Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is there an atheist value system, at odds with traditional ones?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

File:Atheism.svg We are told so at Commentary, using the Soviet Union by way of demonstration:

Bolshevik ethics began and ended with atheism. Only someone who rejected all religious or quasi-religious morals could be a Bolshevik because, as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and countless other Bolshevik leaders insisted, success for the Party was the only standard of right and wrong. The bourgeoisie falsely claim that Bolsheviks have no ethics, Lenin explained in a 1920 speech. No, he said; what Bolsheviks rejected was an ethical framework based on God’s commandments or anything resembling them, such as abstract principles, timeless values, universal human rights, or any tenet of philosophical idealism. For a true materialist, he maintained, there could be no Kantian categorical imperative to treat others only as ends, not as means. By the same token, the materialist does not acknowledge the impermissibility of lying or the supposed sanctity of human life. All such notions, Lenin declared, are “based on extra human and extra class concepts” and so are simply religion in disguise. “That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society,” he said. “That is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle.” That meant the Communist Party. Aron Solts, who was known as “the conscience of the Party,” explained: “We…can say openly and frankly: yes, we hold in prison those who interfere with the establishment of our order, and we do not stop before other such actions because we do not believe in the existence of abstractly unethical actions.”

Ethics were reduced to what a character in Vasily Grossman’s novel Forever Flowing identified as a reverse categorical imperative, “a categorical imperative counterposed to Kant”: Always use people as objects. Do unto class enemies what you would not want them to do unto you. That is why, starting in mid-1937, torture was used in all interrogations, not just to extract information. What objection could be raised? Ruthlessness without prompting showed that the torturer harbored no abstract moral standard, even unconsciously. It was a positive good to arrest the innocent. There were special camps for the wives of enemies of the people, campaigns to arrest members of a profession (engineers), and mass arrests by quota. As good Bolsheviks, local NKVD branches asked to arrest even more. “The concept of personal innocence,” a character in Grossman’s greatest novel, Life and Fate, avers, “is a hangover from the Middle Ages.”
Garry Saul Morson, “Among the Disbelievers: Why atheism was central to the great evil of the 20th century” at Commentary

That would account for the scale of the mass murders, certainly. It’s difficult reading. When out of power, atheists tend to be against censorship and coercion but it’s a good question whether a pure naturalist (nature is all there is) who doubts free will and thinks consciousness an evolved illusion has any reason to value the life of the mind except as a way of forcing his will on things.

Closing official religion coverage for the week, apologies for lateness due to the Ottawa tornado and power outage.

See also: Are atheists less tolerant than others? One problem for atheists is that they are often assumed to be open-minded which means that they do not have to ask themselves questions or cultivate the quality, and often therefore don’t. People like Gunter Bechly may well have some stories about that.

Comments
Seversky states:
I’m saying that, in this case, for me, you have not met the burden of providing compelling evidence to support your claim.
As an atheistic materialist, there is no "me" for "you" to appeal to. If the reductive materialism of Darwinism were actually true, "you" are not a real person, but are merely a neuronal illusion of "your" brain. Moreover, the belief that "you" have valid opinions that are arrived at by reason and logic is also directly undermined in that "your" worldview also denies the reality of "your" free will. i.e. If atheistic materialism is actually true, and "you" have no free will, then "you" have no more control over "your" opinions than a leaf falling to the ground has over its trajectory. Seversky, assuming that "you" exist as a real person, and are not an illusion, "you" go on to state:
I watched a little over half of the video. For example, I saw references to the ontological status of numbers and higher domain constructs in mathematics or the extra domains that are either implied by – or required to account for – observed quantum phenomena. At no point did those works state – or their authors claim – that there is irresistible evidence that one of these domains is ‘extra-natural’ and the home of the Christian God.
