't even read about on the news...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If your statement is true them you shall state which Christian teaching they were following when those atrocities were perpetrated, if you cannot, nor will not, then you must conclude that the persons who perpetrated them were not indeed Christians, but something else, for a Christian, is one who follows the teachings of the Christ.

Are you kidding? For instance, the forced schooling and forced conversion to christianity isn't enough to open your eyes, the destruction of entire cultures because of the incredible arrogance of christians who see themselves as the guiding light of the entire universe?

The Aztec codex books were almost completely destroyed by Spanish priests because they didn't like what they saw in them and again, totally destroyed the literature of an entire culture under the assumption their arrogant religion was so superior to the Aztec they felt justified in destroying almost ALL their literature, burning thousands of books.

Sound familiar? Like maybe the book burnings of the Soviet era, which was of course not based on religion but in the case of the Spanish priests, their action was TOTALLY based on the supposed superiority of their religion.

Do you ever wonder why the American indian reservations are riff with alcoholism?
Could it be because they were forced to go to school to learn our way of life including our 'superior' religion? You bet your boobies it was.

Why was it the Dutch and others in the 15th century felt justified in capturing thousands of African slaves and transporting them thousands of miles to the Americas? They had god on their side. Did you know there were 4 slaves brought to America for every white settler? Slaves treated worse than cattle, if they got sick, throw half of them overboard to save the rest of the slave cattle. Justified by their bible.

You need to open your own eyes to the very real atrocities that is inherent in religions like christianity and Islam. The way the colonizers treated the indigenous
cultures around the world is proof positive of the attitudes of those religions.

Sure now you can claim, but we do so much good. Granted. But that does not excuse the hundreds of atrocities it took to get to your great goodness empire.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you kidding? For instance, the forced schooling and forced conversion to christianity isn't enough to open your eyes, the destruction of entire cultures because of the incredible arrogance of christians who see themselves as the guiding light of the entire universe?

The Aztec codex books were almost completely destroyed by Spanish priests because th ...[text shortened]... hat does not excuse the hundreds of atrocities it took to get to your great goodness empire.

Justified by their bible.
Do tell. You had me at justified by their religion, but when you bring the Bible in it, you're going to have to better than simply laying down such allegations. Quote the person quoting the Bible in justification of unseemly behavior, or else your charge is without merit.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Justified by their bible.
Do tell. You had me at justified by their religion, but when you bring the Bible in it, you're going to have to better than simply laying down such allegations. Quote the person quoting the Bible in justification of unseemly behavior, or else your charge is without merit.[/b]

My point entirely, for it seems to me that our friend is unable to distinguish the actions of those claiming to be Christian, from those teachings which define one as such.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My point entirely, for it seems to me that our friend is unable to distinguish the actions of those claiming to be Christian, from those teachings which define one as such.

I thought he was simply trying to be witty. He can't seriously believe what he is writing is an intelligible argument.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I thought he was simply trying to be witty. He can't seriously believe what he is writing is an intelligible argument.

Actually with all due respect Conrau, whether he was being witty or not, i cannot say, however the point is a valid one. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of the Christ, in word and deed. Sonhouse has provided details of actions that cannot in any shape or form be traced to the teachings of the Christ, making the claim that those who perpetrated them and their claim to be Christians untenable, for they are guilty of apostasy as is evidenced by their actions. Simply put, because one is nominally a Christian either through baptism or social geography, does not mean that one actually is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Is this like the time you tried to teach us all something about the philosophy of Schopenhauer?
Only if you don't listen.

'Anguish', 'forlornness', 'despair'; these are concepts that have specific meaning to Sartre.
Granted, Sartre uses the terms with a greater emphasis on the frankness/sober aspect of their usual, normal definitions, bu ...[text shortened]... n tag-lined by a certain respected person to these parts: "Nothing Holy."[/b]

Without God, without any outside, static standard of being, who gives a rat's ass how anyone behaves

Well, again, I have some major problems with such a line of reasoning that neither you nor epiphinehas has bothered to address.

First, your stance in this particular respect does not even seem internally consistent because you are basically claiming that for morality to carry actual clout there has to be some heteronomous standard for "anyone" (that is, some standard that is external to all moral agents); but, in fact, you and epiphinehas are committed on the other hand to this simply not being the case, since God represents a counterexample. By your own lights, God is a moral agent and yet there is no moral standard external to Him. In fact, epiphinehas just tried to tell me that God establishes morals simply by fiat. Now, I leave it up to you and epi to explain why I should buy any of this; why I should think that agents must have some heteronomous standard for morality to bind them…oh, but there's this one agent over here, God, who is exempt somehow; why I should think that God can simply bring about binding morals merely through fiat…oh, but other agents cannot. Further, you are basically saying, hey, without some heteronomous standard imposed on us, who gives a rat's ass how any of us behaves or what any of us thinks on moral matters. But then why cannot we just say, hey, without some heteronomous standard imposed on Him, who gives a rat's ass how God behaves or what God decrees regarding moral matters. If you will note, this is an objection I have repeatedly brought against epiphinehas' arguments, and he simply has not addressed it: give me some plausible reasons why I should meta-privilege God's mind on moral matters above the minds of other agents.

Second, you and epiphinehas argue as though you can add God to the mix and, somehow, this cures what you take to be the atheistic ailment of not providing for objective morality or inherent meaning. Well, neither of you to date has given me any actual reasons to take that seriously. And I have offered some reasons why I think the addition of another agent, God, only seems to add more subjective dimension. For our lives to be inherently or intrinsically meaningful, they have to be as such in and of themselves, right? They have to be as such per se, right? You or epiphinehas cannot be serious when you tell me that you can usher in some extrinsic agent who imposes external standards and heteronomy on us and then go on to say that it is somehow in virtue of this that our lives are intrinsically or inherently anything. And for morals to be 'objective' they need to be mind-independent, right? So, you or epiphinehas cannot be serious when you tell me that you can usher in some mind and that it is somehow in virtue of this that morals are objective. You and epiphinehas, with your beautiful accounts of 'objective' morals and your beautiful accounts of how our lives are 'inherently' meaningful; you're just like the emperor with his new clothes.

Third, completely regardless if there is some "outside, static standard of being", it seems like there are still many reasons why one should give a rat's ass to how he and others behave. You honestly mean to tell me that you cannot think of any? Whether or not there is some "outside, static standard of being" or whether or not I will live forever and ever and ever; these kinds of considerations seem rather inconsequential to whether or not I may have good reasons at my disposal to care about how I treat others and how others treat me in the now. I mean, how are such considerations as you what you guys mention even relevant here? Completely regardless of your considerations, do we not still have abiding interest to live well with each other and to live characteristically free from pain and suffering and the like?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am a Christian and I don't believe in a supernatural creator fairy in the sky
either, so we don't have to worry about either of us promoting such a fairy.

If everything is subjective you believe all things can be as we want them to be
no matter what? I'd say subjective morality is not working, because we do not
treat each other as we should since ev ...[text shortened]... ur part in it all, we excuse ourselves from doing
right for some reason or another.
Kelly

I live in Victoria - a state with a population of a little over 5.5 million people. Last year across the state there were 206 murders. That means that around 5.5 million people didn't commit murder. I'd say something's going right there.
Bummer for the 206 of course, but overall the morality that my society requests of people is sort of working.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b] I'd say subjective morality is working.

On which planet are you staying? For you it may be working, but not for the countless victims of murder, rape and theft we don't even read about on the news...[/b]

Countless?
I think we can pretty easily count them, and as you might see in the statistics I mentioned in my previous post, while horrible stuff happens to some people, most of us are doing pretty well.