Is a consistent atheism possible?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]the fact that if nothing is all that awaits us, it again means the vile and
the loving are no different from one another.

No, it does not mean that. I'm afraid that is just some bad logic on your part.

What advantage does man have in all his work Which he does under the sun?

Man can procure for himself many goods under the sun, ...[text shortened]... y his sweat. He just cannot procure for himself any permanent goods under the sun. Big whoop.[/b]

Since all choices get zero'd out to nothing I don't see how you can tell me that
one is better than another.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Since all choices get zero'd out to nothing I don't see how you can tell me that
one is better than another.
Kelly

First, how exactly does my claim that our lives are impermanent translate to "all choices get zero'd out to nothing"? Second, even if it were true that all our choices eventually get zero'd out to nothing (whatever exactly you mean by that), what would that have to do with whether one choice in my life is better than another? These considerations have nothing to do with one another.

You'll have to excuse me for not understanding how your arguments throughout this thread demonstrate anything substantive. Your arguments honestly seem quite trivial. For instance, you argue that if we all die off, then there will be nobody left to care about anything we ever did. Relatedly, if all our lives happen to be impermanent, then they can carry no permanent significance or meaning. Both of these points, as far as I can tell, are correct; but both seem trivial. So, I agree with these points; but...so what? I'm already OK with the fact that my life will have no permanent meaning or everlasting impact that endures forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. What does that have to do with the choices in front of me; things directly at issue with immediate relevancy and context; my life in the here and now; etc?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are still doing it, I know I believe in God, that does not void an Atheist's views
on what is meaningful or not to him or her, it only voids anything as far as they
are concern after they die. You are attempting to tell another person their views
that they have, their feelings that they have are not real. Who are you to tell
another human being such ...[text shortened]... you deny that by suggesting only those with a belief in God has real views
or meaning.
Kelly

Authentic happiness can only be experienced with authentic truth....not falsity, or otherwise the happiness one experiences is transitory and shallow.

A person who experiences true happiness could be sitting in a dungeon for 20 yrs and be blissful......but a person who experiences transitory happiness will be miserable.

Authentic happiness comes from truth of God and self.....that happiness is continuous and expanding, and it continues after the death of the body.

Transitory happiness comes from activities that produce pleasure and excitement. ....that happiness comes and goes, and therefore unsatisfactory, and is finished with the death of the body.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I could argue the opposite is at least equally true. Believing in god and an eternal hereafter distracts a person from the most valuable and untouchable spot in the universe: the here-and-now. "

I'd disagree, as I see it good and evil are real, they are not man made tokens we
use to paint those things we like and dislike. From a Godly prespective His w ...[text shortened]... plumb line for reality where our desires could not hide truth due to
our selfishness.
Kelly

Our values about what isl good or bad changes through time and space. I am quite happy about that although not always happy about the direction of the change. An omnipotent god who commands me what is good or bad sounds very unattractive to me Happily I don't believe in such an an omnipotent entity.
Why do you need a god to realize that selfishness is something to avoid?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"If I understood you well, you seem to think only theists can live in a meaningful world because the existence of a god is needed to live meaningful."

No, I've acknowledged all of our meaning is real, but it only lasts as long as it
lasts, and we all know we are going to die, and everyone we know is going to die,
and at some point most of us believe we ...[text shortened]... e two groups they are not the same their foundations are completely different.
Kelly

The imprints of our deeds and thoughts influence the direction of the future. Life doesn't stop when breathing stops. But I don't share your hope and belief in the existence of an impermanent god. Neither can I see which 'advantage' such a belief can offer when you are also convinced that nothing else will last. Or do you believe that some part of you and me is impermanent? In that case the atheist doesn't have to worry about his impermanence, right?

I agree with you that there is a fundamental difference in believing that morality is something we mold and develop or that it is an unchangeable god given thing in which we have nothing to say.

Originally posted by souverein
Our values about what isl good or bad changes through time and space. I am quite happy about that although not always happy about the direction of the change. An omnipotent god who commands me what is good or bad sounds very unattractive to me Happily I don't believe in such an an omnipotent entity.
Why do you need a god to realize that selfishness is something to avoid?

Our values can be twisted at will if there isn't a standard beyond us, we can justify
just about anything at any time. Listen to the name calling hate speech in this
country now by the same people who were crying that negative hate speech
caused that shooting in AZ just a little while ago. I'm quite sure both times those
guys were speaking they felt they were justified, but they are not consistent.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[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 ...[text shortened]... er and to live characteristically free from pain and suffering and the like?[/b]

By your own lights, God is a moral agent and yet there is no moral standard external to Him.

There is no moral standard external to God because God, the greatest conceivable being, defines moral goodness. What is ultimately good/bad can only be determined in reference to his nature, and what is ultimately right/wrong, in reference to his will.

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 think that God can simply bring about binding morals merely through fiat.

God's commands, in so far as God is the greatest conceivable being and his commands are a necessary expression of his character, are morally binding because they are an expression of the greatest possible good.

...it's a complete fantasy that atheism is somehow logically inconsistent with objective morality.

On the contrary, it is a complete fantasy that an objective morality is possible given the atheistic worldview. Can you offer any compelling reasons why I should think that the objective morals you may or may not be able to establish without reference to God are actually binding?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
There is no moral standard external to God because God, the greatest conceivable being, defines moral goodness. What is ultimately good/bad can only be determined in reference to his nature, and what is ultimately right/wrong, in reference to his will.

You are essentially redefining what the words 'moral, 'good' and 'bad' mean. The problem I have with redefinitions is that your intention is to try and hang on to the original meaning and sort of drag it onto your new definition.
You will for example claim that God is good (with the common meaning of 'good'😉, but if challenged and it is proven that God does not meet this definition, then you can escape and resort to your new definition. But you won't leave it there, you will then turn around and try to assert that because he meet your new definition, he somehow qualifies for the common definition.

