Irish Times on the New Face of Atheism

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And in that one sentence you use morality to mean three things. The morality that religions disagree over is (to the extent we can throw them in together) the same beast; they are all conceiving of morality as something put into nature when it was created. Atheists don't have that; as robindch terms it, we have ethics, not morals. And what arises naturally in humans are not moral systems, but emotions like empathy and hate. As already noted, they drive people to both moral and immoral acts, using the commonsense meaning of the word.

Now you are being ridiculous, don't try and tell me how I used a word. I use one meaning of moral, three times.
That religions have different, often contradicting moral systems does call into question how any individual religion singling out atheism as completely immoral. If they where honestly following their own internal logic, they would have to call each other religion completely immoral too.
What arises in humans are moral systems based on emotions like empathy, but also on reason. If you continue to dismiss this, then at least be honest and admit you are proposing a supernatural origin in its stead.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And, in passing, religions seem implausible to me. But they are not clearly wrong.

They are clearly wrong in almost everything they say, and they clearly have no actual evidence for the rest. Of course, in this context I was only talking about them being clearly wrong about being the only source of morality.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I'm clearly not forgetting that a key point of morality is to secure social order, as my whole point is that people don't just comply automatically with whatever moral code seems to make sense. And I just don't have the time or energy to attempt to explain to you why you've made a massive error in conflating law and morality. Now that's four different meanings that you are hiding with the one word.

Didn't robindch explain this already, in his post on ethics? Atheistic morals tend to be based on a group derived and understood set of principles (rather than theistic morals set of authoritarian declarations). People don't automatically comply, they, as par of the group, have understanding of the morals.
I didn't conflate law with morals, you did. People dont follow laws because they see laws as being the same as moral rules, they follow the laws because they see the act of following laws (to better enhance social cohesiveness) as being a moral act. There are plenty of laws that individuals probably disagree with, but they follow them at their own inconvenience to better support society (while trying to change the law, if they believe the inconvenience is unjustified).

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's all very well in theory, but you're just in denial about the reality. For instance, people actually vote for a Healy-Rae precisely because they feel combining as part of a sectional interest is better than combining as part of a general, common, interest. There's plenty of other examples of that.

You can't just assume away the issue of how to get people to co-operate in pursuit of common goals. There's whole disciplines, like management theory and political science, given over to the problem.

I never said that people do always, and perfectly, work for the common good, I said they should, because that would best help everyone, themselves included. People rejecting that fact, due to short-sighted, self-centred ignorance, doesn't stop it being a fact.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

don't try and tell me how I used a word. I use one meaning of moral, three times.

If you don't understand the significance of what you've said, I have to explain in response.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didn't conflate law with morals, you did.

Nope, you did and you did it again when you said that complying with law is a moral act.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said that people do always, and perfectly, work for the common good, I said they should, because that would best help everyone, themselves included.

Thanks. I think that statement should win the Anne of Green Gables award for banality.

Like I said, the fact that it's actually hard to get people to co-operate for sustained periods when it matters has been a perennial concern. And there's really nothing in atheism that addresses this concern.

I'm not saying that atheism should have a capacity to address this concern. Just that it doesn't.

Religions generally do.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

keane2097 wrote: »

I have honestly never come across a poster who uses as many words to say as little as you do. "Exhaustive" is a well chosen adjective.

Grand. You know, I don't think I've noticed anything you've posted before.

So well done on this one.

keane2097

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. You know, I don't think I've noticed anything you've posted before.

So well done on this one.

I've never posted in this thread before and probably have >50 posts on the A&A forum in total, which should give you an idea how nauseating your long-winded, aimless posting needs to be to provoke a direct response from me.

Your modus operandi seems to be to talk in circles before quoting a random piece of a reply and giving some vague intimation that "herein lies the point but alas you've missed it".

If you have something to say be on with it, these supposed attempts to guide people to a gradual realisation of some ill-defined notion on your part are asinine, not to mention arrogant in the extreme.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you don't understand the significance of what you've said, I have to explain in response.

I am fully aware of what I said and what I meant. Maybe the problem here is that you continuously misrepresent what I say.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Nope, you did and you did it again when you said that complying with law is a moral act.

No I did not, maybe if you read past the part you quoted you would understand what I said:
There are plenty of laws that individuals probably disagree with, but they follow them at their own inconvenience to better support society (while trying to change the law, if they believe the inconvenience is unjustified).

