Ask an atheist

[rvkevin]

"We" being slaves or non-slaves?

You would not have the comfort knowing whether or not you were the slave or the owner. That is what the veil of ignorance is for, so that you don't have bias for your current position.

Moral views don't just change over time; they also differ within the same time period between different people in different circumstances.

That does not mean that they are subjective. Scientists think the universe is 14 billion years old, creationists think the universe is 6000 years old. That does not mean that knowledge is subjective.

It appears that this course of thought comes under the assumption that morals are contingent upon consequences rather than being inherently right or wrong.

Would I rather be worse off or better off? Would I rather have ten cakes or ten million cakes?

No-risk decisions sounds more like economics and investing in stock rather than a moral dilemma.

What is your idea of morality then? For that's how I define right and wrong.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

That does not mean that they are subjective. Scientists think the universe is 14 billion years old, creationists think the universe is 6000 years old. That does not mean that knowledge is subjective.

rvkevin: Knowledge is not subjective therefore knowledge is absolute.

rvkevin: Knowledge is not subjective therefore knowledge is ____?____

Scientific facts are never always absolute. The atomic model went through several revisions from the JJ Plum Pudding Model to the Niel Bohrs atomic model. There are new discoveries that change the face of what we perceive as knowledge and what we see as right and wrong. Are we talking about "knowledge" or are we discussing "morals?"

I'm going to sleep. I'll be back later.

 

[rvkevin]

rvkevin: Knowledge is not subjective therefore knowledge is absolute.

rvkevin: Knowledge is not subjective therefore knowledge is ____?____

Way to take an analogy. It is simply to show that when someone uses false premises, they can reach a false conclusion.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

And of course a premise is judged by whether or not the conclusion is deemed true or false.

Actually it's a rhetorical question. All four possibilities are open.

Justified premise, good conclusion
Justified premise, bad conclusion
Unjustified premise, good conclusion
Unjustified premise, bad conclusion

This is why we have moral dilemmas. But my main problem with veil of ignorance is the idea that it doesn't completely explain all bad causations that are seen as being moral decision making.

 

[El Nino]

You would not have the comfort knowing whether or not you were the slave or the owner. That is what the veil of ignorance is for, so that you don't have bias for your current position.

I was taking a shot at Acrostic's comment, not yours. I don't think either of you is entirely correct, though you both make good points.

That does not mean that they are subjective. Scientists think the universe is 14 billion years old, creationists think the universe is 6000 years old. That does not mean that knowledge is subjective.

As I said before, people are driven to improve their circumstances, regardless of the rules that govern their society. Religion is interpreted by different people in different ways.

I don't think we have established a set definition of "morals" that everyone can agree on. I follow the observation that moral codes are extensions of biological and social evolution. This makes them both malleable and yet, also, grounded in something that doesn't change all that much, as paradoxical as that sounds.

Ethics stem from the social contract. Yet individuals have their own demands, and so the development of ethics is a balance between selfish demands and collective benefits.

An individuals considerations for the self are what make moral codes subjective.

Yet, the biological and social evolution that gave rise to such codes can be observed objectively.

However, humans being creatures of reason, cognitive dissonance arises if a moral code
cannot be practiced according to one's interpretation of the code. Moral indignation is what comes from that cognitive dissonance, when the code clashes with the practice.

And the code will often clash with the practice because nature itself is amoral.

And I really don't care about the objective vs. subjective debate. I don't think that will help us in any way. The bottom line is that if you don't take the lives of other people into consideration, they can make trouble for you.

 

[rvkevin]

This is why we have moral dilemmas. But my main problem with veil of ignorance is the idea that it doesn't completely explain all bad causations that are seen as being moral decision making.

The veil of ignorance does not attempt to explain anything. It is a tool for making decisions. You made the claim that "It is impossible as a human being to abandon all forms of bias." I don't agree with this because of the veil of ignorance. Under the veil, you are not representing yourself, therefore, you abandon your bias. If we are unable to, that is a failure in our reasoning capacity, therefore it is a criticism of the epistemological nature of the social contract, not an ontological one.

What do you mean by "bad causations that are seen as being moral decision making"?

This is why we have moral dilemmas.

Have any good dilemmas? I think the only reasons we have moral dilemmas is from unknown information or lack of reason.

Just curious, is there a dilemma where the answer "The action that causes the least suffering" is not the best answer?

It appears that this course of thought comes under the assumption that morals are contingent upon consequences rather than being inherently right or wrong.

What is your idea of morality then? For that is how I define right and wrong.

Edit: This guy explains contractarianism pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MROOECd1mIw&NR=1

If the South won the Civil War can you be sure that we would still feel the same way about slavery and equality?

@7:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23nJAa6-1-s&feature=related

 

[gm jack]

gm jack, please educate yourself before attempting to post something in semi-intelligent. I go to a Catholic high school, and your answers / rebuttals made me want to choke a *****...yo.

What exactly have I said that is completely wrong? Many of my points were deliberately stupid and over the top to make a point, but I don't think many, if any of them are fundamentally wrong.

 

[Suspect]

Link to original post: [drupal=3123]Ask an atheist[/drupal]

It should be noted that a lot of atheists do not explicitly deny the possibility of a God. Rather, they are actually agnostic-atheists, meaning that they concede that perhaps their could be some God or higher power, but until they see evidence of such a thing then they are forced to conclude that it isn't true.

aka science/scientology

 

[gm jack]

Scientology? Really? Do we need to bring that up in here?

 

[Reaver197]

Huh. That's the issue with these sort of threads. So many posts that by the time you come back to respond after a day, you're already pages and topics behind. Ha ha.

I am pleased to see that this discussion has, for the most part, has been civil and polite. Though, it is always unfortunate to see that some people simply cannot resist the temptation to insult/threaten others. Remember, those actions always reflect badly on your own position, showing a weakness of reasoning or support.

I'd make a reference to the irony of someone threatening others when their religious precepts should have them "turn the other cheek", but, I've read enough of the bible to understand that almost any position can be justified through it, unfortunately; no matter how warlike and aggressive or peaceful and taciturn.