While not directly endorsing Christianity, both Einstein and Wigner, as was pointed out in post 77, are on record as to regarding it as a "miracle" that mathematics is applicable to the universe. FYI, "miracles" are not compatible with your atheism! And again, with the recent closing of the ‘free will loophole’ in quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics itself now demanding that the Agent causality of God, (and of people), be let back into physics, just as the Christian founders of physics originally envisioned, I am more confident than ever that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides empirical evidence, via the Shroud of Turin, for the ‘correct’ “Theory of Everything”, i.e. the unification of Quantum Theory and General Relativity into a coherent “Theory of Everything”
(Sept. 2018) Qualia, “The Experience of ‘The Now'”, Free Will, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ’s Resurrection From The Dead As The “Theory Of Everything” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-an-atheist-value-system-at-odds-with-traditional-ones/#comment-665517
Seversky, "you", if "you" really exist as a real person, go on to accuse me of "cherry-picking", "construing" and "stretching" evidence so as give the false impression that it supports Christianity. Far from it. The irreconcilability of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a "theory of everything" is very well known and is certainly not an imaginary problem that I invented just so as to support Christianity. Moreover, the closing of the "free will-loophole" in Quantum Mechanics, and the restoration of Agent Causality "back" into modern physics as was originally envisioned by the Christian founders of modern physics, is also certainly not something that I "cherry picked", "construed" or "stretched" to support Christianity. It is the state of the evidence, PERIOD, that supports what Christianity presupposes! No "cherry picking", "construing" or "stretching" whatsoever is needed to to fit what the Christian would a priorily presuppose about the overall structure of the universe. Seversky, "you" end "your" post, again assuming that "you" really exist as a real person, with some back and forth musing over 'mathematical modeling" of the universe. In "your" supposed rebuttal of my position "you" assume that the "something to be modeled" is materialistic in its nature. That materialistic assumption on "your" part is certainly not warranted. Advances in Quantum Mechanics have now shown that the "something to be modeled" is information theoretic in its foundational basis, not materialistic in its basis as "you", again assuming "you" are real, had falsely assumed.
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum mechanics http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf 48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw 49:28 mark: "This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,, etc.. etc..
Verse:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
November 22, 2018
November
11
Nov
22
22
2018
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
bornagain77 (77 @77)@ 77
BA77: Relativity theory and quantum mechanics both support Christian Theism not atheism and as such point to morality not amorality. Sev: No, they don’t.
You do realize that, especially in science, you have to provide evidence for your claim?
I am not making a claim. I'm saying that, in this case, for me, you have not met the burden of providing compelling evidence to support your claim.
I provided evidence for my claim:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
I watched a little over half of the video. For example, I saw references to the ontological status of numbers and higher domain constructs in mathematics or the extra domains that are either implied by - or required to account for - observed quantum phenomena. At no point did those works state - or their authors claim - that there is irresistible evidence that one of these domains is 'extra-natural' and the home of the Christian God. My impression is that you are cherry-picking passages from published science or, more often, popular accounts of published science and quotes from researchers which can be construed, at a stretch, as being supportive of your religious beliefs - if you don't look too closely. The problem with your approach is that if you use your religious beliefs as a litmus test for what is or isn't acceptable science you are going to exclude a lot of provocative and stimulating ideas. They may not be the whole truth in themselves but they may be leading us in the right direction. If you want a more interesting video discussing some of these ideas you could do worse than start here
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond the material realm and/or ‘nature’ exists, need this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of ‘scientifically self-refuting’.
From one perspective, mathematics is a language we use to construct models of that we observe and of what we have not yet observed. A modeling language, like any other form of model, presupposes something to be modeled. If there is nothing to be modeled, what is the need or use of a model? It is the same philosophical impasse as the claim that reality does not exist unless we are looking at it. If there is nothing there until we look at it, then what is there to look at in the first place?Seversky
September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Andre
Remember that the next time you single out Christians.
I’m a little confused. Where in this thread did I centre out Christians? My only mention of Christianity was in direct response to someone else commenting about Christianity. And it certainly wasn’t in a negative fashion.R J Sawyer
September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
RJ Remember that the next time you single out Christians.Andre
September 28, 2018
September
09
Sep
28
28
2018
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Seversky "Any ideas?" Yes! Theosis. You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48 That is the only aim that is worth pursuing. Everything else is insignificant compared to this.EugeneS
September 28, 2018
September
09
Sep
28
28
2018
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
An atheist value system justifies organ harvesting of Falun Gong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Rationale That Falun Gong, whose belief system represented a revival of traditional Chinese religion, was being practiced by a large number of Communist Party members and members of the military was seen as particularly disturbing to Jiang Zemin. "Jiang accepts the threat of Falun Gong as an ideological one: spiritual beliefs against militant atheism and historical materialism. He [wished] to purge the government and the military of such beliefs".EricMH
September 28, 2018
September
09
Sep
28
28
2018
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Seversky:
Where we differ is in the accounts we accept as explanations for it all.
Right, you don't have any viable explanations for what we see.ET
September 28, 2018
September
09
Sep
28
28
2018
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Andre
Really? So social Darwinism and it’s proponents that take the text literally are not fundamentalists in any way? Are you denying that there is such a thing as social darwinism?
