What does atheism indicate?

[OpenAirAtheist]

@menoftheinfinite I see below that you asked "what is matter?" so I must ask do believe that all is made of some sort of QM information? That on it's most basic level reality is abstract in nature? No wrong answer just want to know your thoughts.

[kshackleton]

The atheist is the PERSON who has EXAMINED the claims of theists and has rejected them on insufficient evidence. I don't need to justify the rejection of the claim.

It's that simple.....and that definition is useful and it excludes rocks, babies, and ferrets.

Furthermore, I would make the claim that the Abrahamic God does not exist due to the many contradictory claims which have been made about that entity.

[Luigi84289]

Menoftheinfinite how did you come to the conclusion that we are alone? or are you speaking solely on a supernatural basis? Just curious. I have always believed that because of the universe's size that it is inevitable other life somewhere exists.

[cartoonhead5]

I don`t think theism will die out rather it will evolve with our understanding of science. For instance people used to be polytheists then monotheism took over as our understanding gruw and nowadays monotheism is outdated and making way to a new concept of god viewed as a principle not as a being in which case theism is definitely true and atheism is definitely false.

[MenoftheInfinite]

@cartoonhead5 - If one's atheism is grounded in science, it is necessarily false, or at least highly limited. Science is not a sufficient basis for atheism and never has been.

[cartoonhead5]

Atheism doesn`t need science to prove that a "personal" god doesn`t exist just simple logic. Here is an example Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? So no i base my atheism in logic not science.

[MenoftheInfinite]

@cartoonhead5 - Well, that's good, because it's logic that kills God, not science.

[cartoonhead5]

All atheists should use logic to kill God. unfortunately many of them don`t but then again they are not really atheists, matter is their god and science is the holy book.

[Luigi84289]

@MenoftheInfinite True Science can only cast doubt. I would consider scientific atheists more agnostic. You have to disprove god to yourself not just experiment with the world. You have to know deep down without a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. That it is a logical and philosophical impossibility.

[kazinscky]

I miss my beloved agnostic standpoint.

[fractal420]

You said they knew they have known everything therefore there isn't anything for them to not know.

[celestialsalamander]

how is athiesm like rocks and babies?

[MenoftheInfinite]

You possibly ought put that question to those atheists that choose to define atheism as a mere absence of belief. That definition makes rocks and ferrets, atheists.

[fractal420]

It's a person that doesn't hold a direct belief in a god or gods. One could classify babies as atheist. Until parent/society/culture indoctrinates them anyways.

Some argue you have to be aware of the idea of gods before you reject the claim.

[Elenkhos]

spot on.

[ASealUponThineHeart]

A good video.

[themanofearth]

It's an interesting frame work that you've suggested that is denoted by atheism however it seems to me you're saying that atheism automatically denotes rationalism and not the other way around and I'd argue against that in a very strong way. I've met too many atheists who are VERY far from what you describe is indicated by atheism.

[InLucidReverie]

Great videos, subscribed.

[MenoftheFinite]

Thanks, on both counts.

[EinsteinVsHawking]

and men have nothing infinite about them, they are electroweak bacteria with a bandwith smaller than an ipod

the only thing infinite is their scientific arrogance, at least priests, who are equally stupid are humbler, since they have a superior entity, call it god, or the unvierse. laplace 'sir we ruled that hypothesis' arrogant platitude to napoleon will be responded by the SUPERIOR UNIVERSE; 'dont eat of the fruits of the tree of technology=machines and its bad fruits=weapons cause youll die

[KellyJones00]

One of my pores shelters a trillion SUPERIOR UNIVERSES.

;-)

[EinsteinVsHawking]

dont worry youll be exactly a picometer from me in the hell hole with 6 billion more idiots who believed in a retarded neuroparalytic with the most eviL=anti-Live mind ever conceived and all the other scientists of the planet who thought to be more powerful than the real God of the Universe the black hole. 'Man is a mush over a lost rock in a corner of the Universe, departing from this facts we must talk about him' 'scientists talk of the canvas and paint not of the painter' Nietzsche

[EinsteinVsHawking]

the vast majority of atheist dont 'feel' God - the collective subconscious of a people, because they dont belong to such god. While scientists confuse 'God', the subconscious collective with God, the mind of the Universe, of which they have neither a clue. A muslim doesnt need to prove himself God, allah assabiyah exists as an american doesnt need to prove that america exist, because he feels that force (assabiyah) that in words of ibn khaldun make him feel part of a signle flesh

[MenoftheInfinite]

Oakely dokely. See you after Xmas.