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Thanks. I think that statement should win the Anne of Green Gables award for banality.

Like I said, the fact that it's actually hard to get people to co-operate for sustained periods when it matters has been a perennial concern.

I never said it wasn't. You, however, said it would be better for individuals to go for free rides on the back of the groups hard work. And then when I pointed out that they shouldn't do that, for long term benefit, you responded with an example of people doing it. So, in all honesty, who here is being banal to the point of stupidity?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And there's really nothing in atheism that addresses this concern.

Because atheism is only a response to the claim of gods existence, nothing more. But we aren't talking about atheism, we are talking about secular, naturally arising, morality which does address that concern.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Religions generally do.

Except in a piss poor way. Religions issue unquestionable declarations, demanding obedience but no real understanding, that quickly date in a constantly evolving environment. Secular morality, on the other hand, are the result of a group derived effort, that encourage actual understanding of why we should or shouldn't do things, and allow for re-evaluation in changing times.

Dades

keane2097 wrote: »

If you have something to say be on with it, these supposed attempts to guide people to a gradual realisation of some ill-defined notion on your part are asinine, not to mention arrogant in the extreme.

Perhaps the next time you post in this thread you'll leave out the ad hominems?

Thanking you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am fully aware of what I said and what I meant. Maybe the problem here is that you continuously misrepresent what I say.

There's no misrepresentation. You simply aren't digesting the three different meanings of "morality" in what you've said; four, in you include your contention that it's moral to follow a law believed to be wrong if it supports social order.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You, however, said it would be better for individuals to go for free rides on the back of the groups hard work.

Nope; I haven't suggested anything is better or worse than anything else, because there's no standard to make such an assessment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And then when I pointed out that they shouldn't do that, for long term benefit, you responded with an example of people doing it. So, in all honesty, who here is being banal to the point of stupidity?

Again, you are missing the point; it's that reason doesn't lead to an operable code.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But we aren't talking about atheism, we are talking about secular, naturally arising, morality which does address that concern.

But, sure, natural morality doesn't exist. We've already dealt with this.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Religions generally do.

Except in a piss poor way. Religions issue unquestionable declarations, demanding obedience but no real understanding, that quickly date in a constantly evolving environment. Secular morality, on the other hand, are the result of a group derived effort, that encourage actual understanding of why we should or shouldn't do things, and allow for re-evaluation in changing times.

And this secular morality is where, exactly? In Micheal Nugent's manifesto? Where is this thing, so's we can see if it's more or less piss poor than religion?

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's no misrepresentation. You simply aren't digesting the three different meanings of "morality" in what you've said; four, in you include your contention that it's moral to follow a law believed to be wrong if it supports social order.

I am using the same meaning of morality in each place, the most general meaning. If you stopped reading what I have said in terms of your own limited personal interpretation, which I have disagreed with from the beginning, we might be able to move this discussion on.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Nope; I haven't suggested anything is better or worse than anything else, because there's no standard to make such an assessment.

Who are you trying to fool? From your own post:
But surely I can get that benefit of survival and comfort if everyone else co-operates and I take a free ride.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Again, you are missing the point; it's that reason doesn't lead to an operable code.

Reason will lead to an operable code. You have only tried to counter this by giving examples of people not using reason when trying to devise, or adhere to, a code. People failing to reach an operable code because they fail to use reason is not an argument against reason.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, natural morality doesn't exist.

Oh good, you are finally being honest and admitting that you are proposing a supernatural source for morality. Your pretence at not being a theist was wearing more than a little thin at this stage.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And this secular morality is where, exactly? In Micheal Nugent's manifesto? Where is this thing, so's we can see if it's more or less piss poor than religion?

Have you tried googling secular morality? Here are some links:
Secular Humanist Declaration
Humanist Manifesto
Secular Ethics

GCU Flexible Demeanour

It's Groundhog Day!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am using the same meaning of morality in each place, the most general meaning. If you stopped reading what I have said in terms of your own limited personal interpretation, which I have disagreed with from the beginning, we might be able to move this discussion on.

Nope, you're like Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." The problem is the issues fudged by merely asserting that you are attaching the same meaning in each context. You are suggesting a Fianna Fail solution.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who are you trying to fool? From your own post:
But surely I can get that benefit of survival and comfort if everyone else co-operates and I take a free ride.