 

[rvkevin]

I'd make a reference to the irony of someone threatening others when their religious precepts should have them "turn the other cheek", but, I've read enough of the bible to understand that almost any position can be justified through it, unfortunately; no matter how warlike and aggressive or peaceful and taciturn.

Oh the woe of bronze-aged myths (and Scientology).

 

[SwastikaPyle]

aka science/scientology

How coincidental that I was just reading an article about these guys:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/us/07scientology.html

wheee child indoctrination. One of the few abuses we continue to see as perfectly natural and legal in the USA.

“Why did we work so hard for this organization,” Ms. Collbran said, “and why did it feel so wrong in the end? We just didn’t understand.”

 

[gm jack]

And every religion does it. The vast majority of people follow their parent's faith, and a lot more people lose their faith than take a new one up.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306...FwLzIwMTAwMzA2L3VzX3JlbF9ob21lX3NjaG9vbF9ldm9

XFD

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.

Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.

"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!'"

kids these days think they know everything


haha

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

Oh my (lack of) god.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The veil of ignorance does not attempt to explain anything. It is a tool for making decisions.

It's a tool used for making political decisions where "rational" and "informed" people are involved. Let's go back to the main issue where you brought up the veil of ignorance. I was talking about how slavery is not an absolute moral evil. But you seemed to insists that it was and stated the veil of ignorance.

- It is impossible to empathize being a slave: I was never a slave, how about you? The veil of ignorance appears to make you consider what it was like to be a slave when you could never imagine what life would be like for them.

- This point will be explained after the next quotation.

You made the claim that "It is impossible as a human being to abandon all forms of bias." I don't agree with this because of the veil of ignorance. Under the veil, you are not representing yourself, therefore, you abandon your bias. If we are unable to, that is a failure in our reasoning capacity, therefore it is a criticism of the epistemological nature of the social contract, not an ontological one.

- Humans are not omniscient therefore their decisions have bias: I've explained this in another post but humans are born with only five-senses and have a limited perception at how the world around them works. For example we don't naturally sense issues like global warming and carbon pollution. During the age of industrialization we built tons of factories without consideration for the environment. In retrospect the EPA was established because it was deemed by society that pollution was wrong. This ironically resulted from data gathered from machines that were the result of the industrial revolution. Being born a human automatically makes you biased. It doesn't matter if you're not acting in your self-interest, not all bias is intentional. Not all bias is intentional. Not all bias is intentional.

- Not all decisions come under good or bad. Let's say you were in a hospital and you discover your pregnant wife has cancer. If your wife has small cell lung cancer and she's pregnant with her baby you have three choices:

A) Perform surgery now: 25% chance to save your wife 5% chance to save the son
B) Perform surgery after delivering baby: 5% chance to save your wife 80% chance to save the son
C) Attempt to provide surgery now and take the son at early: 10% chance to save your wife 50% chance to save your son

Even if you attempt to look at the situation from a non-biased perspective, there is no "right" decision. Rawles clearly it not the ideal moral tool to use in this situation. If you haven't realized I think veil of ignorance is pretty much a defunct moral tool because it personalizes moral ethics and does not strive for objectivity.

Have any good dilemmas? I think the only reasons we have moral dilemmas is from unknown information or lack of reason.

A juvenile example is admitting that you cheated on a test results in you getting screwed over. Good premise, bad results. Often times the moral dilemmas I like to follow are ones between consequentalism and deontology.

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by the mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

Consequentialism: utilitarianism: results-based: greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people is the moral choice.

Deontological: inherent: categorical imperative: killing a person is wrong.

Just curious, is there a dilemma where the answer "The action that causes the least suffering" is not the best answer?

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

What is your idea of morality then? For that is how I define right and wrong.

To be perfectly honest. Morals are just dinner-time conversation You can talk about being a good person and doing the right thing. You can try to sort out which actions are right and wrong. In low-mid pressure situations you will probably turn to morals and religion in order to make the "right" choice. But when it comes to serious events in life: such as having a carbon-copy SAT test in front of us so we can easily get a perfect score or euthanazing your grandpa because he's in so much pain from the cancer; we don't think about morals. Sure I bet you can say right now that you would make the "right decision." But honestly when you've dedicated hours on top of hours into something that you have really wanted many years, morals be ****ed. If 15 years of doing research for the cure for cancer results in just needing one more patient at the end of the week to run a clinical trial (grant money will not be renewed, board of directors will want to see the required results) then why not lie to the patient (disguise it as some other drug) if you know it's going to work. 15 years of work down the drain and the cure for many types of cancer gone due to moral ethics is stupid.

In the 1950s it used to be moral for psychiatric patients to receive only psychotherapy with a supplement of psychoactive drug supplements. By the 1970s it switched around with moral practice being psychoactive drugs and a supplement of psychotherapy. Morals and ethics change all the time. Morals give the illusion that we live in a world that is run by justice, order, and instances of "right" and "wrong." The world doesn't always work that way. If you've taken a hard subject, kids group together and share answers in order to get the work done. But from a categorical perspective that's wrong because what's the point in taking a hard subject if you're not going to learn from it and put your own hard work into it? Morals more often than not are a game of semantics and sophistry. Morals are a game for those who live a life of luxury. In real life most of us are willing to do anything in order to survive.

 

[RATED]

I just don't like religion , instead of bringing union, it only had come with "discussions, war, fight bcuz different religions or believes" and all that stuff. I just believe at " heaven" as a better state of life as a figurative word not at the thing people say like" where god lives and all those stuff"

I respect everyone religions as long as they are sincere with themselves and their hearts really believes in that religion.

 

[Suspect]

Scientology? Really? Do we need to bring that up in here?

it was already brought up in the 1st post as a subliminal

 

[gm jack]

it was already brought up in the 1st post as a subliminal

Still, it's a can of worms on its own. They make most religions look tame and very reserved.

 

[rvkevin]

- It is impossible to empathize being a slave: I was never a slave, how about you? The veil of ignorance appears to make you consider what it was like to be a slave when you could never imagine what life would be like for them.

