Religion Religion, Atheism and Relation to Basis of Morality

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Would I be wrong to say that modern Atheism has too many elements of "Collectivisation" or "Centralisation"? I think there's an obsession with needing other people to work together to achieve things rather than trying things out by yourself

As well as requiring that people doing "Good Things" be something constantly enforced by government orders

Rather than people being just nice and smart enough to teach others, learn from the internet, give charity, defend themselves or defend others

I'm pretty sure we still need a government to provide some things like a military and diplomatic negotiations with other nations. But I think that they think it's needed for almost everything and that individuals can't be trusted to do good
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
The traditionalist thinks that spontaneous human organisation is always better.

Unfortunately, that sounds like leaving things to fate

Sure, it would be logical, beneficial and near inevitable for people to do things like learn economics

But it’s still a chance, people MIGHT just choose not to learn it all

Same for being nice and tolerant of others, there’s a feeling of actively needing to enforce certain behavior, because people can’t be trusted
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
that always feels like a contradiction to me. "People can't be trusted">"Government can">"Government is made of people">"Government is the best!"

Maybe its because Businessmen and other skilled people more-or-less admit that they are out for themselves, their friends and family and MAYBE they will feel like helping out by doing charity, entrepreneur work and other stuff

Whereas I think, even though they know the Government can be corrupt, it is not so much as the Government doing things out of “Enlightened Self-Interest” or “I feel like being nice” and more DUTY

It is the governments DUTY to provide help, unlike a merchant or craftsman who will provide something to help you because they either feel like being charitable or will get money or goods out of the help
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Is it wrong that perhaps deep down, these sorts of "atheists" have decided to instead of worshipping a supernatural or divine entity

Have decided to worship an outright idealised authority? Politicians & Celebrities are their new objects of worship who can do no wrong and are great prophets

They dislike the Traders though, but so long as they align with said politicians and celebrities, they're okay
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
A lack of belief is not a belief. It seems to me that religious people have some strange need to see everyone else in terms of their own religion. Like they need validation or something by believing that atheists are actually religious in some way.
OK, but you do have reasons why you lack belief, right? You don’t just “lack belief” for no reason. That’d be irrational.

What you have to understand is that there are numerous philosophical assumptions that contemporary atheists and agnostics make that a lot of religious people don’t hold, namely materialism, mechanism, nominalism, relativism, and skepticism. Contemporary non-believers tend to hold at least two or three of these beliefs, and I’d argue that, if they were consistent, they’d hold all of the those beliefs.

Saying that your position isn’t a position is and intellectually dishonest move because it treats the position you hold as if it were the default. This is a form of begging the question.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
What you have to understand is that there are numerous philosophical assumptions that contemporary atheists and agnostics make that a lot of religious people don’t hold, namely materialism, mechanism, nominalism, relativism, and skepticism. Contemporary non-believers tend to hold at least two or three of these beliefs, and I’d argue that, if they were consistent, they’d hold all of the those beliefs.

Don't forget obsession with Communism or Statism and a romanticisation or idealism of political figures

Honestly, I think people secretly believe to an extent in Tyranny, as in they believe handing over huge amounts of power to one person or specific people will instantly solve all their problems
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
OK, but you do have reasons why you lack belief, right? You don’t just “lack belief” for no reason. That’d be irrational.

What you have to understand is that there are numerous philosophical assumptions that contemporary atheists and agnostics make that a lot of religious people don’t hold, namely materialism, mechanism, nominalism, relativism, and skepticism. Contemporary non-believers tend to hold at least two or three of these beliefs, and I’d argue that, if they were consistent, they’d hold all of the those beliefs.

Saying that your position isn’t a position is and intellectually dishonest move because it treats the position you hold as if it were the default. This is a form of begging the question.