[EinsteinVsHawking]

in hell

[MenoftheInfinite]

Oh, you're going there too? Bring some bar-b-cue tongs, will you?

[pirbird14]

I would suggest that the vast majority of atheists are just people who instinctively resist the emotional manipulation at the heart of religious practice. It is an expression of their own sense of self worth and personal integrity. As such, it is not a thought out belief system. It is simply a rejection of the claims of religion.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I think that's true for some. For others it really is a thought-out philosophical position. If it's not the latter then it's really just a kind of agnosticism that rejects religion. The God issue is about more than just religion and is practices.

[pirbird14]

Yes, the God issue can be disposed of in the same manner as one would dispose of the supernatural in general.

But most people don't assess their own thoughts all that deeply. Most simply reject the god-claims current in their culture and don't go looking for any others. They are nonetheless without a god and are therefore atheists. These are classes 1-4 in the "Atheist Evolutionary Tree" video on your site.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I essentially agree with that, though feel compelled to mention those that are not of this type. We do try to encourage atheists to strive for greater philosophical understanding, but sadly many of them think that their rather mundane level of rejection of theism is enough. Their prerogative really, but the truth is there's more to be understood, if only they could stop thinking of themselves in comparison to the exoteric face of religion.

[EinsteinVsHawking]

pathetic, a human god is not the creator of the universe, it is just the next scale of complex evolution, from cells to humans from humans to social god, it is a historic element, equivalent to a nation. you are just full of platitudes

[MenoftheInfinite]

Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the video. I stand bemused.

[AhabCaptn]

Another thought provoking video good sir,

--Atheist require the friction of Religion to give energy and relevance to their belief structure

& it seems most religions require sin, fear of death, and/or suffering for this - I guess most of us need a dualistic "bad guy".

[AhabCaptn]

but everyone is treading water - keeping each other afloat, like a giant ring of shipwreck survivors - Outside of that ring is what? Oblivion, infinity, the void? The inexpressible meaninglessness (without implying meaning is possible of course) Maybe The White Wale.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Maybe I should rename this channel: "The Pequod". :)

[EvoinOZ]

Naturyl: Who here is ready to give up jobs, money, status, and love?

I've given up all those. Unfortunately however the wife continues to linger.

:-D

[Naturyl]

Haha... even without a job and money? Incredible...

Rarely will a hooker hook for nothing.

[volantera]

Maybe he's a house-husband.

[KellyJones00]

"Rarely will a hooker hook for nothing."

A hooker's hooking requires a catch, and the catch is why the hooker hooks.

What is the bait?

[Naturyl]

I very much agree with your ideas about what atheism indicates, and I think it is very important that someone bring this up (since no YouTube atheists have ever done so, that I have seen). As you suggest, atheism indicates a willingness to set aside comfort and convention in favor of reason and truth. If and when that tendency is taken further (and it can be taken light-years further), real spiritual progress begins. Who here is ready to give up jobs, money, status, and love? That's atheism x10

[MenoftheInfinite]

Agree x 10. But most atheists will consider this arrogance. This is why I made the point about atheism's relative position in the scheme of things.

Stimulating comment, as usual. Thanks.

[yupiie]

ready to give up jobs? And how is the human species suposed to survive without harvesting things? I dont get this point. I mean, before jobs we had slavery (which is quite the same thing, really) and before that we had lies, usurpation, warrior tribes, and clubs. Do you intend human race to resume to that once more?

[MenoftheFinite]

The issue isn't jobs or work, as such. Obviously humans have to do things to survive and achieve desirable goals. However, most of what constitute jobs and work in modernity is about deluded and unconscious values. It's a matter of consciousness and values.

[EvoinOZ]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are still willing to assert the utility of "God's morality"

I mean didn't Socrates and Euthyphro summarily deal with this on the Athenian court steps over 2500 years ago? Not to mention David Hume also put up a pretty decent argument against it a few hundred years ago: "can't get an is from an ought".

Divine command theory/objective morality is lunacy yet the theist the world over preach it incessantly. Just look around youtube for proof.