Yes, that refutes your idea that co-operation results from reason. But it expresses no preference as regards an outcome.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Reason will lead to an operable code. You have only tried to counter this by giving examples of people not using reason when trying to devise, or adhere to, a code. People failing to reach an operable code because they fail to use reason is not an argument against reason.

This wishful thinking. In this forum, did people flock to the thread on the "Atheist Manifesto" crying "it's all so clear to me now". You're expecting a religious outcome form an atheist process.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Oh good, you are finally being honest and admitting that you are proposing a supernatural source for morality. Your pretence at not being a theist was wearing more than a little thin at this stage.

No, you're just failing to comprehend the point.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Have you tried googling secular morality? Here are some links:
Secular Humanist Declaration
Humanist Manifesto
Secular Ethics

Well, I was more interested in a discussion, particularly as some seem a little confused on the topic.

Can I suggest you google "Unicorn Sightings", "Famous Hoaxes" and "Popular Delusions", and when you've digested the results we might be in a position to continue.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The problem is the issues fudged by merely asserting that you are attaching the same meaning in each context. You are suggesting a Fianna Fail solution.

Why is everything you say verbose to the point of inanity? I explained what the word morality means, in the most general sense. I explained that I am only using it, in each place I use it, in the most general sense. Instead of just declaring that I'm using it differently in each place, explain how I'm using it differently.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

[/I]Yes, that refutes your idea that co-operation results from reason. But it expresses no preference as regards an outcome.

1) No, it doesn't refute the idea that co-operation results from reason, I already explained why previously in the thread
2) But surely I can get that benefit of survival and comfort if everyone else co-operates and I take a free ride. Thats your quote. And you think that is not expressing a preferred outcome? Either you are insulting the intelligence of everyone on thsi thread, or the topic is simply beyond you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This wishful thinking. In this forum, did people flock to the thread on the "Atheist Manifesto" crying "it's all so clear to me now". You're expecting a religious outcome form an atheist process.

I've read thsi several times and there is absolutely nothing here that is a sensible response to the part you quoted. Nothing at all. Please try again.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, you're just failing to comprehend the point.

Which point? That you keep peddling nonsense that was debunked by several people in this thread, and yet you continue on as if no-one has even said a word to you. Your making the same point as most every theist who posts here: "I am incapable of addressing anything put to me, so I'll pretend like nothing was".

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I was more interested in a discussion, particularly as some seem a little confused on the topic.

If you were really interested in a discussion on the topic, then maybe you wouldn't be so confused on the topic. I guess it must be very confusing to have all this religious doctrine you are incapable of questioning yourself, and yet see all these people on this forum perfectly capable of debunking it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Can I suggest you google "Unicorn Sightings", "Famous Hoaxes" and "Popular Delusions", and when you've digested the results we might be in a position to continue.

Why do I need to google anything about delusions, I have a guy here who thinks morals are magic :rolleyes:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why is everything you say verbose to the point of inanity?

Well, that's where reason gets you.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But surely I can get that benefit of survival and comfort if everyone else co-operates and I take a free ride. Thats your quote. And you think that is not expressing a preferred outcome?

Yup, no preference is expressed whatsoever. It just establishes a feasible alternative.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have a guy here who thinks morals are magic

No, you've a guy here who is objectively amoral.

Who was it said that advanced technology would seem like magic to people who didn't understand it?

Hotblack Desiato

This thread is just ruined now, close it!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

This thread is just ruined now, close it!

Hmm, ruined. Is that a value judgment, or is there an objective measure of ruination?

In any event, I agree it's circling without progress. As far as I'm concerned, the situation is as I set out below, and at different times and ways.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And in that one sentence you use morality to mean three things.
· The morality that religions disagree over is (to the extent we can throw them in together) the same beast; they are all conceiving of morality as something put into nature when it was created.
· Atheists don't have that; as robindch terms it, we have ethics, not morals.
· And what arises naturally in humans are not moral systems, but emotions like empathy and hate. As already noted, they drive people to both moral and immoral acts, using the commonsense meaning of the word.

<…>

You can't just assume away the issue of how to get people to co-operate in pursuit of common goals. There's whole disciplines, like management theory and political science, given over to the problem.

