Is a consistent atheism possible?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...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 e ...[text shortened]... life even if I know I will not be rewarded for it; would you deny I am capable of such a thing?

I believe good does not depend on how it affects me, what if I'm faced with a
choice where I do "good" for me or someone else, and if I choose me they suffer?
If all choices all end up the same way than what I do doesn't matter in the end, if I
help someone else or just myself it is all the same in the end. There are no scales
that promote one above another if they are equally going to be for naught over
time. You getting a reward or not does not matter any more than you getting
spoils for a crime if all choices lead to the same place. If there is a standard that
does not depend on man, that does not depend on 'what I get out of it at the time'
than things take on a different shape even if they appear to help or hurt here.
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

To say they carry the same weight
through time ends all justification…

But I did not say they carry the same weight through time. And you still have not explained why I would be committed to anything resembling this.

This is basically what happened in our exchange. I said that P. And then you said, oh but wait, if you say that Q, then that ends all justification for this, that, the other, etc. But I did not say that Q: I said that P. If you are going to assume that my saying that P also commits me to the idea that Q, I will ask you to explain what justifies that assumption. So, show me what justifies it. Here, P is something like that our lives and meaning thereof are impermanent. And Q is what you keep importing, something like that all things "carry the same weight" or are somehow "equal" through time.

As far as I can tell, your assumption is simply not justified. I can very well hold that our lives and meaning thereof are impermanent; but at the same time hold that things in our lives carry different weights. What is inconsistent about that?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is no reason for evolution to touch these things.
Kelly

Well, I disagree. The elements of human moral faculty that you mentioned are basically universal and cross-cultural, etc. So it is certainly reasonable to expect that they admit of plausible evolutionary explanation (in the sense that either they have direct Darwinian benefits or they are by-products of things that do, etc). And they do admit of such explanation; again, we have already discussed this somewhat.

What's much more remarkable to me is not your failing to understand the plausibility of evolutionary explanatory account, but rather your thinking that your own account provides actual explanatory substance.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[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 bee ...[text shortened]... Either there's really something to this FSM, or it's just all in the anti-FSM's minds.[/b]

He is not self-created; He simply has always been--- without beginning or end.

Right...so how exactly is your view as you have expressed it here self-consistent? You stated that the person responsible for all of existence is the arbiter of what is good. You also think God is that arbiter of what is good. But, even by your own lights, God cannot be a person responsible for all of existence because, having simply always existed, He cannot be responsible for His own existence. So, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

At any rate, it would not matter if you amended your earlier statement by saying that the person responsible for all of existence (excepting his own existence) is the arbiter of what is good. I still would have no good reasons to think this is the way it works.

If He is the uncreated source for all of creation, there is none other than Him, none outside of Him

That doesn't seem to follow. Even if you were the "uncreated source for all of creation" it doesn't follow that there is nothing outside of you. First, there is your creation which constitutes something other than you. Second, there could be other uncreated things outside of yourself.

therefore He is the highest standard of all things, all truth, all reality

And that does not follow either. It may be that such things as 'truth' and 'reality' are not things for which it would make sense to say a person (even one who is the "uncreated source for all of creation'😉 could serve as the "standard".

It then follows that any line of thinking not in agreement with Him is not true, is disassociated from reality.

No, that doesn't follow either. It could be that whether or not some line of thinking is true just hinges on whether or not it is correspondent with actual facts (not whether or not it is correspondent with the thinking of some other agent on the topic, even if this other agent happens to be the 'uncreated source of all creation'😉.

Some have more recently coughed up the FSM as an example of the supposed absurdity inherent of the believers's perspective toward God.

Again, what does this paragraph have to do with whether the meaning that your view ascribes to human lives should be considered as 'intrinsic' or 'extrinsic'?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]To say they carry the same weight
through time ends all justification…

But I did not say they carry the same weight through time. And you still have not explained why I would be committed to anything resembling this.

This is basically what happened in our exchange. I said that P. And then you said, oh but wait, if you say that Q, then ime hold that things in our lives carry different weights. What is inconsistent about that?[/b]

Do you believe all things end up in nothing?
Unless you have some other view than that one you are indeed saying that all
things we call good are no different than all things we call bad in the end.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]To say they carry the same weight
through time ends all justification…

But I did not say they carry the same weight through time. And you still have not explained why I would be committed to anything resembling this.

This is basically what happened in our exchange. I said that P. And then you said, oh but wait, if you say that Q, then ...[text shortened]... ime hold that things in our lives carry different weights. What is inconsistent about that?[/b]

Different weights don't matter when at some point during time all things end up
balancing out and end equally.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe good does not depend on how it affects me, what if I'm faced with a
choice where I do "good" for me or someone else, and if I choose me they suffer?
If all choices all end up the same way than what I do doesn't matter in the end, if I
help someone else or just myself it is all the same in the end. There are no scales
that promote one above ano ...[text shortened]... e'
than things take on a different shape even if they appear to help or hurt here.
Kelly

“...I believe good does not depend on how it affects me, what if I'm faced with a
choice where I do "good" for me or someone else, and if I choose me they suffer?
If all choices all end up the same way than what I do doesn't matter in the end ...”

Why would “all choices all end up the same way”?
If I help someone (even at my expense) and he/she has a longer happier life at a result, then that mere fact of this result is of intrinsic good -yes?
We may not live forever but that does not logically imply that it is not good to prolong the life and make that life a happier one while it lasts.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you believe all things end up in nothing?
Unless you have some other view than that one you are indeed saying that all
things we call good are no different than all things we call bad in the end.
Kelly

“...Do you believe all things end up in nothing? ...”

This is the wrong question: One day I will be nothing (i.e. dead). One day, we all will be nothing.
But we are not all nothing yet! Right now, we are alive.
So right now there can be something good about living. Right now, our lives have value to us.
The fact that life would not last forever does not logically imply that life is of no value while it lasts.

It would be stupid of me to jump of a cliff today because one day I will be nothing -stupid because that fact does not mean I should become nothing today!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Do you believe all things end up in nothing? ...”

This is the wrong question: One day I will be nothing (i.e. dead). One day, we all will be nothing.
But we are not all nothing yet! Right now, we are alive.
So right now there can be something good about living. Right now, our lives have value to us.
The fact that life would not last forev ...[text shortened]... one day I will be nothing -stupid because that fact does not mean I should become nothing today!

I guess you have not been following the thread, nothing wrong with that, it is
a long one, but the question indeed goes straight to if all things end up in nothing
than no matter what, all choices lead to the same place!

Since they all end up the same way no matter what than they were, all choices are
no different in the end than any other choice made. You living one day longer or
one day shorter in the end does not matter! Your values die with you and after you
are gone for awhile no one will be around who misses you or really cares that you
were ever here, so who cares if you live one day or a few years longer?

This again is something I reject! Since I believe there are eternal values that do
not have anything to do with how we view them or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I believe good does not depend on how it affects me, what if I'm faced with a
choice where I do "good" for me or someone else, and if I choose me they suffer?
If all choices all end up the same way than what I do doesn't matter in the end ...”

Why would “all choices all end up the same way”?
If I help someone (even at my expense) and he/s ...[text shortened]... ply that it is not good to prolong the life and make that life a happier one while it lasts.

Value is only worth something while the value lasts, your values if they are all that
matters goes away when you do. You die than what you cared about goes with you
and after awhile sometime down the road we can all die, than nothing anyone ever
did or didn't do mattered. The most vile person life would have the same value as
the most loving, that is all Atheism has to offer, today's wants and needs. Any
Atheist can talk about value, but that belief system really promotes whatever the
person who has claimed no eternal values really wants. If they want what they
lust for no matter the damage, that belief system justifies that in the end just like
the Atheist that promotes loving care for everyone, they both end up the same
way, in nothing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess you have not been following the thread, nothing wrong with that, it is
a long one, but the question indeed goes straight to if all things end up in nothing
than no matter what, all choices lead to the same place!

Since they all end up the same way no matter what than they were, all choices are
no different in the end than any other choice made ...[text shortened]... e there are eternal values that do
not have anything to do with how we view them or not.
Kelly

Your values die with you and after you
are gone for awhile no one will be around who misses you or really cares that you were ever here, so who cares if you live one day or a few years longer?

That question is easy: I care, and so do a bunch of other persons around me.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Value is only worth something while the value lasts, your values if they are all that
matters goes away when you do. You die than what you cared about goes with you
and after awhile sometime down the road we can all die, than nothing anyone ever
did or didn't do mattered. The most vile person life would have the same value as
the most loving, that is al ...[text shortened]... ist that promotes loving care for everyone, they both end up the same
way, in nothing.
Kelly

You die than what you cared about goes with you
and after awhile sometime down the road we can all die, than nothing anyone ever did or didn't do mattered.