At 70 I said that if anyone interpreted Origin of Species as an instruction on how to lead our lives, and did so persistently and unwaveringly , that I would consider them fundamentalists.R J Sawyer
September 28, 2018
September
09
Sep
28
28
2018
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Seversky:
If there is no God then everything is neither permitted nor forbidden because there is no one to do the permitting or the denying.
Total nonsense from a nonsensical atheist.ET
September 28, 2018
September
09
Sep
28
28
2018
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
In post 74 Seversky states:
BA77: Relativity theory and quantum mechanics both support Christian Theism not atheism and as such point to morality not amorality. Sev: No, they don’t.
You do realize that, especially in science, you have to provide evidence for your claim? I provided evidence for my claim:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
You provided no evidence for your denial of my claim. Moreover, the existence of mathematics itself argues for Theism not atheism. Specifically, Mathematics itself exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time, realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.
Platonic mathematical world - image https://image.slidesharecdn.com/quantuminformation2-120301000431-phpapp01/95/quantum-information-14-728.jpg?cb=1330561190 Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”? It seems a stretch. What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond the material realm and/or 'nature' exists, need this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of 'scientifically self-refuting'.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
As David Berlinski states in the following article,“There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.”
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
Moreover, Einstein who discovered relativity theory, and Eugene Wigner who won a Nobel for his work in Quantum Mechanics, and who's insights into quantum mechanics continue to drive breakthroughs in that field,,,
Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution - Anton Zeilinger - Sept. 2014 Conclusion It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics, http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/15/epjconf_wigner2014_01010.pdf
,,, Einstein and Wigner are both on record as to regarding it as an epistemological 'miracle' that mathematics is even applicable to the universe in the first place.
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine - Albert Einstein - March 30, 1952 Excerpt: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles." -Albert Einstein - Letter to Solovine The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Thus Seversky. despite your evidence free denial, the applicability of mathematics itself firmly belongs in the camp of Theism not atheism. Moreover, with the recent closing of the 'free will loophole' in quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics itself now demanding that the Agent causality of God, (and of people), be let back into physics, just as the Christian founders of physics originally envisioned, I am more confident than ever that Christ's resurrection from the dead provides empirical evidence, via the Shroud of Turin, for the 'correct' "Theory of Everything", i.e. the unification of Quantum Theory and General Relativity into a coherent "Theory of Everything"
(Sept. 2018) Qualia, "The Experience of 'The Now'", Free Will, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ's Resurrection From The Dead As The "Theory Of Everything" https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-an-atheist-value-system-at-odds-with-traditional-ones/#comment-665517
Seversky the rest of your post deals with the morality of Theism conflicting with the amorality of atheism,,, and is even more directly contradicted by evidence, specifically contradicted by personal experiential evidence, than your first claim was. Instead of going point by point refuting your evidence free, farcical, reply, I will just cite my reference once again since you did not even address the evidence therein,
Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives Excerpt: As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,” – Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
Verse:
Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
bornagain77
September 28, 2018
September
09
Sep
28
28
2018
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
RJ Really? So social Darwinism and it's proponents that take the text literally are not fundamentalists in any way? Are you denying that there is such a thing as social darwinism?Andre
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Seversky, The permitting has to do with an individual person joyfully surrendering to God’s will, in complete adoration, remembering God’s amazing grace. God requires from us to respect the dignity of all people. Those who love God will gladly try to please Him. Another famous Russian writer comes to mind: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.PaoloV
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 58
Relativity theory and quantum mechanics both support Christian Theism not atheism and as such point to morality not amorality.
No, they don't.
Agreement on moral principles to guide a society is impossible with someone who holds morality to be illusory.
Moral principles are neither real nor illusory since they are not claims about what is but rather are prescriptions for how humans should behave towards one another. That is something people could reach agreement on.
As the article in the OP clearly highlighted, holding amorality to be real and morality to be illusory leads to a severely degrading effect on a society where a once moral society drifts further and further away from its moral foundations into the complete chaos of amorality, i.e. might makes right, survival of the fittest, (Soviet Union, Communist China, etc.. etc..).
So we agree morality is essential for a stable society? The question is, who gets to decide what is moral? And why? The problem is that, while God is big on handing down moral commandments for us all to obey, He's not exactly forthcoming about the rationales behind His edicts. I don't remember any lengthy expositions of His thinking behind these rules and He certainly didn't circulate any consultation documents for us to consider before finalizing His positions. Of course, Christians have no problem with this. In their view, God is the biggest, most powerful and most knowledgeable being there is, so anything He says must be right. In other words, it's the biggest example of might making right that there is.