Dades

ninja900 wrote: »

This thread is just ruined now, close it!

But... if I close the bar the fighting will only spill out onto the streets? :pac:

Let them at it. It's the A&A way.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, the situation is as I set out below, and at different times and ways.

And as far I am concerned, these are declaration based strawmen, with no underlying explanations made, that neither address the post that they quote(here), and that where addressed by post that came after (here).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And as far I am concerned, these are declaration based strawmen, with no underlying explanations made, that neither address the post that they quote(here), and that where addressed by post that came after (here).

I can expand. However, I'm not sure I've been accused of brevity. I think the key is establishing the distinction between morality, ethics (as the term being applied here to rules that an atheist might assert) and instinct (being feelings like empathy and hate).

Firstly, because it seems to be causing confusion, my position is morality is a redundant concept; there is no right or wrong that I can see. Pain, empathy, satisfaction, companionship, challenge, delusion, security, discipline and passion exist. Any proposition that anyone presents in a atheist landscape, and which they assert to be morality, I contend can be reduced to some other thing, such as the things I've just listed.

Now for the three meanings of "morality" that mean you cannot equate the theist and atheist applications of the word.

1) You contend that Morality is a general term meaning (in its most simple form) a system of rules that people should adhere to in their daily lives. (My emphasis.) This definition really only applies to religious morality. Only religious morality contains a "should" for it's own sake, and idea that these rules "should" be followed, without any reason to identify a benefit.

Why? Because only in religion can morality be seen as something natural, something built into nature by the Creator. If a Creator put it there, and the same Creator invented humans and built morality into them too, then it's natural to do what's moral and it's perverted to do what's immoral.

2) If an atheist devises rules, there's no independent "should" that demands them to be followed. You can use the word, but you have to use it in a different way, presenting a justification. A theist can say "you should not steal, it's just wrong". An atheist has to fill out the should "you should not steal, as you'll undermine your confidence in your ability to gain by merit" or "you should not steal, as the rejection you'll experience when caught will hurt you". Atheist ethics can only be rules or a discipline that support successful living.

3) In the atheist conception, there can be no "should" applied to natural impulses. They're just natural impulses, there's no moral content to them at all. If you develop an inflamed appendix, nature "wants" you to die. Are you being immoral when you frustrate that "natural will" by seeking medical attention? Obviously not. Same with empathy. You might have ever sympathy with someone, but there's no right or wrong in how you follow through on that sympathy. You're just gratifying your sense of satisfaction, if you decide to do it. Same with hate; do you bludgeon the guy who stole your parking place to death, because that's what your natural morality told you to do?

That's expanding on it, more than I'd thought would be necessary and (apparently) more than many want to see. I see no scope to suggest that the term system of rules that people should adhere to in their daily lives can be shared in common between those three things.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can expand.

Expand, but still not address.

You argument is that the "should" in religious morality being different to the "should" in atheistic morality ("should" because of general justification, i.e. god, vs "should" because of specific justification) somehow means a general idea of morality can't be expressed. That's clearly wrong because as long as the justification isn't specified, saying "morality is what you should do" covers both types of morality equally.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You argument is that the "should" in religious morality being different to the "should" in atheistic morality ("should" because of general justification, i.e. god, vs "should" because of specific justification) somehow means a general idea of morality can't be expressed. That's clearly wrong because as long as the justification isn't specified, saying "morality is what you should do" covers both types of morality equally.

No, because they are different in nature. Religious morality is a straight "should", once you accept the conception, because it's talking about a right and wrong that exists. Atheist ethics are never an imperative, even if you accept the conception. They are always optional by design.

Bear in mind, "god" is no just another reason in that religious conception. Theists are making assertions about the nature of things; they are asserting that we are specifically created with a defined purpose to do good, and possibly with a related capacity for free will enabling us to be perverted and do bad. So (if a theist) you don't follow religious morality just because a god told you to. It's not an arbitrary thing. They are trying to tell you stuff about how they conceive you to be; that you've been made as a moral being.

That's what all (or, at least, a lot) of the stuff about religion giving meaning or purpose has to do with. They are asserting that we're part of a universe that's intended to have a point, that has an inherent right and wrong as part of it. Our atheist conception is quite different. The universe just is, regardless of us. It has no meaning, other than what we place on it.

