Is it possible for us to create a purpose?

[Reflex]

Actually it is that simple. What else do you think it tells you about the person?

That's not the point I was making. I asked is that without reference to an ultimate reality, what makes purpose anything but arbitrary? No one wants to answer that. Second, From whence does atheism derive its values? Out of thin air? Reason? Whose reason? Do atheist values and purposes have an historical context? If you say "no" to the last question then you really need some basic education. But if atheistic values and purposes do have an historical context, what is that context?

 

[ArtieE]

That's not the point I was making. I asked is that without reference to an ultimate reality, what makes purpose anything but arbitrary? No one wants to answer that.

We evolved a survival instinct. The purpose of a surgeon is to help people survive. One purpose all have is to work for increased chances of survival and successful reproduction.

Second, From whence does atheism derive its values?

From whence does theism derive its values? You aren't telling us that without "theism" you would have no values?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's not the point I was making. I asked is that without reference to an ultimate reality, what makes purpose anything but arbitrary? No one wants to answer that.

Actually, it has been answered at least twice by two different posters who both independently explained that your question proposes a false dichotomy - a point you have yet to refute:

It's a false dichotomy. No different than the insistence that authoritarian/totalitarian 'ultimate authority' is the only non-arbitrary source of moral judgement. Nobody will argue it because it's a non sequitur from the get go. I don't recognize your God or any God as 'ultimate reality' any more than I recognize it as 'ultimate authority.' So whatever instruction given by said being would be no less arbitrary than anything else. Meanwhile my purpose which contains reasonable goals, achievements, contacts etc was chosen by me because of my personality, strengths and desires. None of those are arbitrary even if you as an outsider to myself thinks they are.

The environment and situation which allow purpose to be determined along certain criteria. That's the very definition of non-arbitrary. On the other hand, a dictated, "ultimate" purpose needn't be based on any prior reasoning nor influenced by circumstance, so it can very well be arbitrary. You're setting up a false dichotomy.

Also, I found this more in-depth explanation of why it is a false dichotomy in a post I made nearly three years ago that was specifically about a fundamentalist, Christian God - however, I feel it applies here just as well:


Question: Which of these two proposed explanations for morality is more arbitrary?

PROPOSAL 1: Morality is derived from God, who dictates all that constitutes good and bad and justifies it entirely on that basis, enforced by eternal punishment by those who do not adhere to it and eternal reward to those who do (depending on your personal belief). God does not have to justify what they dictate, because everything they dictate, regardless of rationality or reason, is determined objectively absolute no matter what. God can theoretically change his mind about what is absolutely morally just whenever God please, as God has supposedly done since the times of the Old Testament and the establishing of the Biblical Law. Humans cannot rationalize this judgement, and it is unquestionable.

PROPOSAL 2: A system of ethics developed over countless generations and throughout the formation of countless societies, added to and refined through our increase in knowledge and understanding and ultimately based on fundamental principles of human rights, greater good and, above all else, human empathy. Individual morality is learned through personal discovery and coming to a personal understanding of what is most important to you, while still remaining within the limits of acceptable moral conduct within the constraints and dictates of law. Law which, itself, can be altered through changing and enlightening views, but also by democratic process. A system of morality which changes in accordance with the general consensus, but also adheres to stricter standards with regards to individual human rights in order to protect minorities from the oppression of majority control. A vast ideological system that incorporates centuries of philosophy, ethics and law in order to hopefully find a way to make society as fair, comfortable and enjoyable to live in for the greatest many people possible.

Anyone who picks proposition 2 may seriously want to consider looking up the definition of "arbitrary" in the dictionary.

Second, From whence does atheism derive its values?

That's like asking "Where do stamp collector's derive their values?"

The answer is: wherever they want to. There are limitless resources, including religions, that an atheist can use to determine their own value system.

Out of thin air? Reason? Whose reason?

Their own.

Do you honestly believe that no atheists have ever thought about these questions before?

Do atheist values and purposes have an historical context?

What does history have to do with values and purpose? Who cares if they have a historical context or not?

If you say "no" to the last question then you really need some basic education. But if atheistic values and purposes do have an historical context, what is that context?

That question is nonsensical. Once you can establish that stamp collector's values have a historical context, you can ague that atheists must have one.

Pascal's Wager or Why Psychological Arguments Against Religion Fail

So it WAS literally just a poorly-structured re-statement of Pascal's wager? And you seriously think that's a convincing argument? I would go in-depth explaining the lengths of the fallacious reasoning that Pascal's wager uses, but since you like tongue-in-cheek allegory, I will instead write my own short story explaining why it's a terrible argument. Expect it shortly.

 

[ArtieE]

There are limitless resources, including religions, that an atheist can use to determine their own value system.

Well, since practically all serial killers are theists I'm not interested in adopting the "theist" value system.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Anyone who hasn't seen this video series about why no-God moral systems aren't arbitrary and why with-God moral systems aren't objective should really check it out.

- part 1

- part 2

- part 3

 

[Reflex]

From whence does theism derive its values?

I've answered that too many times already.

 

[ArtieE]

I've answered that too many times already.