A rational person would not enter a contract where they are the property of another person. Therefore, slavery is wrong. Mentioning the veil of ignorance was simply to get rid of the assumption you had that we were the victors, that you could have been born black and thus been enslaved. And yes, I can empathize being a slave. The more you learn about a subject, the more you learn about what actually happened, the more you understand their circumstances and what they had to go through. Can you empathize being tortured? If you never have gone through it, how would you know its not a pleasurable experience? No offense, but your argument is dumb. I don't need to experience being dangled over a barrel of fire while being prodded with a hook to know that it causes suffering. The same could be said for slavery.

- Humans are not omniscient therefore their decisions have bias: I've explained this in another post but humans are born with only five-senses and have a limited perception at how the world around them works. For example we don't naturally sense issues like global warming and carbon pollution. During the age of industrialization we built tons of factories without consideration for the environment. In retrospect the EPA was established because it was deemed by society that pollution was wrong. This ironically resulted from data gathered from machines that were the result of the industrial revolution. Being born a human automatically makes you biased. It doesn't matter if you're not acting in your self-interest, not all bias is intentional. Not all bias is intentional. Not all bias is intentional.

You're using the word bias here synonymous with ignorance. Alright, that’s not the definition of bias, but I'll use that definition for this context. Let me say this first, knowledge and science inform morality. It is important that people have an accurate representation of reality. Something is wrong if the people committing the action do so knowing the consequences (which is why we do not consider animals or the mentally insane as moral agents). During the industrial age, it may not have been known that the side effects of pollution were harmful to the environment so it was not wrong to do so. However, with the knowledge we have today (ironically with the instruments produced during that era), doing so would be considered wrong because we actively know about the ill effects of pollution. This is another reason why most people that hold this view support increasing knowledge.

A) Perform surgery now: 25% chance to save your wife 5% chance to save the son
B) Perform surgery after delivering baby: 5% chance to save your wife 80% chance to save the son
C) Attempt to provide surgery now and take the son at early: 10% chance to save your wife 50% chance to save your son

Even if you attempt to look at the situation from a non-biased perspective, there is no "right" decision. Rawles clearly it not the ideal moral tool to use in this situation. If you haven't realized I think veil of ignorance is pretty much a defunct moral tool because it personalizes moral ethics and does not strive for objectivity.

I still choose "The action that causes the least suffering." What you're disagreeing with,is how do we know which action results in the least suffering? The reason why there is no "right" decision is because the variables are basically unknowns. Once you start to quantify the different types of suffering the scenario, you would be able to find a "right" and a "wrong" decision. Something is wrong if the people committing the action do so knowing the consequences. How does the veil of ignorance personalize moral ethics? The aim is the opposite, if anything it humanizes moral ethics. How more objective can you be to say you are not representing yourself?

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by the mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

Consequentialism: utilitarianism: results-based: greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people is the moral choice.

Deontological: inherent: categorical imperative: killing a person is wrong.

I fail to see the difficulty in solving the answer. Failing to act still makes you morally accountable. If you walk by a pond and see a child drowning and you fail to save her because you don't want to get your suit wet, that is morally wrong. In the above situation, failing to act results in the killing of a person. Both actions result in killing a person, so I fail to see how deontology is relevant to this situation at all, it just breaks down. In case you couldn't do the math, 1<5.

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

I still choose "The action that causes the least suffering." You could argue either way, there are a lot unknowns in the story. The decision in this case results has major implications in the long term about the health of a society. You need to consider the short and long term effects of such a decision. Just because there are notable short term benefits does not mean that it is the correct decision. A case could be made as to why not harvesting the organs results in the least amount of suffering, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Sure I bet you can say right now that you would make the "right decision." But honestly when you've dedicated hours on top of hours into something that you have really wanted many years, morals be ****ed. If 15 years of doing research for the cure for cancer results in just needing one more patient at the end of the week to run a clinical trial (grant money will not be renewed, board of directors will want to see the required results) then why not lie to the patient (disguise it as some other drug) if you know it's going to work. 15 years of work down the drain and the cure for many types of cancer gone due to moral ethics is stupid.

You're making a utilitarian argument for letting the trials continue. The reason for regulations and procedures during this process is that those procedures are the tried and tested methods for reliably producing correct results. "Then why not lie to the patient (disguise it as some other drug) if you know it's going to work." This is where I have serious issues about this scenario. How do you "know" its going to work?" Why do you want to jeopardize the process that produces reliable results? To do so would be to put drugs into the marketplace that have potentially dangerous side effects. The reasons for the protocol is to prevent this from happening.

In the 1950s it used to be moral for psychiatric patients to receive only psychotherapy with a supplement of psychoactive drug supplements. By the 1970s it switched around with moral practice being psychoactive drugs and a supplement of psychotherapy. Morals and ethics change all the time. Morals give the illusion that we live in a world that is run by justice, order, and instances of "right" and "wrong." The world doesn't always work that way. If you've taken a hard subject, kids group together and share answers in order to get the work done. But from a categorical perspective that's wrong because what's the point in taking a hard subject if you're not going to learn from it and put your own hard work into it? Morals more often than not are a game of semantics and sophistry. Morals are a game for those who live a life of luxury. In real life most of us are willing to do anything in order to survive.

Let me present a more extreme example. Electroshock therapy was once accepted as reasonable treatment for a variety of disorders. When the evidence shows a particular method is ineffective, we change our view. If morality is not based on fact and observation, we should be rid of it entirely. When electroshock was found to be ineffective, it would be "wrong" to prescribe it for treatment knowing it would have no benefit. For the psychiatric patients, the change probably resulted in the new understanding of many disorders and the data suggested that they were resulted from chemical imbalances in the brain. So from a utilitarian perspective, correcting the imbalances via chemicals is more beneficial to the patient than therapy.