And that is quite a difference. In fact, one of the most fundamental divides in how people approach knowledge in general is whether they conceive of us discovering how things are or whether they conceive of us placing our understanding on things. In passing, I'm clearly someone who falls into the second group.

sephir0th

GCU, have you read 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris? You might enjoy it if you haven't.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sephir0th wrote: »

GCU, have you read 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris? You might enjoy it if you haven't.

Maybe he'd surprise me, and have something new to say. Possibly unfortunately for him, and possibly undeservedly, he got a lot of "nothing to see here" reviews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape#Reviews

But I'll certainly give it an eyeball, if I see it around. However, what I think we need more of (and maybe he deals with this) is discussions of what to do when faced with an unclear situation. But that's a discussion for another day!

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, because they are different in nature.

So? A Robin Reliant and a Lamborghini Diablo are different in nature, but they are both still cars in the general meaning of the word. Pointing out specific differences (that I may or may not disagree with) is irrelevant when I am using the general meaning of the word.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So? A Robin Reliant and a Lamborghini Diablo are different in nature, but they are both still cars in the general meaning of the word.

Staying with your car analogy, the issue is that the Reliant Robin and the Lambourghini aren't different in their nature. They are just different in degree. They can both take people from Dublin to Cork, and both can suggest the wealth and status of the driver.

The issue facing us is where a word includes things that have a different nature. Again within your car analogy, it would be similar to saying "Any car can take me to Cork", and then noticing that the car provided can't perform that task as it is different in nature to the cars you had in mind. Like this elevator car:



Just as that car is different to the kind of car that might take you to Cork, atheist "morality" is different to theist "morality" in significant respects, such that you cannot just use the term in this context without fudging substantial issues.

robindch

^^^ Jesus, don't mention the elevators!

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Staying with your car analogy, the issue is that the Reliant Robin and the Lambourghini aren't different in their nature. They are just different in degree.

They aren't different in their nature, in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport, thats their nature, in the general meaning of the word. Oh they have very different engines for driving them, different speeds, handling, even different numbers of wheels. But, their nature, in the general meaning of the word, is that of transport. They are both cars. Pointing out specific differences doesn't change that nature, no matter how much you would it too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They aren't different in their nature, in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport, thats their nature, in the general meaning of the word. Oh they have very different engines for driving them, different speeds, handling, even different numbers of wheels. But, their nature, in the general meaning of the word, is that of transport. They are both cars. Pointing out specific differences doesn't change that nature, no matter how much you would it too.

I've a feeling of you missing the entire point, again.

Can you re-read my post, because your response just doesn't relate to what I've said.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Jesus, don't mention the elevators!

Could we merge the threads?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056320768

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've a feeling of you missing the entire point, again.

Can you re-read my post, because your response just doesn't relate to what I've said.

And I've a feeling that you have run out of verbose strawmen with which to avoid the entire point. If you are ready to drop the pretence and have a real discussion, that would be nice.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And I've a feeling that you have run out of verbose strawmen with which to avoid the entire point. If you are ready to drop the pretence and have a real discussion, that would be nice.

It might be helpful for you to explain what, in your view, is the "entire point"? From my perspective, you've not advanced the discussion at all in your last post - which, as I've said, just doesn't follow on from anything that I've said. All is does is demonstrate a confusion on your part as to what you mean by nature.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It might be helpful for you to explain what, in your view, is the "entire point"?

I already did, here, about 50 posts ago. What would really help would be if you were ever interested in an actual discussion on this subject. Both times we have discussed ethics and morality before (once, earlier in this thread, and previously in another thread), you resorted to the exact same tactics you have used here: verbose, declaration-based strawmen.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

From my perspective, you've not advanced the discussion at all in your last post - which, as I've said, just doesn't follow on from anything that I've said. All is does is demonstrate a confusion on your part as to what you mean by nature.

Apologies, my second post, concerning the nature of the two cars, was mis-worded. I fixated on the word nature, and didn't review it before posting. It should have said (the underlined text is new):

They are different in their nature, but they are still cars in the general meaning of the word. They are both vehicles for transport, thats what cars are, in the general meaning of the word. Oh they have very different engines for driving them, different speeds, handling, even different numbers of wheels. But even with their different natures, they are both cars, the general meaning of the word. Pointing out specific differences between their natures doesn't change them being cars, no matter how much you would like it too.