I'll rephrase. If a theist believes in Poseidon does he derive his values from Poseidon?

 

[outhouse]

I've answered that too many times already.

Not with any credibility

 

[Reflex]

I'll rephrase. If a theist believes in Poseidon does he derive his values from Poseidon?

This is an attempt to rehash the Euthyphro dilemma. It doesn't apply to classical theism.

 

[Reflex]

From philisophyofreligion.info:

The Argument from Moral Evil

(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil.
(3) The world contains moral evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.

The argument from moral evil attempts to use the existence of moral evil to disprove the existence of God. If there were a God, it is argued, then he would prevent such evil; that he does not do so therefore proves that he does not exist.

An increasingly popular response to this argument is to turn it back against the atheist, arguing that moral evil not only does not disprove God’s existence, it in fact proves it. The very existence of a moral standard, this argument runs, presupposes the existence of God. There can only be moral evil, then, which involves the violation of a moral standard, if there is a God.

The argument from moral evil is thus taken to be self-refuting. Though it concludes that God does not exist, it is suggested, it tacitly assumes that he does, and so contradicts itself.

Just as the theist faces the problem of reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of God, the “problem of evil”, then, so the atheist faces the problem of reconciling the existence of a moral standard with the non-existence of God.

There are several reasons for thinking that there can be no moral standards without God. These are set out in the section on the moral argument for God’s existence.

It is worth noting that it is not only theists that have thought that morality is dependent upon God.

Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, the atheist existentialist, quoted (or rather misquoted) with approval Dostoyevsky as saying, “If God did not exist, everything would be permissible.” In Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre expresses his dismay at the secular moralists who reject God but leave morality unchanged; much of Sartre’s philosophy, in fact, is about working out the consequences of the denial of God’s existence and the lack of objective values that, in his opinion, that entails.
​

The argument from purpose poses the same problem: the claim that meaningful purpose can be had without God refutes itself.

​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The argument from purpose poses the same problem: the claim that meaningful purpose can be had without God refutes itself.

Only if, like your link, you presuppose that any kind of morality is necessarily contingent on the existence of an objective, God-given morality, without making any argument that this is in fact the case. In order to talk meaningfully about morality (or purpose) you first have to establish what "morality" actually is, and the frame in which we determine moral good from moral evil. If your personal moral framework is solely contingent on the dictates of a higher authority - and nothing else - you essentially shirk your responsibility as a moral agent. What's more, to claim that morality cannot be determined separate of an all-knowing God presupposes that God is necessarily moral; a judgement which, ironically, an individual cannot make without making a moral judgement of their own. In other words, in order to claim that God is moral, you need to first establish that you yourself are capable of determining that which is moral from that which is immoral without the direct influence of a God or Gods. You have to demonstrate that people can determine right from wrong in order to determine that God is right or wrong, which completely defeats the claim that morality can only be determined by God.

No matter what way you slice it, the moral argument for God's existence is an argument from consequence at best and an argument from incredulity at worst, that takes a base and very simplistic view of moral good and arbitrarily assumes it to be the only "true" or "meaningful" moral system that can be said to exist. It's a poorly constructed, self-refuting argument that hasn't got a leg to stand on.

In short: Your argument fails and copying and pasting some website is seriously intellectually lazy. You get an F.

 

[Reflex]

In order to talk meaningfully about morality (or purpose) you first have to establish what "morality" actually is, and the frame in which we determine moral good from moral evil.

Yes, but how do you make that determination without reference to an ideal?

The rest is just a poorly worded rehash the Euthyphro dilemma.

And the videos are truly pathetic -- circular and an appeal to emotions.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, but how do you make that determination without reference to an ideal?

How would you know your "ideal" moral system was "ideal" without referencing an "ideal" moral system?

 

[Reflex]

"God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

What does this statement entail?

 

[ArtieE]

"God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

What does this statement entail?

It entails that you say that "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

 

[Reflex]

It entails that you say that "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

You make it quite clear that you are not serious.

 

[ArtieE]

You make it quite clear that you are not serious.

You can say anything you like about any god. So what?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, but how do you make that determination without reference to an ideal?

You don't, you simply talk about the ideal. For example, "Life is generally preferable to death" is a basic ideal in morality that serves as one of many potential foundations.

The rest is just a poorly worded rehash the Euthyphro dilemma.

Actually, no it isn't. The Euthyphro dilemma (which you have still failed to address) deals only specifically with the dilemma posed by God-given morality, exemplified by the question of whether or not God says a thing is good because it is intrinsically good or good because they say it is good. My argument revolves around the notion of moral agency in humans, and how it is impossible to claim that God is moral without acting as a moral agent yourself. Again, reading is fundamental.

And the videos are truly pathetic -- circular and an appeal to emotions.

Do you perhaps want to try putting some effort into your responses? That way you might, you know, actually be able to demonstrate your criticisms to be accurate.

 

[ArtieE]

You don't, you simply talk about the ideal. For example, "Life is generally preferable to death" is a basic ideal in morality that serves as one of many potential foundations.

People generally don't wanna get hurt so don't hurt people.

 

[outhouse]

"God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

What does this statement entail?

Mythology and theology