I think it might be worth talking about why this worldview is what it is. Most atheists don't actually hold it on a rational basis, but covering what that rational basis is, in full, would be helpful for framing the argument. Ms. Trent approaches it from our perspective and I could quote her text at late. It's really more recent than even the Enlightenment values of the blind Watchmaker, because their universe was a fundamentally more sensible one than the one that follows Nietzsche. And of course modern atheism can be said as trying to square the circle of living in a Popperean World with Nietzschean values.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
A lack of belief is not a belief. It seems to me that religious people have some strange need to see everyone else in terms of their own religion. Like they need validation or something by believing that atheists are actually religious in some way.
I'd say it depends on the person. There's a difference between "I don't believe in God" and going on an anti relgion speel anytime it's mentioned. The latter is pretty clearly relgious evangelism. You don't have to call it that and you don't have to acknowledge it. That's exactly what's going on though.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
I think it might be worth talking about why this worldview is what it is. Most atheists don't actually hold it on a rational basis, but covering what that rational basis is, in full, would be helpful for framing the argument. Ms. Trent approaches it from our perspective and I could quote her text at late. It's really more recent than even the Enlightenment values of the blind Watchmaker, because their universe was a fundamentally more sensible one than the one that follows Nietzsche. And of course modern atheism can be said as trying to square the circle of living in a Popperean World with Nietzschean values.

In my view, there are ultimately two philosophies of life one could hold: the perennial philosophy (or Ur-Platonism) and "the wisdom of the world" (or naturalism).

"The wisdom of the world" is built on five main points:
  • Materialism (the position that only bodies and their properties exist)
  • Mechanicism (the view that explanations available to a materialist are adequate to explain reality)
  • Nominalism (the view that only individuals in specific places at specific times exist)
  • Relativism (the view that truth, goodness, and beauty is just what is true, good, or beautiful to you or your group)
  • Skepticism (the view that necessary and universal knowledge is impossible).
You don't have to affirm all of these positions to be an atheist or non-believer (in fact, many religious people do hold a few of these positions), but atheists in large part assume these assumptions reflexively in order to justify their non-belief, and these positions are widely taught by society at large.

By contrast, to be part of the big tent of philosophical schools that is Ur-Platonism, you must affirm anti-materialism, anti-mechanicism, anti-nominalism, anti-relativism, and anti-skepticism all at once. Ur-Platonism is intuitively appealing because it's essentially an evangelical message - "there is an eternal truth that transcends this world, and you can become a wiser, more virtuous person by conforming yourself with that truth." So why did we lose this? Why is this view considered fringe in modern society?

The Ur-Platonist philosophy of the ancient world was undermined first by late Scholastics like William of Ockham and later by Humanists like Petrarch and Erasmus, Martin Luther and his followers, and Enlightenment figures like René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes. They were all trying to find an alternative theology to what was available before. This is spelled out in The Theological Origins of Modernity (a book I highly recommend).

This effort took place because of the "scientific revolution" brought about by Sir Francis Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo Galilee. These men re-conceptualized reality such that there was no need to refer to forms or teleological ends to explain the material world. All of those things were considered to only exist in the mind. In reality, the physical world consisted only of qualitative things that could be measured. Science became less about finding out what was true and more about trying to gain power over nature. This led to all kinds of engineering marvels, the tech boom that we see today. However, this change in emphasis did not actually change the nature of reality. Qualitative features of reality do not cease to exist just because some bigwig says so. Reality just is.

What you find in many contemporary thinkers (especially atheists) is the notion that science can explain everything about reality, that reality is just what science says it is. The thought that modern science could have some assumptions built into it never occurs to them. They also tend to have ideas about God that are influenced by naturalism. They believe that, if God existed, he'd be a creature like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, an "invisible sky fairy" that exists somewhere in the universe. That's not how Ur-Platonists think of God. They tend to think of God as the self-explanatory principle that explains all of existence, our first cause and our last end.

I have talked about this before in one of my philosophical essays on "the modern philosophy" here.
 
