Is a consistent atheism possible?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't know about Joseh or not, but without God I don't see how you can have
a moral absolute. Without a single source for this absolute you have nothing but
desire and opinion from several sources that would argue over what is and is not
absolutely moral. Without a single source for morals you have shifting powers
that would be want or feel the need to setup their 'absolute' morals.
Kelly

but without God I don't see how you can have a moral absolute.
Was slavery always a morally bad thing for your god? If we look in your Bible, is it true we'll find no examples where this activity is endorsed by your God?
If not true then do you and all others who believe in "God" think slavery is OK?

If neither then where is this supposed absolute morality?

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.

...life can have meaning beyond the nodding of a made up entity.

I realize that it is possible for an individual to create meaning for oneself, but if life is objectively meaningless, which it undoubtedly must be in an impersonal universe wherein everything is the product of blind chance, then creating meaning for oneself can only be considered a self-deception. Or can you show that the universe has objective meaning within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview outside of these sorts of attempts at deluding oneself...?

Originally posted by John W Booth
Meaninglessness? Speak for yourself.

Are you prepared, then, to establish how life has objective meaning within the atheistic/naturalistic world-view, outside of self-deception, social coherence, or mere opinion?

Originally posted by josephw
"Is there an atheist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God doesn't exist?"

[b]If it were possible to live as if God didn't exist, then God would have to not exist.


"In other words, is it possible for someone to live consistently in the 'light' of objective meaninglessness, without accidentally presupposing ven for the atheist. I've never heard a sane atheist say that murder wasn't wrong.[/b][/b]

If it were possible to live as if God didn't exist, then God would have to not exist.

If we were to take this to its logical conclusion, then we would have to conclude, "If God exists, it would be impossible to live as if God didn't exist," which is obviously false, even within the biblical model wherein God allows his creatures the option of choosing evil.

Some form of moral framework has to exist even for the atheist. I've never heard a sane atheist say that murder wasn't wrong.

I disagree, a moral framework isn't necessary (although probably common). In an objectively meaningless universe an atheist may have opinions about what they consider right and wrong, and those opinions may be informed by the culture in which they are a part, but nevertheless they remain only opinions and have no reality outside of their subjective allegiances.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If "a-theism" is a belief that no gods exists, then Buddhism is a "a-theistic" religion, as good as any other.

Atheism is not "a 'light' of objective meaninglessness". From where did you get this? It is equally true that the life of every theist is equally meaningless, seen from the other side.

An answer to the question "what does a consistent atheism look like exactly?" can be found in Buddhism.

If "a-theism" is a belief that no gods exists, then Buddhism is a "a-theistic" religion...

True.

Atheism is not "a 'light' of objective meaninglessness". From where did you get this?

If we assume that the atheistic/naturalistic world-view is correct, then we must conclude that the universe is impersonal and the mere product of chance and necessity; i.e., objectively meaningless. Whatever meaning there is to be had must be fabricated. I'm not saying that an atheist's life is necessarily lived without meaning, only that if an atheist lived as a consistent atheist (i.e., in the 'light' of objective meaninglessness), they would have to jettison every self-deception that their life has meaning, every presumption that there is an absolute right and wrong, and thereby live within a void of pure nihilism.

An answer to the question "what does a consistent atheism look like exactly?" can be found in Buddhism.

Yes and no. Yes, Buddhism doesn't posit a Creator God. That much is true. But neither is Buddhism ultimately nihilistic (like atheism), since Buddhism presupposes Karmic Law (a moral absolute) as well as the immortality of the soul via reincarnation.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If "a-theism" is a belief that no gods exists, then Buddhism is a "a-theistic" religion, as good as any other.

Atheism is not "a 'light' of objective meaninglessness". From where did you get this? It is equally true that the life of every theist is equally meaningless, seen from the other side.

An answer to the question "what does a consistent atheism look like exactly?" can be found in Buddhism.

It is equally true that the life of every theist is equally meaningless, seen from the other side.

I can't speak of theists in general, only Christians. Within the Christian world-view a believer can expect to enjoy eternal life and fellowship with God after dying physically. Further, God punishes those who do evil and rewards those who do good. Within this context the Christian's life is both meaningful and consistent. While the atheist must live a life that is either meaningful but inconsistent, or consistent but meaningless.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what does this purport to say? I have read more than ten times and still it evades me? Can someone explain this to me in terms that I can understand?

(1) No God = No absolute standard for establishing what is morally right or wrong, and that life in the universe is ultimately meaningless

(2) Atheists presuppose --> No God

(3) Presupposing No God = Presupposing there is no absolute moral standard, and that life is ultimately meaningless

(4) Consistent atheism = living consistently as if there is no moral standard, and that life is ultimately meaningless

(5) Inconsistent atheism = living as if moral absolutes exist (a definite right and wrong outside of socially established moral standards), and living as if their lives had meaning (engaging in self-deception), while simultaneously asserting --> No God

(6) Is it possible to live as a consistent atheist (5)?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
(1) No God = No absolute standard for establishing what is morally right or wrong, and that life in the universe is ultimately meaningless

(2) Atheists presuppose --> No God

(3) Presupposing No God = Presupposing there is no absolute moral standard, and that life is ultimately meaningless

(4) Consistent atheism = living consistently as if there ...[text shortened]... e simultaneously asserting --> No God

(6) Is it possible to live as a consistent atheist (5)?