No worldview that holds morality to be real is consistent with the amorality inherent within atheism. Just as Christianity shapes the way I view the world, your atheism, no matter how much you may try to deny it, shapes how you view the world, hence the term worldview.
I'm not denying anything. But we both see the same world, the same people, the same trees, the same stars in the sky. Where we differ is in the accounts we accept as explanations for it all.
Moreover, the worldview that Atheism ultimately produces in people, where any true Meaning, Value, or Purpose for our lives disappears, besides being a false worldview, is an extremely depressing world view that has pronounced negative effects on the mental and physical health of people
I recognize that the idea of us being adrift in a meaningless Universe is a terrifying prospect for many, to the point where they will happily cling to the straw of their lives having meaning because (they hope) they are fulfilling some inscrutable purpose in the mind on another being.
So you admit that you can’t tell Stalin and Mao that it was wrong to kill tens of millions of their fellow citizens?
Of course I could have told Stalin and Mao why I think it was wrong of them to kill millions of their fellow citizens. Just as I could have told God why I would have thought it wrong to wipe out almost all life on Earth just because it displeased Him. Not that any of them would have paid me much attention, I'm thinking.
Your basically admitting that your atheistic worldview is worse than useless as a form of government
Atheism is not about government but just about whether or not you believe there is a god.Seversky
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
EugeneS @ 69
I doubt there is anything to say on this topic after Dostoevsky, who gave a comprehensive analysis of atheism from the point of view of an ex-atheist and ex-terrorist. According to him, if there is no God, everything is permitted. “Having denounced Christ for once, human mind can achieve awful things. It is an axiom”.
If there is no God then everything is neither permitted nor forbidden because there is no one to do the permitting or the denying. Or is there? Having delivered himself of this somewhat gloomy pronouncement, what does Dostoevsky have to offer, apart from throwing his hands up in despair? After all, God may not be there but we still are. What are we supposed to do, wait for the apocalypse to hit, get drunk? Any ideas?Seversky
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
if there is no God, everything is permitted
I suppose this depends on what we mean by "is permitted". If there is no God, is 1 + 1 permitted to equal 3?daveS
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
EugeneS @69: Beyond excellent!!! Thanks!!!PaoloV
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Andre
I see so this only applies to Christians?
No. It would apply to the strict and unwavering interpretation of any text that purports to provide instruction on how best to lead your life. I don’t see that it is limited to Christianity or religion.
A strict interpretation of the origin of the species is exempt of fundamentalism then?
Aside from the fact that nobody treats The Origin of Species as an inerrant document, it does not make any attempts to instruct us on how to lead our lives or set rules for us. However, if anyone interpreted the text to that end, and was unwavering in that interpretation, then I think it would be fair to call that person a fundamentalist.
R J Sawyer
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
I doubt there is anything to say on this topic after Dostoevsky, who gave a comprehensive analysis of atheism from the point of view of an ex-atheist and ex-terrorist. According to him, if there is no God, everything is permitted. "Having denounced Christ for once, human mind can achieve awful things. It is an axiom".EugeneS
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Crime in Charleston has been going down for like 20 years. Time was, there were two places black folk were allowed to be in the charleston area--far north charleston, and a smaller area in the west. Getting caught outside those two areas at night meant a beating or worse. That was the traditional value system in that area. Things are better now with the newer values.random.dent
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Growing up in charleston many decades ago, black people knew not to be outside their community after sundown.
Today they know not to be outside in their own community after sundown.ET
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Growing up in charleston many decades ago, black people knew not to be outside their community after sundown. I would not go back to that traditional value system. It sucked.random.dent
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
The traditional value systems are yielding to better ones. Slavery was acceptable traditionally. Then segregation. Bob Jones Sr. said if you were against segregation you were against Almighty God. Traditionally it was acceptable to beat your wife some amount, beat your kids, call people racial epithets, attack gay people, etc. The value systems of the West improved quite a bit lately over more Traditional ones.random.dent
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
I am not placing any moral judgement on the term “fundamentalism”. I just think that labeling people who have very strongly held religious beliefs as conservative Christians is misleading and excludes an entire group of people who have very strong Christian beliefs but who would not fall into the category of social conservatives.
