nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

Tim Robbins

Full article here

Fair play to Michael for stirring a debate but I think he misrepresents atheism. He sets it up as a sort of life stance on a range of issues. This is incorrect. All atheism is, is a position on an existential question, that is whether God exists or not.

He says things like:

Atheists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings.

Who is he to say atheists agree on such matters? I applaud Atheist Ireland for a lot of the work they do but I find the way they extend the definition of atheism and speak as if they are speaking for all atheists a tad annoying.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

I think you are giving a dishonest answer now, either because you have never faced extreme cruelty close up, or you refuse to face the implication that you could experience a morality independent of your god's will.
Or else you are a psychopath.

Kicking to rhetoric touch indicates you haven't an argument.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Kicking to rhetoric touch indicates you haven't an argument.

That's not kicking into rhetorical touch -- that's a logical hat-trick.

A reply better than "Boo, hiss!" would be the best approach.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

That's not kicking into rhetorical touch -- that's a logical hat-trick.

A reply better than "Boo, hiss!" would be the best approach.

A question was asked and answered. The response supposed me dishonestly answering or ignorantly answering or evasingly answering.

That's not arguing the issue under discussion, namely: "what's the problem following an instruction to kill given by God?".

I see none. Honestly.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

A question was asked and answered. The response supposed me dishonestly answering or ignorantly answering or evasingly answering.

Or of being a psychopath.

Ok, fair enough, I see where you're drawing the line.

From your perspective, you believe that your deity exists with the attributes and powers with which you animate it, and you also believe that you are able to tell with total accuracy, when you are receiving one of its instructions. And you also believe that this instruction must be carried out and that it overrules any ethical concerns you might have about the action.

That's a position which at least has the benefit of being fully consistent with religious belief, and it's one that I wish more religious believers would arrive at (briefly, before they recoil). The obvious downside, of course being, that if you ever carry your religious beliefs through to their logical conclusion, then your actions are indistinguishable from those of a psychopath. That's something you might wish to consider. It might also help you to understand why I, and many others, view religion as a trivial, nihilistic philosophical obscenity and why we wish to see it removed, as a matter of urgency, from our society. Particularly now that it's relatively easy to acquire control of technology which, like the WTC attacks, can cause wide-scale, indiscriminate slaughter.

You might also want to read the following book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven

Which documents the interesting early history of mormonism and how the religion legitimized, at least to the psychopathic nutters who carried it out, the heart-breaking, horrific knife-murder of a young mother and her baby by religious believers with views of themselves which appear, so far as total self-legitimization goes, to be identical to your views of yourself.

Again, the wisdom of this is something that you might wish to consider.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

From your perspective, you believe that your deity exists with the attributes and powers with which you animate it, and you also believe that you are able to tell with total accuracy, when you are receiving one of its instructions. And you also believe that this instruction must be carried out and that it overrules any ethical concerns you might have about the action.

I'm assuming accuracy enough that I feel comfortable acting.

I don't believe it's instruction must be carried out - I don't carry out his instructions all the time.

There is no ethical concerns to be overruled since God is the standard for what I consider ethical.

That's a position which at least has the benefit of being fully consistent with religious belief, and it's one that I wish more religious believers would arrive at (briefly, before they recoil). The obvious downside, of course being, that if you ever carry your religious beliefs through to their logical conclusion, then your actions are indistinguishable from those of a psychopath.

Indistinguishable to you perhaps. But your view concerns me less that does God's view or my view.

That's something you might wish to consider. It might also help you to understand why I, and many others, view religion as a trivial, nihilistic philosophical obscenity and why we wish to see it removed, as a matter of urgency, from our society. Particularly now that it's relatively easy to acquire control of technology which, like the WTC attacks, can cause wide-scale, indiscriminate slaughter.

I said earlier that I was dealing with a hypothetical since in order for God to issue me with an instruction to kill he would have to contradict what he has already said in his word. So you don't have to worry to much about me personally.

It's no surprise you view my stance as you do since you don't believe in the existance of the God who provides sound foundation for that stance. If you did, for the sake of argument, you would have an uphill struggle maintaining your outlook.

You might also want to read the following book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven

Which documents the interesting early history of mormonism and how the religion legitimized, at least to the psychopathic nutters who carried it out, the heart-breaking, horrific knife-murder of a young mother and her baby by religious believers with views of themselves which appear, so far as total self-legitimization goes, to be identical to your views of yourself.

Again, the wisdom of this is something that you might wish to consider.

If you assumed the existance of God for the sake of argument then you would see there is a difference between a legitimate actions directed by God and an illegitimate actions that look the same as the ones directed by God but which aren't.

So go assume - in which case you can also assume for the sake of argument the Mormon god doesn't exist and their actions aren't actually directed by God.

You should then realise that conflating two seemingly (but not actually) identical viewpoints means your argument loses purchase.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm assuming accuracy enough that I feel comfortable acting.

That's the problem.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no ethical concerns to be overruled since God is the standard for what I consider ethical.

I'm referring to overruling the normal ethical concerns that all humans have independent of any particular deity. Things like honesty, decency, not killing babies and so on. Or at least, the ethical standards that we all have unless a religion happens to usurp them and tell people that they can do whatever they like, and believe themselves perfect for it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's no surprise you view my stance as you do since you don't believe in the existance of the God who provides sound foundation for that stance. If you did, for the sake of argument, you would have an uphill struggle maintaining your outlook.

I would have exactly the same concerns if I had religious beliefs, or at least, common religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I'm also aware that christians believe that the deity (a) does not hand out unambiguous legalistic instructions for action -- witness the many rules for conduct that are ignored or treated as "metaphor" in the bible -- and (b) instead chooses to communicate with his dears via burning bushes, voices in the head, scorch marks in toast, tree-stumps outside Limerick, kids in Medjugorje and so on, all the while being invisible.

If the deity wishes to be taken seriously, then it can start communicating seriously, rather than by piggybacking on known psychological and cognitive flaws in the human brain.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

That's the problem.

Not an insurmountable one for me. And since I'm the one doing the acting..

I'm referring to overruling the normal ethical concerns that all humans have independent of any particular deity. Things like honesty, decency, not killing babies and so on. Or at least, the ethical standards that we all have unless a religion happens to usurp them and tell people that they can do whatever they like, and believe themselves perfect for it.

You're using a royal 'we' here that doesn't actually exist. People share some ethics and don't share others. My view would see the extensive commonality of ethics as stemming from God - with deviation due either to sin or ignorance.

I would have exactly the same concerns if I had religious beliefs, or at least, common religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I'm also aware that christians believe that the deity (a) does not hand out unambiguous legalistic instructions for action -- witness the many rules for conduct that are ignored or treated as "metaphor" in the bible --

With the responsiblity for ones interpretation laying with the individual. Happily.

and (b) instead chooses to communicate with his dears via burning bushes, voices in the head, scorch marks in toast, tree-stumps outside Limerick, kids in Medjugorje and so on, all the while being invisible.

Empirically invisible you mean?

If the deity wishes to be taken seriously, then it can start communicating seriously, rather than by piggybacking on known psychological and cognitive flaws in the human brain.

What else could a blind man be expected to say if desiring earnestly to deny his blindness?

B_Fanatic

@Antiskeptic:

Are you assuming the role of a theist for the sake of argument? If so I see the point you're making exactly.

If you're not and you actually are a theist stating that under conditions given by your deity you'd happily (maybe not happily, but willingly) carry out 'unethical' acts on his behalf I then, as Robindch did, commend you on your consistency. (Forgive me if I misinterpreted how you actually felt about that Robindch) I have enough faith (for lack of a better word) in my mental stability to feel that I was in fact contacted by some higher being provided it was unambiguous and direct. The higher being not necessarily being a god.

Not entirely sure what I'm saying here besides agreeing.

antiskeptic

B_Fanatic wrote: »

If you're not and you actually are a theist stating that under conditions given by your deity you'd happily (maybe not happily, but willingly) carry out 'unethical' acts on his behalf I then, as Robindch did, commend you on your consistency.

Robin seems to be bending over backwards to find inconsistancy in my position. But perhaps I've misunderstood him

I'm a theist btw. A Christian.

I have enough faith (for lack of a better word) in my mental stability to feel that I was in fact contacted by some higher being provided it was unambiguous and direct. The higher being not necessarily being a god.

It must be possible to be as certain as one needs to be, given that we feel we can be certain of other things.

This tends to produce a rush of "Yes, but in those other things we have empirical evidence" statements. As if the value I assign empirical evidence > certainty is assigned by someone other than me having faith in my mental stability.

Not entirely sure what I'm saying here besides agreeing.

Appreciated. Are you a theist though..

MrPudding

So here is a question I am struggling with.

So god is all powerful. He has a plan and we cannot frustrate that plan. Everything happens because he want it to and we are powerless to stop it.

There are many people who god apparently talks to. For whatever reason some of these people end up in mental institutions. So, how come, if god is so powerful, we can stop him from talking to people by giving these people anti-psychotic drugs?

MrP

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Robin seems to be bending over backwards to find inconsistancy in my position. But perhaps I've misunderstood him

Yes, you have misunderstood me.

I've already said two or three times that your position is consistent. I would prefer, though a position that was wise or had some basic understanding of how easy it is for the brain to make mistakes.

I also said that your position is (effectively) psychopathic, since you are awarding yourself the right to do whatever you want to do to whomever you wish. And not only do you appear to see no problem with that, you even seem to think that such psychopathic behaviour is your solemn duty.

That view is insane.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

how come, if god is so powerful, we can stop him from talking to people by giving these people anti-psychotic drugs?

Drug-based psychiatric treatments are evil, and presumably the work of Satan.

Haven't you been paying attention to Tom Cruise?

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Drug-based psychiatric treatments are evil, and presumably the work of Satan.

Haven't you been paying attention to Tom Cruise?

But but but, I thought god was more powerful than satan...

MrP

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

But but but, I thought god was more powerful than satan...

MrP

That may be the case, but god clearly ain't no match for haldol

MrPudding

koth wrote: »

That may be the case, but god clearly ain't no match for haldol

I for one welcome our new haldol overlords.

MrP

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Yes, you have misunderstood me.

I've already said two or three times that your position is consistent. I would prefer, though a position that was wise or had some basic understanding of how easy it is for the brain to make mistakes.

Don't you mean how easy it is for the brain to realise it is capable of making mistakes. Without the first assessment being reliable what value the conclusion that I can make mistakes?

I also said that your position is (effectively) psychopathic, since you are awarding yourself the right to do whatever you want to do to whomever you wish. And not only do you appear to see no problem with that, you even seem to think that such psychopathic behaviour is your solemn duty.

That view is insane.

In the case it is God doing the talking I'm not assigning myself any right. He is (as is his right).

All rests on whether it's God doing the talking or not. If not then I would be psychopathic. If so, then I'm not in the least bit psychopatic.

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

So here is a question I am struggling with.

So god is all powerful. He has a plan and we cannot frustrate that plan. Everything happens because he want it to and we are powerless to stop it.

He has a plan and that plan will not be frustrated.

Not everything happens according to his will (he hates evildoing for example). But he can leverage evil doing in his accomplishing his plan. For example, a persons sin is used to apply pressure on them to bring them to their knees and be saved. That's not to say they will be but it is an example od where something that is against his will (evil doing) gets used to bring about his will (that all would be possibly saved)

There are many people who god apparently talks to. For whatever reason some of these people end up in mental institutions.

Source? That is is God talking to them I mean?

B_Fanatic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Appreciated. Are you a theist though..

No, I'm athiest but I really don't care what anyone believes in... Not because I think religous beliefs aren't harmful, I do think they have a lot of potential to hurt a lot of people I just don't really care that much. I can make myself incredibly apathetic when it's an easier alternative to being empathetic. I have a very similar outlook to your's only as an analogy, I would be the god.

In this regard I would agree with Robindch, as what I said above is quite psychopathic and I feel it fits as a very good analogy when substituting a disregard for ethics and morality in pursuit of one's happiness/wants with the unquestionable orders of a god. Basically I would agree that acting immorally on behalf of a god who has contacted you alone is psychopathic behaviour... Objectively.

However, if you've lived a perfectly mentally stable life for about 20/30 years, no voices, no hallucinations, then suddenly, without the intervention of psychoactive substances, you are visited by a god who ambiguously gives you orders that appear to contradict modern moral laws, sure, go for it. Provided there is absolutely no rational explanation for the god's sudden appearance I would probably decide to go ahead and follow his orders. No matter how many dead babies were on that list... Although I would be grateful if he was to tell me an objective for the slaying of so many dead babies.... Hmmmm. Actually, no, I wouldn't do it unless I could gain from it or the world could gain from it (I have some degree of empathy, remember! And if the entire world would gain from me killing a few dozen babies, sure, why not.)

Sorry if that makes no sense, I tried to write it as concisely as possible. And yes if you are thinking, "This can't be right, it is completely insane..." Yes it is right. But if it still appears that I'm talking incoherent nonsense I won't be arsed making it any clearer. Probably best that way anyway.

Note: I probably couldn't do a lot of those things, but I rationally think they'd be the correct things to do. I'm pretty certain I underestimate my empathy and ego a lot. The fact that I bothered writing this at all shows the existence of some sort of ego, and the ego doesn't like people looking at it in disgust and yelling, "Baby murdering bastard!"

antiskeptic

B_Fanatic wrote: »

In this regard I would agree with Robindch, as what I said above is quite psychopathic and I feel it fits as a very good analogy when substituting a disregard for ethics and morality in pursuit of one's happiness/wants with the unquestionable orders of a god. Basically I would agree that acting immorally on behalf of a god who has contacted you alone is psychopathic behaviour... Objectively.