Saying the world doesn't work like this doesn't mean there is no concept of morality (there is such thing as immoral and ignorant people, and some might say there is an abundance of them), and to say the latter would paint the crimes of humanity with a brush of neutrality. Cheating is wrong because of the negative long-term effects outweigh the short-term benefits. I fail to see a single situation where deontology is superior to utilitarianism.

wheee child indoctrination. One of the few abuses we continue to see as perfectly natural and legal in the USA.

Jesus Camp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

 

[Suspect]

@ GM-I agree, i don't wanna talk about scientology tho, just wanted to point that out..

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Are you proud to be an Atheist? If so, why?

 

[dashdancedan]

Have you read Case for a Creator or Mere Christianity? I've read both of those and I'm still agnostic-atheist.

 

[otter]

Failing to act still makes you morally accountable. If you walk by a pond and see a child drowning and you fail to save her because you don't want to get your suit wet, that is morally wrong. In the above situation, failing to act results in the killing of a person.

It could be said that only the person who placed the child in the water could be considered the "killer". A random witness has know way of knowing that the child is a cute victim or a demon is disguise.

Blaming them take not only takes blame away from the correct party, but also sends the message that not putting innocent children into deep water isn't sufficient enough to be considered good.

 

[rvkevin]

Have you read Case for a Creator or Mere Christianity?

No. Most information is available free online anyway so I'm fairly stringent on paying for books. But based on their summaries and reviews, it suggests they posed no new arguments and they were presented no more convincingly than others have done so online.

It could be said that only the person who placed the child in the water could be considered the "killer". A random witness has know way of knowing that the child is a cute victim or a demon is disguise.

Blaming them take not only takes blame away from the correct party, but also sends the message that not putting innocent children into deep water isn't sufficient enough to be considered good.

First of all, there is no indication of a third party. I originally omitted such a detail because I intended for it to be an unintentional circumstance. Second, even if there was a third party, it does not absolve you from moral responsibility. Third, even if you were an advocate against having children near bodies of water that would've prevented the situation in the first place, I still think you would be immoral to allow the child to drown.

It "sends the message that not putting innocent children into deep water isn't sufficient enough to be considered good." I don't see the fault in this.

 

[Dre89]

I'm more disturbed by the fact that Swastika and rvkevin have referenced more biblical passages than Dre. Dre hasn't bothered to provide a specific text on anything.

That's because I didn't have to. Everything that has been referenced so far falls under Old Law vs. New Law Theory.

People should be criticising OLvNLT rather than providing specific quotes from Scripture that fall under it.

Bible referencing is more useful for when Catholics are having debates with other Christian denominations.

Also, you can't just say morals are subjective with hardly any justification at all. Considering that subjective morality is a minority theory that not many people follow, it needs alot of justification before you can use it as a basis for further arguments.

 

[Suspect]

oh yea

What do you think about Zeitgeist?

 

[GwJ]

I'm an atheist but I think most of zeitgeist is bull and is just using special effects to set a mood.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Zeitgeist might be the most ******** piece of **** I have ever seen.

 

[OfTheEarth]

I know what you mean, I was born and raised Seventh-Day Adventist. We are christians that have a sabbath like jews, pretty much.
We can't eat pork. or crustations from the ocean, or unclean animals,
We can't drink or smoke,
and we can'tgo out from friday nights until saturdays.
And while we stay at home, we can't listen to music, play video games, or watch tv.
hell my parents don't even let me play my electric
only acoustic.
The point is is that I think that sometimes it can just suck.
having friends invite me over or out since the 3rd grade, and I could never do any of those things. because we couldn't hang out during the week because of school, and not the weekends because saturday night was the only night I was allowed to do something, and that was ALWAYS family night. I just see how it's understandable,
I don't hate athiests, I understand them, I believe at some stage in life, everyone is at least an agnostic, and begins to loose sight of what they were taught, but that's okay.

 

[Sucumbio]

Gosh, the thread moves fast...

You don't understand.

Sucumbio isn't interested in arguments or reasoning or proof; and he definitely isn't interested in evidence.

He is advocating Fideism; which means that any direct debate concerning God is impossible to have with him. He seems to advocate Pascalian Fideism, but it's difficult to tell; the numerous Fideist ideologies are separated by very subtle and fine points.

The only discussion you could have with him would be an extremely technical philosophical epistemological debate concerning the very foundations of knowledge, justification, and belief.

Anything else (and I do mean anything, no matter how compelling) will be met with the blunt reply of "Faith is sufficient."

Aw shucks, unmasked am I. Pascalian Fideist would be most accurate, you must have seen my comment on erring on the side of caution.

Are you making a bad joke or do you seriously actually think that's what he meant?

It was sarcasm. I missed a keyword, and he got the wrong idea, so it's my fault.

We'll try again without the pointy barbs.

After all, saying that God's existence is dependent on your faith is essentially saying that if you didn't exist, then God wouldn't either, meaning that God would be essentially just an idea. If this isn't the case, then how does your God manifest in reality?

I wasn't saying God's existence is dependent on my faith. I was saying my BELIEF in God's existence is dependent on my faith (and solely on my faith.)

If you have no justification for your belief, how can you say it's the right one to have?

Again, my fault. The right one to have FOR ME. This part wasn't part of the original argument regarding atheists who are such because there is lack of evidence to support God's existence.

Explain to me how one has a child without having sex, and especially then say it is of the "seed" of the father who cannot have contributed any genetic material to the child if such a claim is true.

well...

Sucumbio, 1Corinthians 8:2 .

I don't claim to know how its possible. Joseph was decedent of King David. Jesus was their legal offspring. Jesus was conceived in the womb without the act of sex taking place. Jesus is the son of God. I believe all this to be true, and yet from a purely logical standpoint, they can't all be true. *shrug* I don't mind there being a little mystery in my soup.

I thought Jesus was the son of God, not the son of Joseph

He's both. He's the legal son of Mary and Joseph, and the biological son of Mary and God. Yummy.

This classic sums it up.

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?

Ah, the first hippy, Epicurus.

See, the problem with this lovely train of thought, is in the second question/answer.

