Is a consistent atheism possible?

Originally posted by mikelom
http://thinkersbebo.com/Articles/right__wrong.htm

That link did not even mention the 33 million Chinese killed by the communists early on, whole villages killed and they were their own people. What would you even call that anyway? Autogenocide?

Originally posted by sonhouse
That link did not even mention the 33 million Chinese killed by the communists early on, whole villages killed and they were their own people. What would you even call that anyway? Autogenocide?

I'd still call it genocide, as it was implemented by Mao Tse as far as I know.

Originally posted by mikelom
http://thinkersbebo.com/Articles/right__wrong.htm

The problem is laid out nicely; however, he fails to come to any definitive conclusion.

Sweet background, nonetheless.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Does the believer have any good reasons why that conclusion should follow? From the fact that man is made in God's image (supposing this is the case), how exactly does it follow that man is intrinsically valuable?
The believer has plenty of reason! In the same way that some have re-thought the golden rule (he who has the gold rules), the person w ...[text shortened]... ons here, I cannot think of a consistent view which does not employ pragmatism.[/b]

the person who is responsible for all of existence is the arbiter of what is good and acceptable. What He calls good is good.

Even by your own lights God is not responsible for all of existence, unless you want to claim that He is somehow responsible for His own existence too. Regardless, I do not see any good reasons to think what you say here is true. This horn of the Euthyphro dilemma faces numerous problems. At any rate, I also do not see what this has to do with my question (what was, from the supposition that we are made in God's image how exactly does it follow that we are intrinsically valuable).

Being made like Him, therefore, is good whereas not being like Him is bad--- or better, being not like Him is bad.

Unless I am missing something, this conclusion does not follow from your statements that precede it. Your reasoning seems quite disjointed here to me. I am not trying to be difficult, but I just do not get it.

But the conscious, self-aware mind cannot break itself from the proposition of God. Consider the brilliant, highly-intellectual folks throughout history who have obsessed on the topic, even saving their dying breath to utter their continued defiance, after dedicating their life's work to it. Call it reverse faith.

Honestly, you are losing me with this entire section. What does any of this have to do with whether one should label the meaning your view ascribes to human life as 'intrinsic' or 'extrinsic'?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm never said your life or anyone else's doesn't have meaning without God, I
have maintained it is only between your ears while your alive, once we are all
gone, than all meaning anyone ever had will be gone with us. The reason for that
is that it all stops and starts with us, and we are the judge of ourselves if we have
started by no cause other than ...[text shortened]... r along with a cry for
justice when something happens that we feel should not have.
Kelly

once we are all gone, than all meaning anyone ever had will be gone with us.

Sounds about right to me. What exactly is the problem here? And if you concede that our lives can have genuine meaning with or without God, then what is the problem left for the atheist? It seems the problem for you lies with the idea of impermanence. But, again, the fact that you have aversion to the idea of impermanence with respect to our lives and everything we hold dear does not really have anything to do with the de facto question of whether or not such things are impermanent.

I also maintain it is our being created by God that instills within us this notion of right and wrong, amebas do not have those thoughts it just acts like all other living creatures they do what is that nature to do, our nature has been damaged by sin so we have thoughts about what should and should not occur along with a cry for justice when something happens that we feel should not have.

Okay, this is what you maintain. But in no way is the subject of God needed in order to render plausible account for such things. The fact that we have notions of right and wrong; the fact that we have thoughts about what we should or should not do; the fact that we have intuitions regarding justice that can be frustrated; etc; these facts all admit of plausible evolutionary explanation. I think we have already had some discussions on these boards about this very topic.

Originally posted by mikelom
I have to agree with Freaky here, and not you. Buddhism [b]is pragmatic and, therefore, not all atheists are not committed to pragmastism.![/b]

I think either you misinterpreted what I said or I just failed to be adequately clear there. I never meant to imply that all atheists are not committed to pragmatism. I stated that an atheist is not committed to pragmatism, and by that in context I meant simply that being an atheist does not somehow also commit one to being a pragmatist. This is relevant because this whole thread deals with epiphinehas' claims regarding atheism and consistency. But neither he nor FreakyKBH can seem to refrain from projecting imaginary entailments on atheism. First, epiphinehas was wrong when he implied that atheists are committed to nihilism. He was also wrong when he implied atheists are committed to absurdism. And then I thought Freaky was implying that atheists are also somehow committed to pragmatism, which is likewise blatantly false. But, anyway, Freaky already made some extra clarification regarding that point.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]once we are all gone, than all meaning anyone ever had will be gone with us.

Sounds about right to me. What exactly is the problem here? And if you concede that our lives can have genuine meaning with or without God, then what is the problem left for the atheist? It seems the problem for you lies with the idea of impermanence. But, again, th ...[text shortened]... xplanation. I think we have already had some discussions on these boards about this very topic.[/b]

On balance all things are equal over time, a loving life and one filled with
all the vile a life can generate, according to you?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
On balance all things are equal over time, a loving life and one filled with
all the vile a life can generate, according to you?
Kelly

No. I was simply agreeing with you that if all persons were to die off, then so too would perish meaning, since I think the existence of meaning depends on the existence of minds. It wouldn't follow from this, though, that "all things are equal over time". Why would you draw that inference?

Originally posted by LemonJello
No. I was simply agreeing with you that if all persons were to die off, then so too would perish meaning, since I think the existence of meaning depends on the existence of minds. It wouldn't follow from this, though, that "all things are equal over time". Why would you draw that inference?

For me things like love transcend this universe it is the everlasting power
the very embodiment of God, one in which we share with Him. The view
that all things are equal in the end belittles the righteous things of this
universe like love, grace, and mercy. To say they carry the same weight
through time ends all justification of placing one over the other it than
becomes nothing more than a temporary personal preference once the
lasting value is removed. Such a view sets up people to simply take the one
they want without regard to anything or anyone they do not value, the end
is the same.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]once we are all gone, than all meaning anyone ever had will be gone with us.

Sounds about right to me. What exactly is the problem here? And if you concede that our lives can have genuine meaning with or without God, then what is the problem left for the atheist? It seems the problem for you lies with the idea of impermanence. But, again, th ...[text shortened]... xplanation. I think we have already had some discussions on these boards about this very topic.[/b]

There is no reason for evolution to touch these things.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
For me things like love transcend this universe it is the everlasting power
the very embodiment of God, one in which we share with Him. The view
that all things are equal in the end belittles the righteous things of this
universe like love, grace, and mercy. To say they carry the same weight
through time ends all justification of placing one over the ot ...[text shortened]...
they want without regard to anything or anyone they do not value, the end
is the same.
Kelly

How do you figure atheism equates to 'all things are equal in the end'?
You've failed to respond to my points earlier about morality being a socially agreed concept, which sort of makes your view that atheism leads to anything goes redundant, since human societies don't and have never allowed anything goes. If someone wants to live in a society where anything goes they can go and live in some remote commune out the back of Tucson or some other bumbf__k middle of nowhere, but the world you an I live in values the morality of life, love, property and so on. You may feel the need for a bit of magic to tell you that these things are good and proper, but many of us do not, and yet we're still here living our lives and raising our kids and getting along.
Go figure.

Originally posted by amannion
How do you figure atheism equates to 'all things are equal in the end'?
You've failed to respond to my points earlier about morality being a socially agreed concept, which sort of makes your view that atheism leads to anything goes redundant, since human societies don't and have never allowed anything goes. If someone wants to live in a society where anyth ...[text shortened]... d yet we're still here living our lives and raising our kids and getting along.
Go figure.

"How do you figure atheism equates to 'all things are equal in the end'?"

