Video About Problems With Atheism

[LuisDantas]

This modern atheism seems to take as a given that brotherly love and compassion are good things. Where does that come from?

Utilitarianism and basic morality, mainly.

While religion is supposed to care about morality (and often, but not always, indeed does) it can hardly take the credit for being necessary for it to develop.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Much as many Humanists hate the very thought of it, their morals owe a lot to Christianity.

Much as many Christians hate the very thought of it, their morals owe a lot to the natural evolutionary development of a social species.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In general though, Humanists like to think their ethics came from Reason or Greek Philosophy or Eastern Philosophy or 'anything but Christianity', but they do have an unmistakable Christian heritage.

In general though, Christians like to think their ethics came from God or Jesus or the Bible or 'anything but a naturally emergent, evolutionary social development,' but they do have an unmistakable natural evolutionary heritage.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is a good piece at Everything is Permitted Under God

that addresses the fallacy of the video in brief terms.

In a nutshell, those who present the "Karamazov Fallacy" suffer from such a poor grasp of morality that they confuse it with obedience to authority.

 

[Sapiens]

This is the sort of fool that gives academics a bad name. He is analyzing a piece of fiction when he should be investigating the biological answers. He is advancing strawmen, that do not reflect the views of any atheist I know, including Dawkins and Harris, at who's doors Peterson would like to lay them. Peterson needs to take a careful look at evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS) rather than just running his ill-educated lying ratchet.

 

[George-ananda]

Utilitarianism and basic morality, mainly.

But what is the source of this 'basic morality'?

 

[columbus]

But what is the source of this 'basic morality'?

An informed and rational assessment of what is truly in my best long term interests. That is what morality really is, IMNSHO.
I will live my own best life in a world where people don't steal from each other,(as an example) so I don't steal and I support a humane system for preventing other people from doing it as well.
What is difficult to understand about that?
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

But what is the source of this 'basic morality'?

Reason informed by the analysis of reality and the likely outcomes of each action or omission.

Reason is not a superior source of morality; it is the only source of morality. Adherence to laws or social norms is, at the very best, a sometimes-functional substitute for morality proper, and if it turns out that those rules are religious in nature then it is even more questionable whether they can be made to work.

 

[sayak83]

There is a good piece at Everything is Permitted Under God

that addresses the fallacy of the video in brief terms.

In a nutshell, those who present the "Karamazov Fallacy" suffer from such a poor grasp of morality that they confuse it with obedience to authority.

I like the word, Karamazov fallacy. I read brothers Karamazov. What a bad series of arguments my God! Then I read Atlas Shrugged which was even worse. Maxim Gorky's mother was scarcely better. Then I read Nietze ...

So now I am sticking strictly to poetry, science fiction and Lord of the rings type books when it comes to fiction. I prefer rational fantasy than incoherent nonsense. Why have literature eschewed the practical and sane worldviews of Smith, Locke, James, Dewey, Rawls is something I don't understand.

 

[sayak83]

But what is the source of this 'basic morality'?

Source is biological instinct, reason is group cooperation, utility is flourishing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think Peterson raises a good point that I have thought about before myself but couldn't express as well.

This modern atheism seems to take as a given that brotherly love and compassion are good things. Where does that come from?

Partly from societal exposure to aggregated/consensual morality concepts,and then on top of that, part of it is then the individual mentally probing those concepts and coming to conclusions as to which ones are sound, and why they are or are not.

In the end, do you believe it a better thing that a person come to realizations on their own as to why they should be loyal and upstanding to their fellow human beings, or because they were told to, or ("heaven" forbid) because they were scared into such behavior because they thought "something bigger" was watching? Which method do you believe is a more respectable path to an understanding of right and wrong?

 

[Searching1981]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

I saw the video, it's what I've been arguing for years now. I guess all students of Dostovesky, Nietszche come to similar conclusions. But let me present different arguments.

I was, was puzzled and perplexed by Atheist Humanist. The concept never made any sense to me, and it largely still doesn't except I know they have bum bodies now. What I mean by that is this if you are enjoying life, happy to live and feel in your heart this gift of life will only last on average of 80 years on average estimated, then why not engage in pure unabashed Hedonism?

Now, I'm not perplexed any more because I know atheist have bum bodies, their body prevents them from living and they do not enjoy life.