The first part is true: our lives are impermanent, and so too are the meanings and values attached to our lives. But the second part doesn't follow. I do not really understand why this is so difficult to grasp: the fact that some thing fails to have permanent or eternal significance does not imply that it didn't matter or that it did not have significance. If you want to take up the view of the universe an untold number of years down the road after everyone has died off, then of course it won't matter to anyone then what any of us ever did. That point is just utterly trivial since the whole supposition in that thought experiment is that there is no such "anyone" anyway. The point is basically tautological, as if you just stated that when there is no one around left to care about what any of us ever did, there will be no around left to care about what any of us ever did. Well, duh. That simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not there are things that "carry weight" and have significance in our lives.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]You die than what you cared about goes with you
and after awhile sometime down the road we can all die, than nothing anyone ever did or didn't do mattered.

The first part is true: our lives are impermanent, and so too are the meanings and values attached to our lives. But the second part doesn't follow. I do not really understand why this i ...[text shortened]... whether or not there are things that "carry weight" and have significance in our lives.[/b]

I believe it does have a great deal to do with the worth and meaning behind our
lives, that is the fact that if nothing is all that awaits us, it again means the vile and
the loving are no different from one another. Another poster said that if they got
no eternal reward what difference does it make, if none is forth coming than the
vile in this life whose desires are never satisfied by the evil the propels that life
along, has the same moral standing in his own eyes as the next guy no matter who
that next guy is loving or not. The grand nothing equals out the good bad equation
so that no matter how live your life it only matters between your ears, which is no
different than the vile who delights in the pain and suffering than someone else.
Any justice we demand for anything is just our desires being carried as the vile and
the loving do in their own eyes, it is just someone with power acting upon another.

The temporary is a shifting sand of opinion, there really isn't a solid standard to
rest upon, there would be nothing to call right that just isn't the feel good at the
moment standard of living. That of course runs against scripture that says that
God is our sure foundation an everlasting God who changes not. Outside of a
eternal right and wrong our agreements or disagreements as all of our opinions
no matter how well thought-out are as meaningful in the end as the drunkards
whose sole purpose in life was his next drink thoughts were on any topic however
blurry and disjointed.
Kelly

Ecclesiastes (New American Standard Bible)

1:1-3 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
What advantage does man have in all his work Which he does under the sun?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I believe good does not depend on how it affects me, what if I'm faced with a
choice where I do "good" for me or someone else, and if I choose me they suffer?
If all choices all end up the same way than what I do doesn't matter in the end ...”

Why would “all choices all end up the same way”?
If I help someone (even at my expense) and he/s ...[text shortened]... ply that it is not good to prolong the life and make that life a happier one while it lasts.

You talk of happiness.

The atheist has only illusionary happiness....just like a pig in mud who is enjoying himself, Is the pig happy.

To have authentic happiness one must have authentic peace.

To have authentic peace one cannot believe life ends at the death of the material body.


There was a wedding party going down the river on a boat, and after some time the captain makes an announcement.

In 4 hours we all will be killed, because there is a giant waterfall ahead and I cannot stop the boat.

All the people on the boat all agree they will enjoy themselves for the 4 hrs they have left to live.

Tell me.....do they have peace during that 4 hrs?

No they dont, therefore their happiness is artificial and not real....they are in illusion.

The happiness of the atheist is artificial and not genuine.

Dont confuse happiness with excitement.

The atheist is doing many things to create excitement in their life.....but excitement is not happiness.

Happiness is intrinsic with purpose and fulfillment.

Your life finishing at death for all time, does not induce this.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You talk of happiness.

The atheist has only illusionary happiness....just like a pig in mud who is enjoying himself, Is the pig happy.

To have authentic happiness one must have authentic peace.

To have authentic peace one cannot believe life ends at the death of the material body.


There was a wedding party going down the river on a boat, a ...[text shortened]... ith purpose and fulfillment.

Your life finishing at death for all time, does not induce this.

Illusionary happiness, how would you know what they are feeling is real or not?
Your big on telling everyone their lives are illusions, I disagree, if I had 4 hours to
live I would and could enjoy my friends and family, this life is temporary, but it
is real.
Kelly