Crazy.

[EvoinOZ]

"Ought from an Is " ,I mean.

Apologies, Mr Hume.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Never trust a person who speaks of an objective or absolute source of morality and asks: "To whom or what are you accountable?", because in doing so they confess the absence of their own native morality and/or conscience.

[EvoinOZ]

Quite so.

Actually "Buddha Hitchens" makes that particular argument as good as anyone going around at the moment.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I've not really seen him addressing this point. But then I don't spend a lot of time following the "horsemen". I'm sort of too busy with my own agenda. But I imagine Hitchens does it well. I don't much like some of his his politics, but he's a fine rhetorician on matters theological.

[dalsgaard12]

God has his practical applications. Personal responsibility can be neglected within the theistic framework, the same can be said of having a deterministic world-view.

Why do people hasten to live within these ideologies in a hundred percent accordance? The ideologies - although pragmatic, are also exclusive to personal freedom.

When I am fearful and nothing can be done about it, I think in deterministic terms. When I am not, I choose to believe that I can influence the world. Whatever works.

[KevinSolway]

Dalsgaard12, determinism isn't exclusive of personal freedom. Even though every single thought I have is caused by the rest of the Universe, I still don't know what I will be doing five minutes from now. So right there is my personal freedom, which is the illusion that I have room to move (and can never, ever be anything more than that). If you are fearful you *definitely* aren't thinking in deterministic terms, since a truly deterministic view leaves no room for fear, self, or ego.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Personal responsibility is not neglected in a deterministic framework, but rather properly conceived. One may not be responsible in such a framework in a conventional moral sense, but one still represents a specific agent of causality and is responsible in that sense.

[caligulaincarnate]

Nice one, you did it again.

[kasuskasus]

Very good video. Thanks alot.

[brainouty]

B. You thus assert that belief in a supernatural god who can judge the human, is nonethess a denial of self-responsibility.

Beginning at 4:40 or so, you also make the faith claim the ATHEIST manifesto (though you don't use the term "manifesto") demands "character", by which you mean GOOD character. Hence anyone not an atheist, is bad. "What heights can WE scale? What sort of world will WE create?" you ask. WE WE WE (I capped your words.) Again, you are your own god. (Cont. in C.)

[brainouty]

C. You thus assert that belief in a supernatural god who can judge the human, is nonethess a denial of self-responsibility.

How, then, is your proffered dogma any different from any of the faithclaims you denounce? Is it not just as condemning, of those outside your own?

And with what PROOF? For surely you cannot disprove God, either. So all this is so much prejudice, just like any other faithclaim you denounce.

[KevinSolway]

Even if there were a God being, it would not be moral for us to get our morals from that being. The *only* morality is the morality that comes from within the individual, and is realized by the individual heart.

Various Gods can judge human behaviour all they like, but they won't change my own morality one iota.

[brainouty]

D. KevinSolway, it would ONLY be moral to get one's morals from a SUPERmoral being, since by definition that being's rules for right and wrong would be superior to our own. And the HIGHER responsibility would obtain, for not doing it. So you become immoral, for refusing the higher morality. Frankly, that's what Christians do, is slap their own puny human morality onto God, and then call it His.

Even so, the question of morality is not the real issue. (Cont. in E.)

[brainouty]

E. Kevin Solway, the question is to become higher than you are. Atheism as defined in this video is but a different flavor of that goal, one which asserts no god, and puts man on his own pedestal.

[KevinSolway]

Brainouty, you say that "it would only be moral to get one's morals from a SUPERmoral being", but reason and truth are supermoral beings, and are found in the individual heart. And it is precisely those things that make an individual, and comprise true character. Once the individual has cast-off all ties to this world, all foul mergedness, and set sail on the Infinite, he can go no higher.

[brainouty]

Kevin, "set sail on the Infinite" implies that there is such a thing. So that "thing" must be a person. Also, if as you state, "reason and truth are supermoral beings, and are found in the individual heart", then Someone Infinite first has those attributes.

All this is way above morality, really. It is about happiness, which can never be divorced from truth. N'est pas vrai?

[KevinSolway]

The Infinite isn't a "thing", as such, since it's not separate from ourselves. Reason and truth are our window to ourselves, and belong to no-one but ourselves. Only truth has the attribute of truth - there's nothing higher to "have" the attribute. Ramakrishna once said, "God alone is real, all else is illusory."

Yes, this is all "beyond good and evil", as Nietzsche would have it. But that is still "Good".

[brainouty]

Yes, God alone is real, KevinSolway. Question is, WHAT DEFINITION is the Real One. :)

[MenoftheInfinite]

Belief in a God that is the source of morality *is* a denial of personal responsibility. I can't help anyone who won't see this. Saying someone is "their own God" because objective purpose, meaning and morality doesn't exist is a meaningless piece of rhetoric and exactly the cop-out I imply. It is a denial of reality.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Your notion that God cannot be disproved - in the sense that such a thing is the source of objective meaning, purpose and morality - is utterly false. It takes but 2 minutes of *actual* thought to disprove it.

[brainouty]

MenoftheInfinite, you're the one playing the morality card, not me. Existence of God or non-existence is its own question, quite apart from the morality issue. To twist the question into a morality issue is to deny the truth. For truth, is that a thing exists or not, never mind WHY.

God exists or does not never mind why, and morals would not be the reason why. I don't exist to be moral. Morality is but an aid to happy existence. Even so, that is a separate issue, as just said to Kevin.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I don't play the morality card - theists do, in the specious claim that morality derives from an objective source. Since that source is demonstrably non-existent, those that claim to be moral are either in fact amoral, or, alternatively, working on the basis of irrational moral notions. Either way that's disturbing. I prefer reason at all times, because you can reason with a reasonable person; you can't reason with a moralist.

I don't believe in morality, btw.

[brainouty]

MenoftheInfinite, I keep on being grateful to Censeo for sending me to your page. It is quite enjoyable to debate with Kevin and you because we are discussing real principles and in a civil manner. I hope that my brusqueness -- which is occasioned by these little comment boxes -- doesn't come off as rudeness.

Re your comment that theists wrongly play the morality card, d'accord!! That's why I objected to your playing it. Morality's too small a reason for existence, & is separate from it.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I don't find your comments rude due to their brevity or "brusqueness". Brevity and candor are great virtues. I mention morality and personal responsibility in this video for very good reason. I'm still not sure what your objection is, exactly.

[brainouty]

F. MenoftheInfinite, my objection, is that your video advances a dogma which I find no different from the dogma advanced by any religion claiming a god exists. Secondly, that you lump the existence of god with morality, as if the purpose of this god and of morality, was to lord it over the created. (Cont. in G.)

[brainouty]

G. : if God exists, then morality and lording it over is NOT the reason for creation, inasmuch as the God would be insufferably superior already, and the creation of itself could do nothing to please that God. (Cont. in G.)

Notice that in all events, morality is a thing we need to get along with each other, and thus is of no innate importance. To claim it has importance and thus to rank one person over another by recourse to its tenets, is to make a religion of morality, aka EVIL.

[KevinSolway]

Brainouty, I agree that morality, or wisdom, has no innate value, yet it is still the case that some people are more moral and more wise than others. That's not to say they're inherently superior, since from the perspective of a person who values, say, emotions ahead of truth, the truthful person would be inferior. So it's all a matter of perspective.

[brainouty]

Kevin: reply to your "it is still the case that some people are more moral and more wise" -- yes, but that is a fact to enjoy, not to preen over.

The problem with man is that he religifies everything, even hair products. That denudes him from happiness.

Look: if "A" is more moral and wise than "B" but preens over being more than "B", then "A" is advertising that being more moral and wise is of itself worthless -- and the value, is to have something OVER "B". Sick thinking, huh.

[KevinSolway]

Brainouty: ". . . a fact to enjoy, not to preen over.". Yes indeed. If a person has any wisdom at all it is through absolutely no doing of their own, and they had no choice at all in the matter.

All the same, I think that when you're dealing with very foolish people, you have to appeal to some degree their sense of shame and pride - at least initially - since they don't have much else you can work with. We all begin with shame and pride, and without it we wouldn't make much progress.

[brainouty]

Religion is all about shame and pride, Kevin, and they think they make progress in appealing to it. Kinda like Marx and Engels thought that by appealing to the proletariat, a virtuous communism would eventually result.

Instead, appeal to a better standard of living which is apart from shame and pride, a positive in lieu of a negative, is the superior appeal. Wins fewer adherents, but then the majority only go with the crowd, anyway.

[KevinSolway]

B: " . . . apart from shame and pride"

Socrates used to say that the thing he feared most of all was being in error. That's a good kind of shame to have, because it can propel one forwards, and it can be utilized. By contrast, the majority of women have very poorly formed egos, and so have little effective shame or pride, and so there's nothing to propel them forwards. That's why, in all philosophic and spiritual traditions, women are held to be at a disadvantage.

[brainouty]

KevinSolway, really? The lack of shame and pride makes the woman inferior? Novel idea. So let me get this straight: men are superior because they have a greater sense of shame and pride, two of the biggest sins in the human race? For it's a sense of shame and pride which drives religion, witness Islam's sordid history (and before Islam, Catholicism).

[KevinSolway]

Brainouty, yes, self-consciousness, by which I mean "ego", along with all its faults, is, ironically, an advantage. It gives rise to the greatest evil, as well as the greatest genius. It gives rise to both the Hitlers and the Nietzsche's of this world. It's a very difficult idea to grasp, but consider this: an infant child can achieve neither of these types of greatness, for they lack the capacity to do so. (more)

[KevinSolway]

(con't) In some respects the fundamentalist religionist, with their crazy black-and-white judgementalism, is superior to the naive postmodernist. We'll probably do a whole video about this before long.

[brainouty]

Please do, KevinSolway. It is a quite remarkable claim that the cause of all problems in humanity, shame and pride (basis for all sin whether self-righteous or lascivious) would be a) considered a basis for "genius", and b) allegedly more present in the male than the female, hence c) a basis for some calling the female spiritually inferior.

[brainouty]

A. MenoftheInfinite, LOL the 'calendar' at 1:51. And at 3:20 et seq., you basically define the "indication" of atheism as a manifesto that each man is his own god, there being no other. And you call that courage, truth, reason. These are all statements of faith. You also make the faith claim that anyone with a faith in a supernatural god is unreasoning, untruthful, and most of all, cowardly, as if belief in a supernatural god were a copout. (Cont. in B.)

[MenoftheInfinite]

All those statements are statements of fact, not faith.  And yes, anyone who speaks of supernaturalism is irrational. There is little courage involved in believing in the products of imagination.

[pfarabee]

Overall, great video. I would agree with most or all of the points made in it. I've often said that the lack of objective purpose to the universe itself doesn't limit us, but frees us, as individuals as well as society, to forge our own purpose. 5 stars.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I largely agree, but I wonder if you'll indulge a slight modification... Perhaps the view that the universe has no meaning or purpose is also just another rung on the ladder of the evolution of consciousness. It may not be false that there is no objective meaning, but it is not therefore true that meaning is merely subjective. Meaning is participatory: it requires that human being and universe become integral.

[0ThouArtThat0]

To imagine the universe is to see with the eyes of the universe.

Our task, as atheists (graduates of mythic theism), is to become conscious of our cosmic situation.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Ha! I want to half agree and half beat you with a big ol' Zen stick! I think I'll just half agree for now.

Thanks as always for the sincerity of your input.

[MenoftheInfinite]

And I'm really sick of Youtube's system randomly marking comments as spam and the channel owner not being able to change that.

[Panoculus]

Also, was that a subliminal image of Kevin in the shining light at the end of the ladder? ;-)

[pfarabee]

More overt than subliminal, I think. But yes, interesting touch. Hopefully, it was jestful. I choose to interpret it that way. :)

[MenoftheInfinite]

Haha. Yes, it was deliberate and a joke. I was sort of curious as to how many people would see it that way. It made *me* laugh doing it.

[Panoculus]

Hey Dan, you begin by saying atheism brings nothing to the table, then end by saying it can bring things like character and responsibility to the table. Did I miss something?

[MenoftheInfinite]

Those traits bring atheism to the table, not the other way around. Atheism is a natural consequence of the authentic expression of such things. I suppose you could say atheism brings them, but I think it's more accurate to say it indicates them.

[rnistuk]

Hitchens Buhdda made me laugh

[MenoftheInfinite]

I've been waiting for a chance to use it. It's pretty funny.

[TRAGlCHERO]

While atheism may be tied to ideals of rationality, truth, or morality, it shouldn't be implied that these are somehow the domain of atheism, as theism or any other viewpoint can also contain these things.