The most religious girlfriend I ever had reads the bible every night. She is also a 100% committed communist, describing herself as "to the left of Karl Marx". She focuses more on the "Help everyone else as much as you possibly can" stuff and less on the "Self-righteously condemn others" stuff.random.dent
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
RJ I see so this only applies to Christians? A strict interpretation of the origin of the species is exempt of fundamentalism then?Andre
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Andre@61. My apologies. I thought that I had answered your question. All I can tell you is how I am using the term. I see fundamentalists as people who have a strict and unwavering interpretation of their religious texts. For example, people who take the bible as literal truth and persist in this belief are, in my opinion, fundamentalists. As are people who have a different interpretation of the bible but are consistent and persistent in this interpretation. People who's interpretations of their religious texts change over time I would not consider to be fundamentalists. Please note that I have not made any claim about how they apply these beliefs or live their lives.R J Sawyer
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
RJ You are not answering my question in any way. I did not ask for your opinion neither did I ask you for any definition. I will ask again. So you think fundamentalism is a strict interpretation of the text?Andre
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Andre
So you think fundamentalism is a strict interpretation of the text? Can you be more specific? Who are you kidding here?
I am not placing any moral judgement on the term "fundamentalism". I just think that labeling people who have very strongly held religious beliefs as conservative Christians is misleading and excludes an entire group of people who have very strong Christian beliefs but who would not fall into the category of social conservatives. The paper that Bob linked to uses the phrase "Persistent and Exceptional Intensity of American Religion". What I mean when I use the term "fundamentalism" is the same as those defined by different sources:
:A movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. :The belief that the traditional principles of a religion or set of beliefs should be maintained.
R J Sawyer
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
EDTA
And I wouldn’t be surprised if marriages today aren’t of slightly higher quality because those choosing the institution have to really want it (as opposed to entering it unthinkingly or because it was expected of you).
I suspect that your right. At one time it was expected that if the girl got pregnant the couple would get married. Not exactly the firmest footing to start a marriage on. As well, couples are getting married at a later age. Being more mature and more experienced tends to result in better decisions.R J Sawyer
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
as to:
BA77: Atheism is amoral. Sev: Of course it is. So is relativity theory or quantum mechanics. They are claims about the nature of reality. You cannot derive moral principles from any of them.
Relativity theory and quantum mechanics both support Christian Theism not atheism and as such point to morality not amorality.
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
As to:
BA77: And yet you find it necessary to adopt a system of morality. Sev: Of course. The stability of any human society depends on having an agreed set of principles or guidelines to regulate how people behave towards one another.
Agreement on moral principles to guide a society is impossible with someone who holds morality to be illusory. As the article in the OP clearly highlighted, holding amorality to be real and morality to be illusory leads to a severely degrading effect on a society where a once moral society drifts further and further away from its moral foundations into the complete chaos of amorality, i.e. might makes right, survival of the fittest, (Soviet Union, Communist China, etc.. etc..). As to:
BA77: Why not stay true to the amorality inherent within your atheistic worldview since you hold your worldview to be true? Sev: There are any number of worldviews that are consistent with atheism although I should say I find the whole notion of a worldview suspect. Usually it’s more like just another way of stereotyping people into vaguely-defined groups like ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’.
No worldview that holds morality to be real is consistent with the amorality inherent within atheism. Just as Christianity shapes the way I view the world, your atheism, no matter how much you may try to deny it, shapes how you view the world, hence the term worldview. Moreover, the worldview that Atheism ultimately produces in people, where any true Meaning, Value, or Purpose for our lives disappears, besides being a false worldview, is an extremely depressing world view that has pronounced negative effects on the mental and physical health of people
Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives Excerpt: As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,” - Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
As to:
BA77: So Seversky, since they are staying true to the amorality inherent within their atheism, and you are not staying true to it, who are you to tell them that they were wrong to kill tens of millions of their fellow citizens? Sev: I can make my judgements about morality just like anyone else can. I just can’t claim God’s authority for them. But since I find no good reason to think He exists, that’s irrelevant.
So you admit that you can't tell Stalin and Mao that it was wrong to kill tens of millions of their fellow citizens? Your basically admitting that your atheistic worldview is worse than useless as a form of government. Verse:
Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
bornagain77
September 27, 2018
September
09
Sep
27
27
2018
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
RJ So you think fundamentalism is a strict interpretation of the text? Can you be more specific? Who are you kidding here?Andre
September 26, 2018
September
09
Sep
26
26
2018
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply