Total Posts:323|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reductio ad Atheism

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 9:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 9:56:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:54:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

Because of their philosophies which were in addition to their atheism. As you just showed, an atheist humanist can believe otherwise. You can be an atheist without adhering to Russell, Nietzsche, or Sartre. And no, they weren't "required" to believe in that.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:21:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:56:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:54:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

Because of their philosophies which were in addition to their atheism. As you just showed, an atheist humanist can believe otherwise. You can be an atheist without adhering to Russell, Nietzsche, or Sartre. And no, they weren't "required" to believe in that.

I'm going for coherence here when I ask HOW can they not coherently belief in an ultimately meaningless world and true duty at the same time.

I'm not asking about their preference, or their psychology.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:27:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:21:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:56:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:54:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

Because of their philosophies which were in addition to their atheism. As you just showed, an atheist humanist can believe otherwise. You can be an atheist without adhering to Russell, Nietzsche, or Sartre. And no, they weren't "required" to believe in that.

I'm going for coherence here when I ask HOW can they not coherently belief in an ultimately meaningless world and true duty at the same time.

Did they? You'll have to ask somebody more knowledgeable about them than I. I'm speaking more in terms of atheism and atheists in generally.

An atheist doesn't have to be either a humanist or a nihilist, so no I coherence is necessary. I'm not aware of anyone that is both.


I'm not asking about their preference, or their psychology.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:34:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

This is the most absurd criticism of atheism. How do you need supernatural to act morally? Most people are just intrinsically good and want to be good. If your God was proven wrong 100% for some reason, you would still be a good person, right?
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:38:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

in my experience, they embrace the absurd.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:45:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:34:32 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

This is the most absurd criticism of atheism. How do you need supernatural to act morally? Most people are just intrinsically good and want to be good. If your God was proven wrong 100% for some reason, you would still be a good person, right?

it is a bad criticism of atheism, but if God was ever 100% proven to not exist......i'm pretty sure there'd be a pretty damn big looting spree at the least.
signature
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:55:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:54:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

(1) This is a mis-attribution to all three of them. None of them were full on nihilists, especially Russell.

(2) For every atheist who's a nihilist there are plenty who aren't/weren't. Mill, Rand, Rothbard, Epicurus, Hume, Chomsky, Bentham, Dewey, Marx, Dennett, Moore, ad infinitum thought otherwise.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:58:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:55:40 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:54:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

(1) This is a mis-attribution to all three of them. None of them were full on nihilists, especially Russell.

(2) For every atheist who's a nihilist there are plenty who aren't/weren't. Mill, Rand, Rothbard, Epicurus, Hume, Chomsky, Bentham, Dewey, Marx, Dennett, Moore, ad infinitum thought otherwise.

logically though, atheism and nihilism go hand in hand... you don't see that?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:02:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
why one would, though, i don't really know... that is, in believing 100% that there is no god... seems a silly weakening of yourself...
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:07:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings... maybe marx's manifesto got him his cock sucked a lot?? dunno..... definitely like an agnostic in fear of god at the least though.. that indoctrination stuff really clings to you...
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:09:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 12:07:08 AM, badger wrote:
feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings... maybe marx's manifesto got him his cock sucked a lot?? dunno..... definitely like an agnostic in fear of god at the least though.. that indoctrination stuff really clings to you...

he was. surely. otherwise he was either dumb or made a whole load of money and went and partied with the bourgeoisie with it
signature
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:15:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:58:33 PM, badger wrote:
logically though, atheism and nihilism go hand in hand... you don't see that?

No, I don't see that. There is no link between atheism and any other philosophical doctrine other than, perhaps, rationalism. You seem to think that atheism ties to meaninglessness, which is false. We create our own meaning and purpose in this world. Getting meaning and purpose from a top-down directive doesn't give one true purpose any more than your parents telling you to clean your room and become a Republican gives you meaning and purpose. When the two are found by one seeking them, they are much more profound and meaningful than anything that an ancient book of sky-ghosts can imbue.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:16:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
like being a full on hardcore atheist replaces the god voice in your head telling you to do good with a devil voice saying sh1t like "why don't you just kill him?" or "take it!" or "who cares if it's a monkey?!"

like... how can you not believe in God when you think about it... i mean it's a sinking into evil... and, well, there's a fvcking problem of evil for you... i mean, we accept it because we've reduced ourselves to nothing? that's a bit fvcking gay... i'm not nothing.... how about we solve it as believers??? seems much more reasonable.....

blah blah no evidence... dudes!! like.....look at this sh1t! and us....... we're fvcking awesome!! random??? gay. stupid. i think we're god. or... like god. in his own image perhaps??? yup.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:18:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 12:15:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/8/2012 11:58:33 PM, badger wrote:
logically though, atheism and nihilism go hand in hand... you don't see that?

