• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Video About Problems With Atheism

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Per conversation with ADigitalArtist (below), what he calls transcendent is apparently talking about something built from culture, so that by transcendent he is talking about morality that transcends individual morality.

I see.

I think you should qualify that or leave it as an opinion rather than an argument.

It's not an argument. I am stating it as a fact.
If there is some sort of transcendent value, no matter if comes from God or from culture, although it influences your choices, how does it prevent you from doing whatever you want ? Why would you do something that you neither want to do nor find it moral to be done, even if there is some sort of transcendent value that says otherwise ? That would require you to be willing to submit yourself to this transcendent value, but if that's what your will is, how can this not fall into the 'doing whatever one wants to do' category ?
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I see.



It's not an argument. I am stating it as a fact.
If there is some sort of transcendent value, no matter if comes from God or from culture, although it influences your choices, how does it prevent you from doing whatever you want ? Why would you do something that you neither want to do nor find it moral to be done, even if there is some sort of transcendent value that says otherwise ? That would require you to be willing to submit yourself to this transcendent value, but if that's what your will is, how can this not fall into the 'doing whatever one wants to do' category ?
I do not really disagree with what you are saying. I think people in state supported schools should be educated about history and about where we get our values from as well as some western philosophy. They should have to take a class that teaches them formal logic, and they ought to be acquainted with philosophers and the process which eventually led to todays free cultures.
 

corynski

Reality First!
Premium Member
Regarding the video Brick said "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."

It seems obvious that we all have to live with other people, and it is other people who determine what we do. We want to be liked and want to have friends, does this professor not understand that? Sure, I can have friends on death row, or simply be disliked by my neighborhood, but a god believer has the same situation as an atheist no matter what god he professes, if he acts decent he gets along, same as the atheist. Why do people think atheism permits unwanted behavior? I seem to recall too that the prisons aren't filled with atheists....

Humans have created thousands of gods and goddesses over thousands of years of evolution, and, think about it, that must have been thousands of years of human suffering. And I really can't see any evidence of any supernatural power helping humans in any way, of teaching them how to live and such. Or of avoiding having to eat their children during a famine, such as at 2 Kings 6 in the Bible. I think we have to fess up to the fact that everyone.... parents, teachers, preachers..... they're all lying to us because they don't know either. Atheism is the correct response obviously.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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 would say his first 5 minutes is so wrought with self-contradiction that he makes no argument.
 

minorwork

Destroyer of Worlds
Premium Member
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. Dostoevsky 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.

Ants, bees, wasps, dolphins herding baitfish, chimpanzee troops and any cooperation of individual members of the species does not need to predicate the transcendent for them to cooperate altruistically, so why does the speaker need humans to have the transcendent as the base? Seems to me that evolutionary psychology has all the means necessary to account for altruistic behavior without appeal to the transcendent just because myth as instruction of how to experience meaning in life is in our history.
 
It seems that you're trying to make black and white that which is gray. No claims of perfect solutions are on the table here. Only claims of increasingly better solutions. Has humanity solved all of its problems? Of course not! But as an example, our sense of morality HAS progressed from where it was 2000 years ago or 1400 years ago. That is not to say it's now perfect, but there has been progress.

Our environment is different and our morality is different, but there has been no real progress.

In the 20th C we industrialised genocide and saw several of the most brutal regimes in history. Normal everyday people facilitated this. Often well educated. Until the 1980s many Western liberals were still acting as Soviet apologists despite all the evidence by then.

WW2 saw the massive scale deliberate targeting of civilians. You call the killing of a tens of thousands of Hindus, mostly combatants, a genocide and one of the supreme evils of all time despite it being a trifle when compared to the scale of this. We deliberately burned alive hundreds of thousands of women and children and men, I'd rather be beheaded personally.

Even today we don't think twice about 'collateral damage' if there is a 'high value target' who can be droned. At least in the past leaders had to risk their own lives when they declared war on others.

