The Assertion That Atheism Logically Requires The Philosophical Acceptance Of Nihilism And The Rejection Of Moral Absolutism

[Buffy]

It's not too hard to define atheism so long as you stay within the framework of theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in any number of gods greater than 0 (not the belief that there are none, but the lack of belief that there are any).  Strictly speaking, you can have atheistic buddhists, atheistic religions, etc.  You could also have the more common understanding of atheism, which is basically a form of skepticism - it denies the existence of things for which there is an absence of evidence (which includes deities).

 

There's also the lovely Klingon religious conceit that their ancestors killed all their gods because "they were more trouble than they were worth."

 

 

Don't worry about it, Major. Nobody does. It's the way they like it, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

It's not too hard to define atheism so long as you stay within the framework of theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in any number of gods greater than 0 (not the belief that there are none, but the lack of belief that there are any).  Strictly speaking, you can have atheistic buddhists, atheistic religions, etc.  You could also have the more common understanding of atheism, which is basically a form of skepticism - it denies the existence of things for which there is an absence of evidence (which includes deities).

 

Buddhism does not believe in deities, yet this is called a major religion. Buddhism has a center figure just like atheism has Dawkins and Darwin, whose picture is enshrined on many desk tops. Both Buddhism and Atheism have zero deities in common, yet only Buddhism is called a religion. Why is that? Is atheism working a loophole to avoid separation of church and state, therefore allow them to use the state to force their religion? 

 

Atheism needs to define itself as not a religion by more than the deity criteria. Buddhism seeks higher human potential through self reliance exercises of the mind and body. Does atheism prefer pills and external prosthesis. Is this the difference, and does a material hug make all the difference? 

[HydrogenBond]

The Assertion That Atheism Logically Requires The Philosophical Acceptance Of Nihilism And The Rejection Of Moral Absolutism

 

​The rejection of moral absolutism means one assumes X is a good as Y. Relative to morality, this can be shown to be false. For example, we can compare the social cumulative costs for various moral choices. For example does allowing stealing have the same social cost as a scenario where nobody steals? The best is called absolutely the best.  

 

If atheism believes in moral relativity, they are delusional and therefore a religion not living in the real world, since one can use science to compare costs for all the alternatives to see they are not the same. 

 

My belief is, the ancient people came up with moral systems because they lived in a time where you did not have social welfare money to throw around. Things were simple and tough such that certain behavior would stand out as being the most efficient for the survival of the group. In modern times, we hide all the extra costs of relative morality because it means larger government. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[motherengine]

Yes, claims are made by people who claim to be atheists. I used to be one of such people.

?

[motherengine]

Atheism is the lack of belief in any number of gods greater than 0 (not the belief that there are none, but the lack of belief that there are any).

from Encyclopedia Britannica:

 

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

 

I am pretty sure that atheism can be 'legitimately' described as both a lack of, and a rejection of, belief in a god or gods.

[motherengine]

​The rejection of moral absolutism means one assumes X is a good as Y. Relative to morality, this can be shown to be false. For example, we can compare the social cumulative costs for various moral choices. For example does allowing stealing have the same social cost as a scenario where nobody steals? The best is called absolutely the best.

I don't call anything "the best". I see only evidence of natural and universal indifference to what human beings believe in, however fervently.

 

To abstain from stealing is only to abstain from stealing. And if such abstinence were to have a social effect that was perceived as 'good' or "the best" this would merely mean that many people feel/think this way, not that it is so beyond our subjective and transient thoughts and feelings.

 

If we can perceive and acknowledge moral/sociopolitical indifference from the rest of the natural process as well as the known universe, and if we can find no evidence of cosmic purpose or intention behind our existence, then what do we appeal to in order to assert that morality is something other than a mere concept open to individual interpretation (beyond critical fallacies, that is)?

 

Or maybe I misunderstood what you were asserting.

[current]

 

Atheists believe in no god .

 

Because Atheists believe in no god , does not then logically mean they have no morals.

 

Give the logical steps that proves your OP . motherengine .

[A-wal]

Why would a lack of belief in god indicate a lack of morals? The exact opposite is true because atheists that are good people aren't using a rule book to tell them the difference between right and wrong.