If all end up the same way for the same reason and nothing matters and nothing
can change that outcome, than they are no different from one another. To have
an equal end for both good and evil morals removes all advantage of one over the
other. If that is not the case, than a great deal matters. One would be of more
worth, and the cause and reason of that worth would the one that sets the
standards and gives them worth.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
No one's 'making it up as they go'. We don't just suddenly arrive at the societies we have today - they're the product of thousands of years of experiment and experience, and before that millions of years of evolution.
There are many examples of altruism - of if you think that's being a bit anthropomorphic - altruistic behaviour throughout the animal kingd why bother being nice now, you can always do that in some future fairy heaven?

How many sides of this discussion you making, either things changes as people
change them, which is another way of saying they are making it up as they go,
or they don't.

I seem to think (I can only speak for myself on what people think) that anyone
without a standard that is outside of themselves are bound to make up one as they
go (they know one is required). If they are bound to a standard, than they then
feel that standard can be changed, than they are no longer bound to that standard
(but they will still justify themselves as they do). They are again at the point to do
what they will as they justify to themselves those things they want to do or have
done to them, again making it up as they go.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"How do you figure atheism equates to 'all things are equal in the end'?"

If all end up the same way for the same reason and nothing matters and nothing
can change that outcome, than they are no different from one another. To have
an equal end for both good and evil morals removes all advantage of one over the
other. If that is not the case, than a gr ...[text shortened]... and reason of that worth would the one that sets the
standards and gives them worth.
Kelly

“...To have an equal end for both good and evil morals removes all advantage of one over the other. ...”

so the only rational in your opinion for me (or anyone else) to not do something evil but do something good instead is because doing something good rather than evil results in some good end result for me?

I (and I am sure all atheists and even many/most theists) would disagree.

I would choose to do something good rather than bad not on the bases of reward or punishment or any “end result” but rather because, for me (and most people) , doing that is intrinsically good. I can willingly choose to save a persons life even if I know I will not be rewarded for it; would you deny I am capable of such a thing?

Originally posted by LemonJello
the person who is responsible for all of existence is the arbiter of what is good and acceptable. What He calls good is good.

Even by your own lights God is not responsible for all of existence, unless you want to claim that He is somehow responsible for His own existence too. Regardless, I do not see any good reasons to think what you say here is ...[text shortened]... e should label the meaning your view ascribes to human life as 'intrinsic' or 'extrinsic'?[/b]

Even by your own lights God is not responsible for all of existence, unless you want to claim that He is somehow responsible for His own existence too.
He is not self-created; He simply has always been--- without beginning or end.

This horn of the Euthyphro dilemma faces numerous problems.
What makes the jar valuable? That which has been deposited into it, of course. Once emptied, anyone can arbitrarily assign value to a jar fashioned from clay, however, their valuation is specious at best, totally dependent upon vacillating terms.

What good is a corpse? In our animated state, we represent opportunity and hope, but once that life passes out of the flesh, the flesh is worthless. Value may be assigned by scientists, macabre collectors or the like, but the intrinsic value, the inherent worth is visible--- if not appreciated--- only while the housing contains the person.

The person is where we find that image of God: created a trichotomy, to represent the Trinity, man has become dichotomous from birth. Once born, he has potential for a return to the original state of body-soul-spirit, but only while alive in the body does this potential exist. Once body and soul are separated, that potential expires.

If He is the uncreated source for all of creation, there is none other than Him, none outside of Him, therefore He is the highest standard of all things, all truth, all reality. If He were to intone that blue is bad and red is good, for example, only something other than truth, other than reality could suggest the opposite. It then follows that any line of thinking not in agreement with Him is not true, is disassociated from reality.

Honestly, you are losing me with this entire section. What does any of this have to do with whether one should label the meaning your view ascribes to human life as 'intrinsic' or 'extrinsic'?
I got a little far afield, but essentially I was drawing the line from the claim of the antitheist and the practice of the antitheist. Some have more recently coughed up the FSM as an example of the supposed absurdity inherent of the believers's perspective toward God. While it found immediate response, it has sense lost traction: it was much wider than it was deep. That being said, if we were to see a group of people dedicating their academic careers, their fortunes to combating the FSM, one of two things would be present. Either there's really something to this FSM, or it's just all in the anti-FSM's minds.