Then there is Rwanda, CAR, Kosovo, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Technology gives us greater control over our environment and allows us to create societies that shield us a bit from our violent nature. When these societies break down though, we are still the same as we ever were, an uncommonly violent species.

The problem with this idea of progress is that it is utopian (even in its watered down form). It is based on the Judaeo-Christian concept of directional history which is a myth. Everyone before this knew there was no direction, no progress, just an endless cycle of rise and fall.

It is harmful as it teaches violence is a mistake than can be fixed rather than a fundamental part of our nature, just as love or friendship is. Educating us out of violence is the secular equivalent of 'praying the gay away' in its stupidity.

If we accept our nature doesn't change, we can start to focus on the real area in which we can improve things, our environment. The 'least bad' option is creating a society that acknowledges the flaws in our nature and aims to create a society which minimises the chance for these to appear.

The problem is that the 'fixing humans' approach is that it does not do this and often causes greater harm despite its noble goals.
 
Ants, bees, wasps, dolphins herding baitfish, chimpanzee troops and any cooperation of individual members of the species does not need to predicate the transcendent for them to cooperate altruistically, so why does the speaker need humans to have the transcendent as the base? Seems to me that evolutionary psychology has all the means necessary to account for altruistic behavior without appeal to the transcendent just because myth as instruction of how to experience meaning in life is in our history.

Humans live in much larger societies though. You need some kind of transcendent concepts (religion, nationalism, Humanity, etc.) to create some sense of kinship.

While societies don't necessarily need god-based myths, they do need their myths of some form.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
WW2 saw the massive scale deliberate targeting of civilians. You call the killing of a tens of thousands of Hindus, mostly combatants, a genocide and one of the supreme evils of all time despite it being a trifle when compared to the scale of this. We deliberately burned alive hundreds of thousands of women and children and men, I'd rather be beheaded personally.

@Augustus - I've always felt we had good honest debates and disagreements. This post saddens me, because it seems you've discarded your typically honest approach.
 
@Augustus - I've always felt we had good honest debates and disagreements. This post saddens me, because it seems you've discarded your typically honest approach.

What's incorrect about it?

We attack the barbarities of days gone by, but firebombing a wooden city is a systematic attempt to burn people alive. The purpose was to set fire to the city. In one raid alone 100,000 died in Tokyo.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When they claim that reason alone leads them to their conclusions they are mistaken as many different conclusions can all be considered 'rational'.

So people like Dawkins owe their moral framework, to a large extent, to the religion that they often ridicule.

You keep making this claim. Will you ever back it up with an argument?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Actually Humanism while born within Christianity, was originally group of Christians who decided to use secular philosophy as their basis of ethics rather than theology.

They still owe their human-centrism to Christianity though.

What do you suggest that humanists owe to Christianity? Democracy? Reason and evidence based thought? Rational ethics? Freedom of and from religion? Science? The citizen as an autonomous entity? The concept of human progress? The right to a fair trial?

They got don't steal or murder right, but did we need them for that?

Honor your parents can be a bad idea when they're crackheads pimping you out. That commandment wasn't qualified at all.

Why are meek blessed? They're doormats. Meekness isn't like other deferential behaviors such as being humble, polite, or cooperative. Being meek is being submissive and easily imposed upon. The meek are used by others because they don't stand up for themselves. They're fearful and weak in spirit. They just get whacked in the cheek again If you saw Office Space, Milton, the fat guy with the stapler whose desk kept being moved into bleaker places and who was terminated without even being told was meek. Take a look if you're interested - it's very short. This is a Christian virtue:

 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.

What does "transcendent morality" have to do with God?

He says that if we take away God, we take away support for morality, but it's not at all clear that the one had anything to do with the other.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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 ...

I'd rather attempt to hurriedly saw off my leg with a rusty hacksaw in the middle of a desert while chained to a car leaking gasoline that was slowly running towards an open flame.
 
Top