(1) False. Totally false. Moral is relative, not absolut , nor christian.
(3) False. Totally false. Because it follow the false (1), and life is not at all meaningless.
(4) Again false.
(5) Where do you get all this nonsense crap from?
(6) You cannot deduce anything from the points above, therefore you are all wrong.

You cannot bring any truth of the above, just to make pretend of using logic.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]...life can have meaning beyond the nodding of a made up entity.

I realize that it is possible for an individual to create meaning for oneself, but if life is objectively meaningless, which it undoubtedly must be in an impersonal universe wherein everything is the product of blind chance, then creating meaning for oneself can only be con ...[text shortened]... the atheistic/naturalistic worldview outside of these sorts of attempts at deluding oneself...?[/b]

You do understand, right, that 'objective' in this sense refers to first order to mind-independence, or to the state of being constitutively independent from any observer attitudes? So -- just for the sake of argument -- let us assume that you are correct: let us suppose for the sake of argument that it is the case that there can be no objective meaning within an atheistic framework. Now, from there, why is that I should think that the addition of some mind or observer in the form of 'God' suddenly brings about objective meaning? You'll need to explain it in clear form because truly that makes no sense on the surface. Please actually present some argument for this instead of pretending that it should be taken for granted.

I have never seen any argument that suggests, or even makes it marginally plausible, that objectivity in this sense should hinge on the existence of any agent, let alone God. What is truly ironic in these sorts of discussions is that persons who argue along those lines are often (not always, but often) putting forth a view that is, in fact, meta-ethically subjectivist. If in the end morals and meaning and related stuff depend constitutively on some agent, then how exactly are they 'objective'? (And please recall the substance of your own argument here: you basically stated that it is the "impersonal" dimensions of the atheistic universe which preclude objective meaning. Huh? So you think you can just invoke a special sort of person -- God -- who thereby ushers in objectivity? Again, huh? I'm sorry, but such a view is not on the surface objectivist: rather, it is subjectivist.)

Often, instead, what the person means to say is something weaker: not that meaning and such things are 'objective' but just that they are human-mind-independent. Regardless, at the end of the day under this view, they are still mind-dependent (i.e., subjective). Further, in that case, we are left wondering why morals and meaning and values should carry such force when they are sourced (somehow) from some particular mind but not other minds. What here metaphysically privileges God's mind but not the minds of other observers? You'll need to clarify such points.

Besides, there are other points that complicate these types of discussions. For example, one can hold that mind-(in)dependence can factor in on different levels. For example, one can hold that meaning and values, etc, cannot exist apart from the existence of minds (and are in that sense mind-dependent); but that people can misfire in what they take to be meaningful or valuable, or that the truth values of meaning- or value-claims do not depend on observer attitudes (and are in that sense mind-independent). So, the discussion is likely more complicated than you suggest in this thread.

As to the substance of your opening post, I'm afraid it really has next to nothing to do with atheism. Your points have more to do with the question of whether a truly nihilistic agent (for example) is a consistent entity. I think that is an interesting question (and I have some ideas on it and think the answer generally is no), but it has nothing to do necessarily with the subject of atheism.

if life is objectively meaningless, which it undoubtedly must be in an impersonal universe wherein everything is the product of blind chance, then creating meaning for oneself can only be considered a self-deception. Or can you show that the universe has objective meaning within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview outside of these sorts of attempts at deluding oneself...?

If 'objective' in the sense here means mind-independence, then convincing oneself that objectivity depends constitutively on the existence of some mind can only be considered a self-deception. Can you show that the universe has objective meaning within the theistic/supernaturalist worldview outside of these sorts of attempts at deluding oneself...?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Is there an atheist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God doesn't exist? ...”

what are you talking about?
All atheists “live as if God doesn't exist” because they just 'live'.
In what way do I (or any other atheist) 'live AS IF God exists' ?
For example, do I go to Church? Answer, no. do I pray to t ...[text shortened]... don't mean “purpose”, then what do you mean?

Note: My life isn't without purpose.

Are you saying something that is “objective” is also “meaninglessness”? Or are you saying we can be “objective” about something that is “meaninglessness”?

I'm referring to the presupposition of atheism/naturalism, that the universe is impersonal and the product of chance. Within this world-view life cannot have meaning outside of what we arbitrarily assign to it. We die and we are gone forever, along with our legacy, and the legacy of our children's children, and their children, continued ad nauseum, until the earth is consumed by the sun-turned-red giant, within an essentially hostile galactic environment which itself will one day expend all of its energy and grow dark, as the universe expands forever into an icy black nothingness. How can any ultimate meaning be derived from such a world-view?

atheists usually have moral beliefs just like theists and for the same reasons. There is nothing “ accident” about moral beliefs.