To demonstrate, what would you say if God, without provocation, tortures and murders a generally blameless human being. Most of us would say that action was 'bad'. How would you describe it? Would you admit that we are justified in calling it 'bad'?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Is there an atheist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God doesn't exist? In other words, is it possible for someone to live consistently in the 'light' of objective meaninglessness, without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes or pretending, even fleetingly, that their life has meaning?

If God's existing makes a difference to how you live, you are unworthy of His love.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Our values can be twisted at will if there isn't a standard beyond us, we can justify
just about anything at any time. Listen to the name calling hate speech in this
country now by the same people who were crying that negative hate speech
caused that shooting in AZ just a little while ago. I'm quite sure both times those
guys were speaking they felt they were justified, but they are not consistent.
Kelly

Our values can be twisted at will if there isn't a standard beyond us, we can justify
just about anything at any time.

True, human life it is all about surviving and happiness. We change direction when we feel we should. We make sometimes horrible, selfish, irreversable mistakes doing that.

Religion is hardly a good solution for this dilemma. Most religionists think they possess with their superhuman power the key to meaningful. The superhuman power tells them how to live. They are mistaken. Founders of religions were wise people who tried to higher the moral code of the times they were living in. They used a superhuman force to give their teachings more power. By promising a good afterlife they tried to improve the moral code.

In reality these 'god given' morals are changing through time too. Religionists have no absolute moral code either. Their morals change too when their cultures change. The only difference: more conservative than average.

Originally posted by souverein
[b]Our values can be twisted at will if there isn't a standard beyond us, we can justify
just about anything at any time.

True, human life it is all about surviving and happiness. We change direction when we feel we should. We make sometimes horrible, selfish, irreversable mistakes doing that.

Religion is hardly a good solution for this dilemma ...[text shortened]... s change too when their cultures change. The only difference: more conservative than average.[/b]

My intent wasn't to push or pull anyone into a religion, when Jesus spoke He
pointed out that the Kingdom of God was at hand. You can have relgion and miss
out on God, some people think about their church and their service to it as their
religion, Jesus spoke about a relationship where God enters our lives. The higher
standard isn't a 'set' set of rules, if it were the 10 Commandments and the law
would have been enough for us. In addition, if all you want and are striving for is
a good afterlife you are again missing out on God now, the Kingdom of God is not
for just the here after though it will be there, but it is here and now. The absolute
moral code is having a religionship with God as Jesus said, the Holy Spirit is here
to lead and teach us which requires we are following and learning now.
Kelly

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]By your own lights, God is a moral agent and yet there is no moral standard external to Him.

There is no moral standard external to God because God, the greatest conceivable being, defines moral goodness. What is ultimately good/bad can only be determined in reference to his nature, and what is ultimately right/wrong, in reference to his will. morals you may or may not be able to establish without reference to God are actually binding?[/b]

I'm not so sure "God" is the greatest conceivable being - I'm aware you define it to be such, but then I could just as easily define the flying spaghetti monster, or Hagak the *evil god* destroyer to be the greatest conceivable being.
Indeed many of the notions of god that float around these boards share nothing I would identify with greatness. Moreover, Without knowing the characteristics of your own notion of god I could say another entity with it's characteristics that *magicks* terminal cancer sufferers out of their misery immediately once the experience of pain is greater than the relief provided by morphine, for example, is better than the god you suppose to exist. Thus were it possible on my part to conceive of your god, I could quite easily conceive of something greater.

Secondly your assertion "God ... defines "moral goodness"" is just another definition you provide which we are under no logical obligation to accept. By any useful definition of the word; your god, supposedly with all it's capabilities, comes across as pretty damned *immoral*. As twhitehead points out you're merely redefining common words, and centering them on your god - as far as I'm concerned these words lose any useful connection with their prior meaning when, at least in this discussion, you do this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are essentially redefining what the words 'moral, 'good' and 'bad' mean. The problem I have with redefinitions is that your intention is to try and hang on to the original meaning and sort of drag it onto your new definition.
You will for example claim that God is good (with the common meaning of 'good'😉, but if challenged and it is proven that God ...[text shortened]... ow would you describe it? Would you admit that we are justified in calling it 'bad'?

You are essentially redefining what the words 'moral, 'good' and 'bad' mean.

What normative meaning do you ascribe to 'good', 'bad', 'moral', etc.? What do you base it on? If I say the standard for morality is God because God is the greatest conceivable being (and therefore the paradigm of goodness), how can you say this is a redefinition of goodness? According to whom?

To demonstrate, what would you say if God, without provocation, tortures and murders a generally blameless human being. Most of us would say that action was 'bad'. How would you describe it? Would you admit that we are justified in calling it 'bad'?

If you are alluding to Old Testament conceptions of God, this strikes me as besides the point entirely. What I am addressing is the Euthyphro dilemma which LJ has brought to bear against the divine command theory, which involves a reconceptualization of God as the moral standard.

Originally posted by JS357
If God's existing makes a difference to how you live, you are unworthy of His love.

Not according to New Testament Christianity.

Originally posted by Palynka
Sad that you can't realize life can have meaning beyond the nodding of a made up entity.

As for your rephrasing, it displays such ignorance of the basis of atheism or moral absolutism that it's not worth my time. I expected better from you, guess I was wrong.

There are 2 types of atheists.

1. the person who has no real day to day consciousness that he is an atheist because he is to preoccupied with his life.

2. the vocal atheist who is very conscious of his atheism and at every chance defends it.

The vocal atheist must live a life with untruthfulness at its foundation in order to defend that everything has no cause and is an accident......for no one can make such claims without be untruthful.