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

NOT TRUE. God is able to do anything he wants, he's God. Why does he not actively prevent evil? Why didn't he smote the snake that entreated Eve to eat of the fruit of Knowledge for example (the technical first evil committed by humans if you believe such bedtime stories). Because that would remove FREE WILL, a gift granted to us by God, as opposed to God's angels who do NOT have free will (yes they are his slaves, they were created to suck his **** all day, this is why the most beloved of archangels Lucifer rebelled).

"We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that. We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is, by definition, right."

Are you saying that suffering is acceptable because it is part of God's plan? Are you saying that torture, genocide, starvation on a national scale is acceptable because it is part of God's plan?

See what I did there? God doesn't torture. Kill en mass. Starve nations. People torture. People kill. People starve. Just because God doesn't heal all the world's boo boos doesn't mean he's malevolent. Or uncaring. Or unwilling. Or incompetent. Only a human's arrogance would assume that their suffering has no point.

What prevents someone who holds Fideism from saying "X is a moral act." Whether X is killing an abortion doctor, flying planes into buildings, killing a cartoonist over a cartoon, discriminating against another ethnicity, or discriminating against women? After all, they have faith that these actions are indeed moral and it would be immoral to not fulfill these actions. They have faith in the divine being that laid out this morality to them and anyone who says or thinks different should also be killed. How would you convince them otherwise? After all, "Faith is sufficient" and rational arguments are left out of the discussion. It seems pretty absurd to me, pretty much to the point where its dangerous (Although some beliefs may be benign, most will have a negative impact). This is why beliefs need to be supported by evidence, when they are not, anything becomes permissible.

Well, actually! This is a perfect segue back into the much more recent discussion between you and Acrostic (is it Ack-ro-Stick, or a-Cross-tick, or..., jus askin' cause I wanna cheer for you like they do in Brawl but I'm having difficulty hearing how it'd sound. Ga non dorf. A cross tick.)

Anyway, yeah, as he so eloquently displays, Morals are like Cheap Commodities! They change with the times. They change with convenience. They're mostly learned behaviors passed down by our elders and society (much like some of the atheists in this thread have accused religion of being).

So no, being a Fideist does not preclude me from morality. I am still very much accountable for my actions by both society and by my own conscience.

 

[gm jack]

Well, if he isn't Joseph's biological son, then he isn't descended from David's line. If I adopted a kid, he wouldn't suddenly be descended from my parents.

As for the whole free will thing, why would a loving God set us a test of life then to determine if we go to heaven or hell if he loves us all? Surely you could skip the middle step and give free will in heaven straight away as opposed to a 75 year boot camp, in which the vast majority aren't good enough and get ****ed to eternal torture even if he loves us.

 

[rvkevin]

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

NOT TRUE. God is able to do anything he wants, he's God. Why does he not actively prevent evil? Why didn't he smote the snake that entreated Eve to eat of the fruit of Knowledge for example (the technical first evil committed by humans if you believe such bedtime stories). Because that would remove FREE WILL, a gift granted to us by God, as opposed to God's angels who do NOT have free will (yes they are his slaves, they were created to suck his **** all day, this is why the most beloved of archangels Lucifer rebelled).

I'll post this one again. "Imagine that I am a 200cm, 150kg young man, highly-trained in 3 forms of martial arts, and armed to the teeth with guns and knives. I am out for a walk late at night in the city and see an average-sized man ****** a petite woman in an alley. Rather than help, I continue walking. I don't even bother to call the police. I am then summoned to court for the murder trial of the man, and have to explain why I allowed her to be ***** and murdered, when I was easily capable of stepping in and helping, or even calling 911. I explain to the court that I didn't want to interfere with the man's choice to **** and kill the woman. What kind of person would that make me?" In short, stopping or preventing suffering does not restrict free will and failing to act does not absolve you from responsibility.

See what I did there? God doesn't torture. Kill en mass. Starve nations. People torture. People kill. People starve. Just because God doesn't heal all the world's boo boos doesn't mean he's malevolent. Or uncaring. Or unwilling. Or incompetent. Only a human's arrogance would assume that their suffering has no point.

I fail to see how drought, tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes are the result of people. Even if we are talking about harms resulted from people, I already said that free will is not a sufficient reason to allow such suffering for it is a non-sequitor. Also, failing to act does not absolve you from your responsibilities.

"I fail to see the the goodness and wisdom gained from North Korea's prison camps. Even if there is goodness and wisdom gained from them, should we not try to shut them down? I don't think it is just that the crimes of ancestors be invoked on their descendants." It is begging the question if you maintain that there must be a valid reason for suffering because God is benevolent.

Anyway, yeah, as he so eloquently displays, Morals are like Cheap Commodities! They change with the times. They change with convenience. They're mostly learned behaviors passed down by our elders and society (much like some of the atheists in this thread have accused religion of being).

So no, being a Fideist does not preclude me from morality. I am still very much accountable for my actions by both society and by my own conscience.

I think I made it clear why I think that morality changes over time. If not, in general, it is the increase in knowledge. This does not mean that morality is subjective by any stretch of the imagination.

How would a Fideist go about applying this concept to situations?

And you never answered the original question, "What prevents someone who holds Fideism from saying "X is a moral act." Whether X is killing an abortion doctor, flying planes into buildings, killing a cartoonist over a cartoon, discriminating against another ethnicity, or discriminating against women? After all, they have faith that these actions are indeed moral and it would be immoral to not fulfill these actions."

"Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths." How does someone come to the conclusion that faith is superior at arriving at particular truths than reason?

 

[Sucumbio]

Well, if he isn't Joseph's biological son, then he isn't descended from David's line. If I adopted a kid, he wouldn't suddenly be descended from my parents.

hm... ok, this is gonna seem gross but.. imagine it like this:

God took Joseph's sperm out of his balls, and put them into Mary's egg. This in turn imprinted himself (God) on the zygote.

Because Mary gave birth to him, and because Joseph was her husband, and because an angel came to tell Joseph not to worry, your ***** ain't a trifflin' hoe... Jesus was their son. And God's. Simultaneously. Thus he is both, King Davids great great great x10^whatever grandson AND ... God's son.

Although particularly I've always preferred to think of Jesus as God's avatar (like in the D&D sense) and the whole Nativity scene was his avatar's mode of entrance into the world.

As for the whole free will thing, why would a loving God set us a test of life then to determine if we go to heaven or hell if he loves us all? Surely you could skip the middle step and give free will in heaven straight away as opposed to a 75 year boot camp, in which the vast majority aren't good enough and get ****ed to eternal torture even if he loves us.

Well that's what the angels are. They were created to worship him. Humans were not created for that purpose without a special clause. Choice.

This is why I brought up the Birthday thing all those pages back. If you have to remind someone to wish you a happy birthday, how meaningful is it when they do so after you've reminded them?

If we are born having no choice but to believe in God and not do Evil, how meaningful is it to God? He made us specifically capable of free will, a trait that Lucifer was jealous of... so that we could choose to walk the righteous path, or the path of evil.

I'll post this one again. "Imagine that I am a 200cm, 150kg young man, highly-trained in 3 forms of martial arts, and armed to the teeth with guns and knives. I am out for a walk late at night in the city and see an average-sized man ****** a petite woman in an alley. Rather than help, I continue walking. I don't even bother to call the police. I am then summoned to court for the murder trial of the man, and have to explain why I allowed her to be ***** and murdered, when I was easily capable of stepping in and helping, or even calling 911. I explain to the court that I didn't want to interfere with the man's choice to **** and kill the woman. What kind of person would that make me?" In short, stopping or preventing suffering does not restrict free will and failing to act does not absolve you from responsibility.

It'd make you a human being, and douche, lol but it's an unfair comparison to what God is. God's ways are not for us to question, in any terms, because by our very nature, we are only limited to a specific understanding of the world and how it "works." Yes it seem tragic and horrible that God may just idly sit by while someone is brutally murdered or *****, but that's only if you assume God is as fallible as a human being. Which he is not.

I fail to see how drought, tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes are the result of people. Even if we are talking about harms resulted from people, I already said that free will is not a sufficient reason to allow such suffering for it is a non-sequitor. Also, failing to act does not absolve you from your responsibilities.

No we can talk about natural disasters as well. Again they're the result of us vs "mother nature." Its not up to us to question the "right" or "wrong" of a situation, be in your jackie chan in the streets, your tornado deaths, 9/11, on and on. All existence as far as we are concerned is a stage, and we are merely players.

"I fail to see the the goodness and wisdom gained from North Korea's prison camps. Even if there is goodness and wisdom gained from them, should we not try to shut them down? I don't think it is just that the crimes of ancestors be invoked on their descendants." It is begging the question if you maintain that there must be a valid reason for suffering because God is benevolent.

I don't follow this cite. Lets take an even bigger one, the death camps of Nazi Germany. It seems as if you're saying the existence of such begs the question how can it be so if God is just. Again, it's a matter of proper perspective. As has been pointed out our scope of things is greatly limited when compared to the infinite possibilities inherent in an omniscient and omnipresent God. To assume that God would appear and stop these things from happen is to presume too much. That's what YOU would do, or I... that's what a Good Person would do. We're mere mortals. God is more than that, he's the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end.

I think I made it clear why I think that morality changes over time. If not, in general, it is the increase in knowledge. This does not mean that morality is subjective by any stretch of the imagination.

If morality is NOT subjective, ergo, from the mind; not the definition "unduly egocentric" but simply "pertaining to or characteristic of an individual" ... then you think it's objective. The opposite of this.

I must disagree. Morals are not physical objects that we implant, or turn on, they're not grown within us like a tooth or the liver. They are the result of intellectual reasoning. True there is a moral center to the brain, and of this, we are able to determine right from wrong -in the basest of senses- ... but we're talking the super basic instincts. Killing one another for pleasure, for example, instead of self defense. Fight or Flight. Selfish preservation. Mother instinct. Father instinct. These things are biological, not pure logical so I will submit these aren't what you're referring to. You're referring to models of morality under which a paragraph long story has to precede before we can even apply our own moral judgment.

And you never answered the original question

Cause it didn't make sense, but I'll try...

"What prevents someone who holds Fideism from saying "X is a moral act." Whether X is killing an abortion doctor, flying planes into buildings, killing a cartoonist over a cartoon, discriminating against another ethnicity, or discriminating against women? After all, they have faith that these actions are indeed moral and it would be immoral to not fulfill these actions."

I don't see the correlation between Fideism and this apparent disregard for reasoning you've assigned it. Fideism isn't abandoning ALL reason, Pascal wasn't absurd. It's abandoning reason -when faced with the question Does God Exist?-. It speaks nothing to the assignment of moral values to specific acts. It says that to believe in God requires nothing but Faith. From there you can determine your own moral pathways. By believing in God, you'd assume those moral pathways would be decent. I know mine tend to be over the top sometimes, I'm a boy scout in many regards, but that's another topic.

"Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths." How does someone come to the conclusion that faith is superior at arriving at particular truths than reason?

Because as you have well put, reason cannot easily justify the existence of God. And yet people still believe in him. Does this mean that ALL these people are just morons? No. It means that their Faith has trumped their mind's necessity to reason and rationalize.

As for me personally, I know for a fact the Earth wasn't created in 6 Days. This doesn't mean I don't believe in God. It means I've employed reason to an extent, to understand and reconcile the evidence put forth that the earth is billions of years old, and yet I've simultaneously relied on faith, to accept God as my creator, and my savior.

 

[rvkevin]

When you make statements such as "To assume that God would appear and stop these things from happen is to presume too much. That's what YOU would do, or I... that's what a Good Person would do. We're mere mortals. God is more than that, he's the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end." It shows that you attach a different set of morality to God as you do to other moral agents. What does being the Alpha Omega, the beginning and end have to do with anything? Might does not make right. If an action done by a moral agent (Humans) would be considered good, why would it be different for another moral agent (God)?

It'd make you a human being, and douche, lol but it's an unfair comparison to what God is. God's ways are not for us to question, in any terms, because by our very nature, we are only limited to a specific understanding of the world and how it "works."