I'm not attacking moral beliefs. It is good that we, atheists included, have them! I'm merely pointing out the fact that an atheist's moral beliefs are ultimately groundless, if we presuppose the atheistic/naturalistic world-view. If an atheist were to be consistent, he would have to admit that his moral beliefs are mere opinion and/or based on socially established norms. Further, he must live a life devoid of meaning (without pretending that his life has meaning).

If what you mean by “meaning” in that context is “purpose” then each of us decides for ourselves what our purpose in life is to be. In other words, we make our own purpose. But if you don't mean “purpose”, then what do you mean?

Yes, an atheist can decide what his purpose in life will be, but this is really nothing more than self-deception (based on his atheistic/naturalistic world-view), since the universe contains no ultimate purpose or meaning outside of what he arbitrarily assigns to it.

Note: My life isn't without purpose.

I don't believe so either, but then again, I'm a Christian. If you are an atheist, though, and you believe that the universe is impersonal and a mere product of chance, then you must conclude that life has no ultimate purpose. But more than likely you aren't living a consistent atheism (I doubt anyone really does).

Originally posted by LemonJello
You do understand, right, that 'objective' in this sense refers to first order to mind-independence, or to the state of being constitutively independent from any observer attitudes? So -- just for the sake of argument -- let us assume that you are correct: let us suppose for the sake of argument that it is the case that there can be no objective meaning ...[text shortened]... naturalist worldview outside of these sorts of attempts at deluding oneself...?

Now, from there, why is that I should think that the addition of some mind or observer in the form of 'God' suddenly brings about objective meaning?

In the Christian world-view God created the world for a specific purpose. This alone establishes an objective meaning. Further, God, as judge, upholds an absolute standard of right and wrong. Further still, the believer can expect to live forever in fellowship with God, rather than all his efforts in life ending in nothing. How do these not imbue life with meaning and allow a Christian to live consistently (as opposed to the atheist who has no grounds, ultimately, for the meaning he ascribes to his life)?

As to the substance of your opening post, I'm afraid it really has next to nothing to do with atheism.

Of course it does. The world-view an atheist endorses can have no meaning outside of what we arbitrarily assign to it. Therefore, the question of consistency is legitimate. If I am an atheist who ardently decries the genocide taking place in the Congo, what basis do I have, given the atheistic world-view, for my outrage, other than self-deceit?

If 'objective' in the sense here means mind-independence, then convincing oneself that objectivity depends constitutively on the existence of some mind can only be considered a self-deception.

I admit, I don't understand the relevance of whether or not God's mind alone metaphysically constitutes objective meaning.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm glad you two are enjoying each others company.

You're both very entertaining.

I especially enjoy the disparaging remarks.

God forbid that either one of you will make a single intelligible argument.

And by "Intelligible statement' you mean that which agrees with your doctrine.

An un-intelligible statement would be one where in that persons view, a god in not needed to make sense of the universe.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Are you prepared, then, to establish how life has objective meaning within the atheistic/naturalistic world-view, outside of self-deception, social coherence, or mere opinion?

No. I am not. Because the "meaning" you are referring to is subjective and your continual referrence to "objective meaning" is a form of sophistry apparently intended to legitimize your own theological perspective while invalidating or undermining perspectives that are based on speculation and assumptions different from your own.

You insinuate that the "meaning" of life that does not embrace your spiritual beliefs - in this case atheism - involves "self-deception, social coherence [and] mere opinion". Of course, one could counter this by saying that your spiritual or religious beliefs involve "self-deception, social coherence, or mere opinion". You unilaterally deeming your own view to be "objective", and others not, does not alter the fact that what we have here is an inconclusive impasse of conflicting assertions.

Originally posted by John W Booth
No. I am not. Because the "meaning" you are referring to is subjective and your continual referrence to "objective meaning" is a form of sophistry apparently intended to legitimize your own theological perspective while invalidating or undermining perspectives that are based on speculation and assumptions different from your own.

You insinuat ...[text shortened]... he fact that what we have here is an inconclusive impasse of conflicting assertions.

Would you agree that your life on earth has no meaning outside of what you arbitrarily ascribe to it?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I can't speak of theists in general, only Christians. Within the Christian world-view a believer can expect to enjoy eternal life and fellowship with God after dying physically. Further, God punishes those who do evil and rewards those who do good. Within this context the Christian's life is both meaningful and consistent.

What you are describing here is a subjective meaning of life making up the world-view held by Christians, not something that you can describe as "objective meaning". Declaring your own sense of meaning - which is, after all, a set of aspirations and surmises - to be 'objective' simply does not, in and of itself, make it so.

People subscribe to your set of beliefs for subjectives reasons and then tell themselves that they are objective reasons. It is called 'certainty'. The fact that it happens all the time does not alter the fact that we are talking about speculation and faith, and not objective facts.