No, I don't see that. There is no link between atheism and any other philosophical doctrine other than, perhaps, rationalism. You seem to think that atheism ties to meaninglessness, which is false. We create our own meaning and purpose in this world. Getting meaning and purpose from a top-down directive doesn't give one true purpose any more than your parents telling you to clean your room and become a Republican gives you meaning and purpose. When the two are found by one seeking them, they are much more profound and meaningful than anything that an ancient book of sky-ghosts can imbue.

subjective and thus ultimately meaningless. hitler created his own meaning for life then shot himself when it was all over for him.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:20:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
as i said, you're applying feeling atop of nihilism... feeling isn't something rational and doesn't mean sh1t as regards truth unless you assign it worth in our being like God ourselves or something...
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:34:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
i suspect that if the whole world banded together for communism we'd establish a true objective morality pretty fast and be real God creatures... it came to me in a dream. or... it came to me in a drug trip mostly... but that sh1t i took was really sparkly!! and then if we didn't, well, fvck God, he's an evil bastard.
signature
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 9:37:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:58:33 PM, badger wrote:
At 12/8/2012 11:55:40 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:54:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

(1) This is a mis-attribution to all three of them. None of them were full on nihilists, especially Russell.

(2) For every atheist who's a nihilist there are plenty who aren't/weren't. Mill, Rand, Rothbard, Epicurus, Hume, Chomsky, Bentham, Dewey, Marx, Dennett, Moore, ad infinitum thought otherwise.

logically though, atheism and nihilism go hand in hand... you don't see that?

Demonstrate it.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 10:04:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I still have no idea why the existence of god solves the problems of morality. Without some standard that takes into account the things we value (happiness, mental stability, rationality, etc.) which Christians don't want to do because then god would be a middle-man, there's no reason to care what god thinks is moral or not.

Pascal's wager applies to god's nature just as much as god's commands or beliefs, so claiming morality resides in his nature solves nothing so far as I can see.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 11:54:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

Are you saying that's the atheist view? If so, you're wrong. Atheism itself entails no doctrines on morality.

Or is it just a hypothetical conversation?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 11:58:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why does morality require meaning?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:09:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:27:22 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:21:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:56:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:54:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:49:48 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

The If-Then statement is a misattribution to atheism. Atheists aren't required to believe that.

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

Because of their philosophies which were in addition to their atheism. As you just showed, an atheist humanist can believe otherwise. You can be an atheist without adhering to Russell, Nietzsche, or Sartre. And no, they weren't "required" to believe in that.

I'm going for coherence here when I ask HOW can they not coherently belief in an ultimately meaningless world and true duty at the same time.

Did they? You'll have to ask somebody more knowledgeable about them than I. I'm speaking more in terms of atheism and atheists in generally.

An atheist doesn't have to be either a humanist or a nihilist, so no I coherence is necessary. I'm not aware of anyone that is both.


I'm not asking about their preference, or their psychology.

Dawkins I think is a good example who'll give lip-service to nihilism when pressed but then blast religion for being intolerant, etc.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:12:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:34:32 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Russell, Nietzsche & Sartre sure thought atheists were required to believe that. How couldn't they be committed to an ultimately meaningless world apart from God?

This is the most absurd criticism of atheism. How do you need supernatural to act morally? Most people are just intrinsically good and want to be good. If your God was proven wrong 100% for some reason, you would still be a good person, right?

The claim, of course, isn't that one can act morally without reference to God. Scripture even says all have the moral law written on their hearts, Jews, Christians, atheists, whatever.

I can't see how if God didn't exist, how then we would have a sound ontology for affirming the morals we already hold dear. That's the claim. Not moral epistemology, nut moral ontology.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:15:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:38:12 PM, badger wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:46:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Atheist Humanist: "We have a moral duty to love those as ourselves"

Atheist: If God doesn"t exist, then such duty is ultimately subjective, and therefore meaningless"

Theist: "So then we have a duty and we don't?"

Agnostic: "Beats me!"

How does atheism not reduce to the absurd, and find its way out of this?

in my experience, they embrace the absurd.

Right, and embracing a contradiction is embracing incoherency ... as if it were popular to do so- you can't embrace what is impossible, otherwise you're just telling a nice fictional story... wouldn't you agree?