What reason do you have for saying "God's ways are not for us to question." It appears to me to be an unfounded assertion. No one and no being is beyond criticism. It appears that when a circumstance arises that shows such inane irresponsibility, you beg the question by saying that we cannot comprehend his reasons. It is a fallacy to say that there must be a morally justifiable reason for his inaction because he is benevolent and infallible. If an action done by a moral agent (Humans) would be considered bad, why would it be different for another moral agent (God)?

If morality is NOT subjective, ergo, from the mind; not the definition "unduly egocentric" but simply "pertaining to or characteristic of an individual" ... then you think it's objective. The opposite of this.

I must disagree. Morals are not physical objects that we implant, or turn on, they're not grown within us like a tooth or the liver. They are the result of intellectual reasoning. True there is a moral center to the brain, and of this, we are able to determine right from wrong -in the basest of senses- ... but we're talking the super basic instincts. Killing one another for pleasure, for example, instead of self defense. Fight or Flight. Selfish preservation. Mother instinct. Father instinct. These things are biological, not pure logical so I will submit these aren't what you're referring to. You're referring to models of morality under which a paragraph long story has to precede before we can even apply our own moral judgment.

You have not stated a valid reason against objective morality. For starters, you say that because something is non-physical, it is therefore not objective, which is absurdly false. 2+2=4 is a non-physical concept, yet it is objectively true, and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong. And then invoking the development of biological processes does nothing more than commit the genetic fallacy. For what reason do you think morality is subjective?

It speaks nothing to the assignment of moral values to specific acts. It says that to believe in God requires nothing but Faith. From there you can determine your own moral pathways. By believing in God, you'd assume those moral pathways would be decent.

Fair enough. If Fideism is not an accurate description of your moral philosophy, then what is?

Because as you have well put, reason cannot easily justify the existence of God. And yet people still believe in him. Does this mean that ALL these people are just morons?

I think moron would be a little harsh. But I wouldn't hesitate to call them irrational or unreasonable in regards to this subject, for that’s what they are doing, not using reason and evidence as a justification for belief. And this wouldn't apply to the person as a whole because many people have compartmentalized these types of beliefs and are otherwise able to be fully rational in other parts of their lives.

It means that their Faith has trumped their mind's necessity to reason and rationalize.

What prevents someone's faith from trumping reason in issues of morality? For example, "What prevents someone who holds Fideism from saying 'X is a moral act (because God commands it!),' whether X is killing an abortion doctor, flying planes into buildings, killing a cartoonist over a cartoon, discriminating against another ethnicity, or discriminating against women?" If they use Fideism to conclude that there is a god, what prevents them from taking unjustified claims (like the ones above) by using faith over reason about what the God commands to conclude it to be their objective purpose to fulfill said commands?

"It's abandoning reason -when faced with the question Does God Exist?" I highly doubt the only question you decide using faith over reason is whether a God exists. If you use faith, and determine that a God exists, what reason do you have to practice a particular religion over another?

 

[Melomaniacal]

Kevin, God works in mysterious ways, duh.

 

[rvkevin]

Kevin, God works in mysterious ways, duh.

Then why do people make claims about his actions? How can you say he is benevolent if you yourself don't know how his actions are good?

The Digital Age has seen an influx of atheists who feel it unnecessary to rely on such tribal mentalities as organized religion, while ironically participating in other tribal mentalities over the Internet.

I'm curious, what tribal mentalities do we participate in?

 

[gm jack]

Well that's what the angels are. They were created to worship him. Humans were not created for that purpose without a special clause. Choice.

This is why I brought up the Birthday thing all those pages back. If you have to remind someone to wish you a happy birthday, how meaningful is it when they do so after you've reminded them?

If we are born having no choice but to believe in God and not do Evil, how meaningful is it to God? He made us specifically capable of free will, a trait that Lucifer was jealous of... so that we could choose to walk the righteous path, or the path of evil.

If I were an omnipotent deity, the last thing on my mind would be needing my ego boosted.

 

[masterdrenin]

Over the years as I have grown into the chiseled man I am today, I have come to realize that religion and philosophy are nothing but opinions. Please expand your reality tunnels http://www.dedroidify.com/realitytunnel

 

[Sucumbio]

When you make statements such as "To assume that God would appear and stop these things from happen is to presume too much. That's what YOU would do, or I... that's what a Good Person would do. We're mere mortals. God is more than that, he's the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end." It shows that you attach a different set of morality to God as you do to other moral agents. What does being the Alpha Omega, the beginning and end have to do with anything? Might does not make right. If an action done by a moral agent (Humans) would be considered good, why would it be different for another moral agent (God)?

"It shows that you attach a different set of morality to God as you do to other moral agents." Sure does. You answered your own question actually.. as well as the next ->

If an action done by a moral agent (Humans) would be considered bad, why would it be different for another moral agent (God)?

For what reason do you think morality is subjective?

From infidels.org actually. (ah, such irony.)

Since moral laws refer to the actions of sentient beings, it is difficult to conceive how they could originate by unconscious natural mechanisms. That laws of nature originated after the Big Bang is plausible because natural laws govern the physical components (forces, particles, etc) that arose from it. But ethics does not come into play in the history of the universe until very recently--when Homo sapiens appeared. It is possible that moral laws have existed since the Big Bang, but that they could not manifest themselves until sentient beings arose. However, such a view implies that there is some element of purposefulness in the universe--that the universe was created with the evolution of sentient beings "in mind" (in the mind of a Creator?). To accept the existence of objective moral laws that have existed since the beginning of time is to believe that the evolution of sentient beings capable of moral reasoning (such as human beings) has somehow been predetermined or is inevitable, a belief that is contrary to naturalistic explanations of origins (such as evolution by natural selection) which maintain that sentient beings came into existence due to contingent, accidental circumstances. If objective moral laws are part of the natural universe (not part of some supernatural realm), then the universe cannot be unconscious--it must be, in some unknown sense, sentient. Few naturalists would want to accept such a nonscientific pantheistic conclusion.

...all the laws of nature that we are aware of are descriptive: they describe how certain configurations of matter or energy will behave under different circumstances. But moral laws are prescriptive: the describe how certain sentient beings should behave under different circumstances. This is why a law of nature like the law of gravity cannot be violated, but a moral law like "Thou shall not kill" can be. Nothing else in the universe has this strange prescriptive quality--nothing we know in nature gives any part of the natural world a "duty" to behave in a certain way.

We do not accuse a lion of immorality for tearing a giraffe to shreds. Animals are not 'subject' to moral laws because they don't make moral decisions. Yet, if we all accept a purely naturalistic evolutionary account of the origin of Homo sapiens, it follows that human beings are merely another species of animal, and consequently we are not subject to moral laws. What differentiates humans from the other animals is that we are animals that make moral decisions. But decisions are mental states which exist in minds--individual human minds. Decisions will vary between people with different thoughts on a subject, hence it is reasonable to argue that moral values are subjective and vary with individual conscience.

Fair enough. If Fideism is not an accurate description of your moral philosophy, then what is?

Fear of consequence, honestly.

And this wouldn't apply to the person as a whole because many people have compartmentalized these types of beliefs and are otherwise able to be fully rational in other parts of their lives.

As are Fideists. As am I. I am fully rational and logical in many aspects of life... but when it comes to God, I check that **** at the door.

What prevents someone's faith from trumping reason in issues of morality?

read above.

I highly doubt the only question you decide using faith over reason is whether a God exists. If you use faith, and determine that a God exists, what reason do you have to practice a particular religion over another?

Accuracy.

I'm curious, what tribal mentalities do we participate in?

Yeah I was waiting for you to point that out...

Just looking at u-t00b comments one will find Chauvinism, Racism and Ethnocentrism, Heterosexism, Sectarianism, the so-called "Fiction-absolute" ... it's a great tool don't get me wrong, been on the net since the first bulletin boards, and 1200 baud modems...

but that's actually not what my comment was meant to portray so perhaps I should reword it.

While there is no need for a shaman or priest in an atheist's life, the internet provides the same social network, community and emotional linkage that one may find in a church or place of worship.

If I were an omnipotent deity, the last thing on my mind would be needing my ego boosted.

have you ever made anything? Like a ... I dunno, lol a sand castle, or a block tower (ya know, those blocks w/the ABC on them and crap) anything, LEGOS, whatever... point is in creating, there's a sense of fulfillment. In creating the angels, God was happy, but not satisfied. He wanted more. He wanted a creation that would choose to be grateful for their creation, and so he made us.

 

[rvkevin]

I'm not sure where I answered my own question. I know you see them as different, but I asked why they are different, so I will pose the questions again. If an action done by a moral agent (Humans) would be considered good, why would it be different for another moral agent (God)? If an action done by a moral agent (Humans) would be considered bad, why would it be different for another moral agent (God)?

It is possible that moral laws have existed since the Big Bang, but that they could not manifest themselves until sentient beings arose. However, such a view implies that there is some element of purposefulness in the universe--that the universe was created with the evolution of sentient beings "in mind"

There is a lack of reasoning here. The existence of moral laws does not in any way imply that there is some element of purposefulness.

...all the laws of nature that we are aware of are descriptive: they describe how certain configurations of matter or energy will behave under different circumstances. But moral laws are prescriptive: the describe how certain sentient beings should behave under different circumstances. This is why a law of nature like the law of gravity cannot be violated, but a moral law like "Thou shall not kill" can be. Nothing else in the universe has this strange prescriptive quality--nothing we know in nature gives any part of the natural world a "duty" to behave in a certain way.

I don't think that comparing natural laws and morality is a good analogy because one is an observation while the other is an abstract concept. I think a better comparison would be to game theory. In game theory, there are assumptions that both parties are rational. In game theory, you can "prescribe" the actions of both parties. However, these assumptions are not always met in the real world, not everyone is perfectly rational (For example, it is easy to find a scenario where most people when given the choice of receiving zero or one dollar, they will choose zero, and it is backed up by experiment) and therefore different conclusions are made. In game theory, there is no duty to try and maximize your gain, but if you don't then you are not considered rational. The same could be said for morality.

We do not accuse a lion of immorality for tearing a giraffe to shreds. Animals are not 'subject' to moral laws because they don't make moral decisions. Yet, if we all accept a purely naturalistic evolutionary account of the origin of Homo sapiens, it follows that human beings are merely another species of animal, and consequently we are not subject to moral laws. What differentiates humans from the other animals is that we are animals that make moral decisions. But decisions are mental states which exist in minds--individual human minds. Decisions will vary between people with different thoughts on a subject, hence it is reasonable to argue that moral values are subjective and vary with individual conscience.

Some have suggested that the ability to reflect on decisions is a notable difference that makes humans moral agents while the rest of the animal kingdom aren't. Like I said above, differences in reasoning capacity and knowledge on a subject is not grounds to claim the conclusion is subjective. The simplest example would be if two people differed on the answer to 2+2. Just because two people disagree on a subject does not mean that there is not an objectively correct conclusion.

As are Fideists. As am I. I am fully rational and logical in many aspects of life... but when it comes to God, I check that **** at the door.

If you use faith, and determine that a God exists, how do you choose to practice a particular religion over another?

What prevents someone who holds Fideism from saying 'X is a moral act (because God commands it!)', whether X is killing an abortion doctor, flying planes into buildings, killing a cartoonist over a cartoon, discriminating against another ethnicity, or discriminating against women?" If they use Fideism to conclude that there is a god, what prevents them from taking unjustified claims (like the ones above) by using faith over reason about what the God commands and to conclude it to be their objective purpose to fulfill said commands. This issue involves God, so reason gets checked at the door, figuratively speaking.

While there is no need for a shaman or priest in an atheist's life, the internet provides the same social network, community and emotional linkage that one may find in a church or place of worship.

If churches were only for a social network, there would be no vocal atheists.

He wanted a creation that would choose to be grateful for their creation, and so he made us.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”-Galileo