Video About Problems With Atheism

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Are you being serious? The thought that man should treat other man well has it's roots in Christian doctrine? You have got to be joking. That notion is older than any religion on the face of the Earth. That notion is the very reason religions are formed in the first place. What came first? There's no "chicken or the egg" conundrum here. Not in the slightest.

 

[Brickjectivity]

==

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?

You are asking me? I prefer the one who is going to treat me the best, however it would be beautiful for someone to make their own choice. That is what free will is, and I think autonomy is important for myself and others. If you don't have autonomy that can undermine your self respect and confidence in your ability to make choices.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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?

First, I do not believe that all hedonists revere pleasure when it gives another pain; I'll have to look into that, but that implied assertion seems as false as the claim of a "fundamentalist atheist".

Second, with or without god, morality and ethics have their place; with or without god, we require a code of ethics by which to behave.

So what is the "point of that"?

To live in a society where I, and those around me, have the opportunity to be happy and healthy and safe.

I think that the reason you "feel disgust at Fundamentalist Atheist who lose all the Faith but adopt the morality" is based on a common misconception by the theist: That misconception is that morality is the sole purview and benefactor of morality.

It is not.

 

[Sunstone]

It would be nice if people who criticize Harris would first bother to study him.

 

[Sunstone]

There are dozens of societies in New Guinea alone that do not ground their moralities in some transcendent principle or deity.

 

[Sunstone]

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?

You don't think you'd experience love and/or compassion -- and find them good things -- without a holy text telling you to experience them and find them good?

Atheist: "It's good to eat."

Theist: "As an atheist how do you know that?"

 

[Searching1981]

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.

The Cancer eating him away, like I mentioned in another thread. Who mentioned perversions? I gave examples of Atheists who are thinking and living and doing it the right way. Step up? Come on, you will not even step up to blatant Totalitarianism, then step up to me? Please. All fantasy, all fantasy.

Virtue? What, virtue? I'm Christian I have no virtue, I don't believe in the concept. Now excuse me while I smoke a joint, grab a beer, smoke a cigarette and be with my soulmate.

Oh, the cancer of thought eating him away...cannot enjoy life with cancer, the rumination as Nietzsche said, the fantasy they create.

 

[Searching1981]

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

?

 

[Sunstone]

Dostoevsky is not the only one who thinks this way, as many people agree with him. The argument is an old one in that atheists do not believe in an afterlife and final judgment. Thus, anything goes as long as you have enough power or don't get caught. The Bible describes a world of heathens and false idolators that became so bad that the entire population of the world had to be destroyed. That's the ultimate crime and punishment.

Dostoevsky's argument is for angst ridden teenagers with very little education or life experience.

 

[LuisDantas]

?

Seriously. You are failing with the basics, to the point of equating hedonism with some combination of both.

 

[Searching1981]

First, I do not believe that all hedonists revere pleasure when it gives another pain; I'll have to look into that, but that implied assertion seems as false as the claim of a "fundamentalist atheist".

I have no clue what you are talking about? That body, that body focuses on pain. Who mentioned pain? As Nietzsche said, "Rumination (cancer) creates a monster and attacks it the rest live with other people."

[

 

[Searching1981]

Seriously. You are failing with the basics, to the point of equating hedonism with some combination of both.

Explain it, because clearly that professor doesn't understand it either. Educate us, enlighten us. Brevity is not wisdom.

 

[icehorse]

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?

These are all - to use a perhaps overused but apt term - strawman arguments. You have explored several out of an infinity of possible thought processes that any given atheist might have.

 

[icehorse]

You are asking me? I prefer the one who is going to treat me the best, however it would be beautiful for someone to make their own choice. That is what free will is, and I think autonomy is important for myself and others. If you don't have autonomy that can undermine your self respect and confidence in your ability to make choices.

Which seems to be another way of saying that you'd prefer the help of someone who's motivation is not fear of supernatural retribution?

 

[suncowiam]

No need to watch the video.
There are no problems with atheism.
But some atheists....they're a problem.

Wait, aren't you an atheist?

 

[George-ananda]

What is difficult to understand about that?
Tom

It's not that difficult to understand, and I don't even disagree.

I don't get into these morality debates much. The paranormal and Advaita are more my bags. So it really was a question and not so much a challenge.

@A Vestigial Mote too.

 

[George-ananda]

You don't think you'd experience love and/or compassion -- and find them good things -- without a holy text telling you to experience them and find them good?

I was more getting at WHY we find these things good. Like something intrinsic? I suppose both theists and atheists can answer that one.

We certainly don't need holy text for that I agree.

 

[Milton Platt]

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 fail to see how doing whatever you want regardless of the harm to others and society at large is as rational as cooperating for the betterment of the society in which you live, and by extension your family. Furthermore, something solely because you fear punishment or desire reward from some ethereal super being is not a sign of morality, it is a sign of selfishness. I have had theists repeatedly drag out that old line about if you do not believe there is a god, then where do you get your morals and what keeps you from raping and killing people? It is always more telling of the person asking that question than it is of me. I have to ask them, "Is your fear of a god the only thing that keeps you from doing those things? Then please, by all means, keep believing."

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Virtue? What, virtue? I'm Christian I have no virtue, I don't believe in the concept. Now excuse me while I smoke a joint, grab a beer, smoke a cigarette and be with my soulmate.

Your sanctimoniousness is nauseating.

I'm an atheist. I have virtue. I believe in the concept. Now, I do smoke; terrible habit, I should stop; but I do not drink and I have no "soul mate" (I don't believe in the concept; I have no "significant other" either). Neither am I promiscuous, nor do I smoke weed, nor do I sacrifice babies in the darkened woods during the Summer Solstice. Your concept of who we are as atheists is a twisted version presented to you by preachers from pulpits who want you to keep coming back to their church pews ... so you can keep dropping their paychecks into the collection plates that "goes to the work of the Lord".

Listening to the preacher, believing he is telling you the truth about atheists, is like listening to the Republicans and believing that they are giving you accurate information on the Democrats.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait, aren't you an atheist?

One of the problems.
(I'm an unsavory example.)