Another problem I see with your view here is this notion of forging our own meaning. If meaning for the atheist is relative in this sense, then questions of truth are inadmissible to a discussion of morality. That being the case, why is atheism a better construct of belief for human life?

[Censeo]

Because it appears to be true that no gods exist. Morality and meaning change in religions too, and they become relative to both the individual and the time era in general. Objective morals do exist. Moral rules are made to reach and sustain prosper societies and it inevitably follow that some rules maintain and reach such societies. What else would be the purpose of ethics? Even the religious must believe that god established rules for the sake of bringing harmonized societies.

[TRAGlCHERO]

Censeo, this was the larger point, for both atheism and theism, in the context of this view, are relative truths. That is, they are contingent upon circumstance; hence neither position offers a morality that is true in the same sense that photons of light are true. Pragmatically, Im unconvinced atheism provides a better worldview than theism. Youll have to clarify what you mean by objective moral rules and in what sense they exist. If they are made then they are not objective by definition.

[Censeo]

What I mean when I say that morals are objective is that rules have objective impacts and that humans do have common preferences. That is all that it takes for there to exist universally preferable behaviour amongst humans. Whenever you apply a "should" it is describing something that do not necessarily happen and it seems that the only way that morals could be objective according to your definition is if it was physical laws and hence the word "should" would be mute and it would not be morals.

[Censeo]

"should" also imply intention so the core essense of morals are relative to intent, as in relational to it, but the general desires of humans can be evaluated objectively. If that don't make morals objective then what a deity say is the moral rules would also never be able to be objective. I'd like to ask what objective moral laws in the standard of objective you hold would provide to humanity which is desirable to obtain. I see no such thing there.

[TRAGlCHERO]

In my view, while morality and meaning change across different historical epochs, this does not need to imply that there is no objectively real or transcendental ground of value. In this sense, morality would be anchored to a point of origin which provides the scope and context for moral values, as imperfect and relative as it might appear to finite human minds. Thus, what we take to be morality is only a dim reflection of a deeper metaphysical reality.

[TRAGlCHERO]

In response to your statement about the objectivity of morals being derived from universal desire or behavior, I would say that this appears to be something of a contradiction. That is to say, if the standard of objectivity is derived from patterns of social life then should those patterns change or should behavior or desire change, then we arrive necessarily at cultural/moral relativism and not objective morality.

[Censeo]

Let us for instance say that the desire to own food wasn't there in the society, hence stealing food couldn't even exist. Then the rule couldn't possibly be to not eat someone elses food, which it is today. Would it be better to force them to consider food as property even though they desire to see food as things that is eaten by whomever eats it?

[TRAGlCHERO]

Consider, for instance, a community of cannibals that value the murder and consumption of their kin as a moral good. To the cultural/moral relativist this is a perfectly sensible and coherent view of morality. In my view it is intrinsically, universally, objectively immoral, in an absolute sense, irrespective of fashion, time period, or context.

[TRAGlCHERO]

The following statement by C.S. Pierce might help to flesh out what Im getting at; truth does not depend upon any accidental circumstances, and in that sense, may be said to be destined; so, thought, controlled by a rational experimental logic, tends to the fixation of certain opinions, equally destined, the nature of which will be the same in the end, however the perversity of thought of whole generations may cause the postponement of the ultimate fixation.

[Censeo]

I agree with all of this. First off, one desires to be an adult and not eaten as a newborn. This is much part of human nature. And in Nazi germany, there wasn't anyone who desired to be gassed to death unless clearly asking for this to happen to yourself first. Eating babies and killing people in general can never be considered to be anything else than personal or social preference, but I've defined morals to be what a human in his nature could honestly say would be universally preferred.

[TRAGlCHERO]

The problem as I see it, Censeo, is that human nature is an abstraction with no measure. It is misleading, in my view, to construe human nature as a fixed property rather than a dynamic process. My contention is that we cannot derive an objective morality from human nature or consciousness because if this is the source then any alteration of human nature or consciousness, either biologically or socially, necessarily changes what is objectively moral, and hence must remain a form relativism.

[Censeo]

You don't mean to say that the problem you see in viewing moral rules as what we come to find that human nature prefere is done by humans... is instead better solved by listening to what the religious people say is the preferred behaviour by god? No, you already told me the seed was planted in us already... by God.

The human nature "abstraction" you critizice is the morals you think god put in us.

[TRAGlCHERO]

My general argument would go as follows. The perception of moral values and our consciousness of the moral law and obligation are best explained through the hypothesis of a transcendent ground of value and of a personality that embodies the moral law. Differences in particular moral judgments and within different groups are said to have varying degrees of insight into those absolute moral values.

[TRAGlCHERO]

Moral obligation then is not purely a matter of historical accident or social convention. There must be a moral order which bears down upon the human conscience and which is unintelligible apart from the existence of God. God does not dictate moral percepts to the conscience. Our idea of the content of the moral law depends to a large extent on education and environment, which require the use of reason in assessing the validity of the actual moral ideas of ones group.

[TRAGlCHERO]

The possibility of criticizing the accepted moral code presupposes that there is an objective standard, and there is an ideal moral order, which imposes itself. The recognition of this moral order is part of the recognition of contingency (see Leibnizs argument from contingency) which implies the existence of a real foundation of God.

[Censeo]

There are still rules that couldn't change. Stealing is never right cause for it to be doable, something must be property first, which is the same as saying it should be used by a particular person.

[TRAGlCHERO]

Additionally, I should also claim that morality in my view is not a dictate or divine command from God, but rather that morality is embodied in Gods nature. That is, God is the very condition for moral life and the paradigm within which morality is made sense of. Thus providing a third alternative to the view that morality is relative to a law-maker, which should demonstrate that it is a false dichotomy.

[Censeo]

also, I find it really paradoxal to have a society where people preferred to be deceived and lied to, but if that was possible and happened, then I see no reason to find it objectional to have the moral rules change accordingly.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I would cede the point that the characteristics you list are not the sole domain of atheism, but I will not extend that concession very far. Morality is subjective and contextual. This is a fact that atheists accept and have to deal with pragmatically. Atheism is *only* a better construct for human life within a specific purpose and value set. Outside that set it is not.

[TRAGlCHERO]

Menoftheinfinite, then you would agree that both theism and atheism are belief dependent rather than truth dependent? Lets assume our purpose and value set is the promotion of human life, whether prudential, social, psychological, or moral. If it could be demonstrated to your satisfaction that theism provides greater benefits in this regard than atheism, would you acknowledge that theism is the more rational position?

[MenoftheInfinite]

Firstly, I cannot concede that theism and atheism are both "belief" dependent. This is simply not accurate. And since I regard spiritual wisdom of paramount importance, it cannot be demonstrated to me that theism has any merit whatever, let alone a merit competitive with atheism.

[TRAGlCHERO]

To clarify, I mean to say belief-dependent in the context of moral values and purposes. If we restrict our argument to the pragmatic consequences of belief I'm not sure what grounds you have to claim that theism has less merit than atheism. I'm also curious how you define this "spiritual wisdom" and how it might differ from "theistic wisdom" or wisdom in the general sense of the term.

[MenoftheInfinite]

"theistic wisdom" is a contradiction in terms as theism is delusional. The reason atheist morality might be assigned the character of "superior" is that it is not built from false concepts. It is therefore more real; it is grounded in reality.

And I define "spiritual wisdom" as an absence of delusional notions about the nature of Reality, existence, self etc.

[yupiie]

so the reality contains larger viewpoints than the sole materialistic ground?

[MenoftheFinite]

What is matter?

[yupiie]

matter is energy solidified... right? Thats what the scientists say, at least. why?

[napalmsaliva]

Good video. But I could do without the naked dude.

[petexii]

Ahh, Menoftheinfinite... I sometimes disagree because you are wrong (and you are, sometimes!) but you are so often so very right.

I would like to see a video on the mystery of reality, relating it to the mystery in religion and the mystery that atheists distain so much.

There are no words, names, labels that can explain...

[MenoftheInfinite]

Well, some of my vids already point to that. One of the reasons I like Sam Harris better than any of the other modern atheist icons, is that he's open to actual spiritual thinking and a reality beyond the purely empirical. Too many atheists are falsely closed to that sort of thing.

[CelticAlphabet]

I like Carl Sagan.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Yeah, he was pretty cool, though a bit obsessed with space :)