Last edited:

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
  • Materialism (the position that only bodies and their properties exist)
  • Mechanicism (the view that explanations available to a materialist are adequate to explain reality)
  • Nominalism (the view that only individuals in specific places at specific times exist)
  • Relativism (the view that truth, goodness, and beauty is just what is true, good, or beautiful to you or your group)
  • Skepticism (the view that necessary and universal knowledge is impossible).

Speaking of -ism's

I think a number of the world's problems involve Romanticism winning over Enlightenment, well what I understand regarding those two concepts.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
The closest thing to an atheistic moral system I've ever heard of is Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and it was more formed as an anti-thesis to the presumptions built into communism than based on the exploration of logical conclusions one leading to another. Using Objectivism to attempt to create moral rules requires several assumptions that are deeply flawed.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
The closest thing to an atheistic moral system I've ever heard of is Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and it was more formed as an anti-thesis to the presumptions built into communism than based on the exploration of logical conclusions one leading to another. Using Objectivism to attempt to create moral rules requires several assumptions that are deeply flawed.

Plus, I think you’d be called a social darwinistic greedy sociopath for it
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Plus, I think you’d be called a social darwinistic greedy sociopath for it
Many hard core Objectivists do have a problem charity, which is kind of funny since it can easily be justified under objectivism using advances in game theory since Rand created the philosophy. No the real problem is that it has a hard time justifying the why things have value on which everything else is built upon, attempts using desire or self actualization typically come off as shallow justifications. Once you actually have a reason to give things value, the economic arguments work very well.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Many hard core Objectivists do have a problem charity, which is kind of funny since it can easily be justified under objectivism using advances in game theory since Rand created the philosophy. No the real problem is that it has a hard time justifying the why things have value on which everything else is built upon, attempts using desire or self actualization typically come off as shallow justifications. Once you actually have a reason to give things value, the economic arguments work very well.

Yeah, that said, the views of other people, even if heavily biased and misinformed would make them think terribly of them

Odds are they believe that they’re all Andrew Ryans in the waiting
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
The modern worldview from the perspective of Ms. Alice Lucy Trent is best expressed by an excerpt from Chapter One of The Feminine Universe, entitled "The Image of the Cosmos", and it begins, interestingly enough, with a quote from Nietzsche:

The total nature of the world is... to all eternity chaos, not in the sense that necessity is lacking, but in that order, structure, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other human aesthetic notions we may have are lacking... Let us beware of attributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect nor beautiful nor noble, and has no desire to become any of these... neither does it know any laws. Let us beware of saying there are laws in nature. There are only necessities. There is no one to command, no one to obey, no one to transgress... Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.

As Ms. Trent puts it, "the Quotation above states the modern view of the universe, shared by almost everyone alive today" (she means this in a western context, though with the rise of enforce state atheism in the East by the conquest of mainland China by the Red Chinese movement, this is nonetheless arguably true worldwide).

Then, as she continues:

Certainly it is expressed more frankly--more brutally--than most people would care to put it. But this cold, void, chaotic vision of the ultimate nature of things is the underlying image of the modern world-picture. It is the foundation-stone upon which the twentieth century constructed its view of the universe; and it explains many things about the way people in current Western societies feel and behave.

For the way we see the universe is not separate from the way we see ourselves. If our cosmos is chaotic and meaningless, how can we be harmonious and our lives have true purpose? If our cosmos is cold and empty, how can we be otherwise?

Every traditional people has seen humanity and the cosmos as being radically interlinked, and maid herself a microcosm or 'little cosmos'--and conversely the cosmos itself as ultimately akin to ourselves. Our very word 'world' (wer ald) means originally 'the great man', and, of course, in the earliest times, the Cosmic Maid was conceived as feminine. We and the cosmos are related in traditional thought; are of the same Essence and the same substance. We are both intelligible and we both mean the same things.

Conversely, according to the modern view, we are but an accident in the vastness of the cosmos; we might not have been, or we might have been quite otherwise. Within the infinite galaxies we are but an insignificant speck, and within the endless vistas of cosmic time, our whole history, past, present, and future, is but a moment; and a moment of no special significance. Above all, we haven othing in common with the cosmos; it is alien to us, knows nothing of our values or aspirations--knows nothing at all, indeed, for it is but insensate matter, and as accidental and meaningless as ourselves.