Here's an example. I read in the Newspaper about a wealth Billionaire in his eighties who was getting divorced from his wife in her forties. The reason it made the news is because the testimony she offered, in her own words, was, "I was married to a man who all he wanted all day was steak and sex." Hey, that is perfectly rational in my opinion when you think lights are going out and this gift is going to be over soon you are going to enjoy it to the fullest. That is an atheist that makes sense.

Then there is Comedian Adam Corolla (an atheist). I heard in his podcast in an interview with Seth McFarlene (Atheist, Family Guy) Adam argue to him, "Hey, don't you just wish you could believe in God?" Then Seth replied, "No, because there things (responsibilities) that come with it," and Adam replies, "No, you don't have to believe in those responsibilities still do whatever you want and just know there is a God." That atheist makes sense, they don't have bum bodies they just find the concept of God interfering with their Hedonism. Nothing wrong with that.

In another interview Adam tells Drew, "I have problem, I grew up poor and now I'm wealthy and the moment I feel any joy and happiness the thought comes to me, 'I'm going to be dead one day." Very, sincere, this Atheist makes sense.

The point? This professor needs to understand, most Atheists have bum bodies. If they could think and they were sincere and they could feel they would live radically different lives taking advantage of this gift; but in that bum body this gift is a burden. i respect Hedonists; they are authentic and sincere. I feel disgust at Fundamentalist Atheist who lose all the Faith but adopt the morality. What is the point of that?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is difficult to understand about that?

I wanted to ask this same sort of question at the end of my reply to @George-ananda... but I had second thoughts because I thought it might sound like I was being disrespectful (me - can you believe?!). Don't get me wrong... you totally pulled it off respectfully, I'm just sitting here now wishing I had included it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

now ... Who is trying to accuse this guy of slander towards anyone? My statement was that the allegation was deceptive and inaccurate; I never went on a warpath or accused anyone of "slander".

I acknowledge your reply. Sorry if I seemed to be pinning crap on you like a badge.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

i respect Hedonists; they are authentic and sincere. I feel disgust at Fundamentalist Atheist who lose all the Faith but adopt the morality. What is the point of that?

And you are a perfect example of a theist who, given (hypothetically) undeniable proof that God doesn't exist, would immediately turn to raping, pillaging and killing. While I, and others like me would be the ones to step up and try to stop you.

And this is what you are admitting about the seat of your "virtue." Basically... you're admitting that you have NONE - except when you believe God demands it of you. I, on the other hand, experience my virtue as a part of me, my virtue and I are inseparable.

 

[LuisDantas]

I saw the video, it's what I've been arguing for years now. I guess all students of Dostovesky, Nietszche come to similar conclusions. But let me present different arguments.

I was, was puzzled and perplexed by Atheist Humanist. The concept never made any sense to me, and it largely still doesn't except I know they have bum bodies now. What I mean by that is this if you are enjoying life, happy to live and feel in your heart this gift of life will only last on average of 80 years on average estimated, then why not engage in pure unabashed Hedonism?

From this I see that you still don't understanding atheism, nor humanism.

 

[icehorse]

He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis.

This professor is SERIOUSLY strawmanning the positions I've heard Harris, and to a lesser degree hold.

In other words, he's attacking positions they don't hold.

 

[icehorse]

This professor is SERIOUSLY strawmanning the positions I've heard Harris, and to a lesser degree hold.

In other words, he's attacking positions they don't hold.

==

That said, would you rather trust your life to someone who wants to act morally because it's the right thing to do, or with someone who acts morally because he's afraid of being punished by an invisible, supernatural tyrant in the sky?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... anything goes as long as you have enough power or don't get caught...

So, hypothetical situation - let's say that indisputable proof that God does not exist somehow becomes available. Do you, personally, then live by the "anything goes" paradigm? Do you lose all sense of right and wrong the moment you might learn that? That's what you're saying, you know? By stating that, without God, a given person must just suddenly desire to go around doing whatever it is that they want. And that would be the difference between us. Upon learning that God is definitively not real, I would still retain my morality... whereas your claim is that you would become the very thing you (pretend to?) despise... something you are found so often complaining about as the cause of the degeneration of the world around you - a vagrant, a morally bankrupt scourge on the face of the Earth... just waiting to happen. Is that you? Sound about right?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I think Peterson raises a good point that I have thought about before myself but couldn't express as well.

This modern atheism seems to take as a given that brotherly love and compassion are good things. Where does that come from?

The same place religious founders stole it from.

Do you believe religion invented interpersonal ethics? LOL