When maid loses her significance in the cosmos, and the cosmos loses its significance around her, many other things are also lost. Until very recently maid walked in the knowledge that she was a little universe, and every move she made, every word she spoke, the clothes she wore and the things with which she surrounded herself all reflected this.

Picture the maid of the present moment, in loose and baggy clothes, striving always for the odd and the grotesque, or else for the casual and the careless. Does she not represent her picture of the universe? Aimless, accidental, chaotic, ultimately meaningless? Perhaps her shirt spells out some vulgar joke or advertises a commercial product. Why not? For what dignity can she aspire to: an accidental fleck floating for a brief moment in a world of random dust?

Her clothes are the clothes of self-mockery and demoralization. Her life, cut off from all sources of meaning and harmony, becomes an aimless wandering, spiced only by the endless artificial wants stimulated by the commercial system; and by those desires we share with dogs and cats, raised to the status of gods and stimulated by every means available to mass-communication.

And as our universe disintegrates from a unified, meaningful whole into a congeries of unrelated objects separated by unfathomable distances of cold black space, so our social fabric is unwoven, the ties of loyalty and love, of tradition and trust unloose, leaving each individual increasingly an isolated unit fending for herself in a cold and alien world.

Many other consequences spring from this new vision of the world as meaningless and empty--not least a loss of our old sense of responsibility toward the world. For if we are nothing to the world and the world is nothing to us; if maid is not a little world, nor the world a great maid, why should we treat her with respect? Why should we not plunder and destroy her? Once the bonds of meaning and loyalty and the dance of eternal harmony are gone, even common self-preservation, it seems, will not suffice to stop us sawing off the branch on which we sit.

We may think of ourselves as animals, and of animals as mere machines programmed for survival: but when this animal survival is all, when what have always been our specifically human beliefs and motivations have been stripped away from us, it transpires that we are not even very good at being animals, and do not greatly care about survival itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nitramy

The Umbrella that Smites Evil
Well, the way I see it is that most (militant) atheists nowadays can't distinguish between what they know to be true and what they believe in, and want to impose this on everyone else.

This seemingly-paradoxical mindset (what I know and what I believe do not have to have perfect overlap) is what allows theism and rationalism to coexist. Because of this, one can personally believe in divinity in the abstract, have an intimate personal connection to their beliefs, and be free to expand their catalog of truth with what they know to be true.

And it's also why I despise New Atheism (or Atheism+, fuck those intersectional tankie moonbat nutjobs with a chainsaw): isn't the freedom to think what they were fighting for in the first place? Why be so authoritarian towards others and want to change how they think? Unless this is a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario, where THEY want to be the ones imposing on others, in the name of the holy trinity of Dawkins, Marx and the Holy Intersectionality Stack, amen.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Well, the way I see it is that most (militant) atheists nowadays can't distinguish between what they know to be true and what they believe in, and want to impose this on everyone else.
There is a certain arrogance among atheists, if they don't believe that they know everything there is to know, they believe they have the capacity to do so. That there is nothing beyond their remit.

Something that is proven wrong by diagnolization and the incompleteness theorem.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Maybe its because Businessmen and other skilled people more-or-less admit that they are out for themselves, their friends and family and MAYBE they will feel like helping out by doing charity, entrepreneur work and other stuff

Whereas I think, even though they know the Government can be corrupt, it is not so much as the Government doing things out of “Enlightened Self-Interest” or “I feel like being nice” and more DUTY

It is the governments DUTY to provide help, unlike a merchant or craftsman who will provide something to help you because they either feel like being charitable or will get money or goods out of the help

there is a reason why I prefer honest vice to dishonest virtue.

Honest Greed can be channeled into good purposes, dishonest virtue has ways of becoming much more toxic.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top