You mean acting immorally according to your standard?

However, if you've lived a perfectly mentally stable life for about 20/30 years, no voices, no hallucinations, then suddenly, without the intervention of psychoactive substances, you are visited by a god who ambiguously gives you orders that appear to contradict modern moral laws, sure, go for it.

Modern moral laws? As in 'modern' is more moral? Do you have a TV at all?

As for the circumstances you suggest, I'd need a little bit more convincing it was God than him just speaking out of the blue one day. I mean, just because I've 30 years good mental stability history doesn't mean mental instability can't commence in year 31.

Provided there is absolutely no rational explanation for the god's sudden appearance I would probably decide to go ahead and follow his orders. No matter how many dead babies were on that list... Although I would be grateful if he was to tell me an objective for the slaying of so many dead babies.... Hmmmm. Actually, no, I wouldn't do it unless I could gain from it or the world could gain from it (I have some degree of empathy, remember! And if the entire world would gain from me killing a few dozen babies, sure, why not.)

I'd be doing it because it was the morally right thing to do. We tend to do the morally right thing in order to come into equilibrium with a sense of 'oughtness' to which we are exposed.

Note: I probably couldn't do a lot of those things, but I rationally think they'd be the correct things to do. I'm pretty certain I underestimate my empathy and ego a lot. The fact that I bothered writing this at all shows the existence of some sort of ego, and the ego doesn't like people looking at it in disgust and yelling, "Baby murdering bastard!"

I'd be more concerned with what God thought of me than what folk who are at enmity with God think of me. It is only those who are (currently) at enmity with God who would frown upon God's actions.

UDP

Its true what they say that there will always be good and bad people whether they are religious people or not. The problem is that religion can make otherwise good people do bad things.

Knasher

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for the circumstances you suggest, I'd need a little bit more convincing it was God than him just speaking out of the blue one day. I mean, just because I've 30 years good mental stability history doesn't mean mental instability can't commence in year 31.

The problem I have with your view is that it, seems to me, to leave you more open to be convinced by voices in your head if you ever suffer from mental stability. Whereas I might immediately assume a problem and get help (assuming I still had the capacity to do so), somebody with your view might be more inclined to give it credence. It is pretty self evident that people have a tendency to jump to conclusions that fit their viewpoint, and hearing a voice that nobody else can hear that tells you to do things you might otherwise find objectionable is something that fits quite well with the christian world view.

antiskeptic

Knasher wrote: »

The problem I have with your view is that it, seems to me, to leave you more open to be convinced by voices in your head if you ever suffer from mental stability.

I don't see how I could a anymore confuse a mental instability voice in my head with God's voice than I could a real computer screen on front of me from an imaginary one.

Or if I could the one, then as easily the other.

Since I don't worry about the prospect that the computer screen on front of me might not be real, I can't see myself spending much time worrying about an imaginary Gods voice.

UDP

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how I could a anymore confuse a mental instability voice in my head with God's voice than I could a real computer screen on front of me from an imaginary one.

Or if I could the one, then as easily the other.

Since I don't worry about the prospect that the computer screen on front of me might not be real, I can't see myself spending much time worrying about an imaginary Gods voice.

Then how do you know what your god wants you to do/behave?

Knasher

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how I could a anymore confuse a mental instability voice in my head with God's voice

Well there have been a number of murders over the years who claim to be acting on gods instructions (afaik, I can't look up any examples right now but I'm happy to research it later if you want), though admittedly we only have their word on it and they could be just claiming it to either substantiate a later insanity claim or garner some small sympathy.

That being said, the propensity of people to interpret things as divinely inspired (such as seeing burn marks on toast as gods face (unless your view on that differs)), makes the view that somebody might misinterpret a disembodied voice as god at least plausible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

than I could a real computer screen on front of me from an imaginary one.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

antiskeptic

UDP wrote: »

Then how do you know what your god wants you to do/behave?

I use the same technique used in deciding whether my computer screen is real or not. That which seems reasonable and fitting to me is considered real.

antiskeptic

Knasher wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Since I can no more be certain that the computer screen on front of me is real than I can be sure God's voice is really God, I go with what seems to be self-evident in both cases.

I can understand your perspective - but it is logically flawed. The fact of 10,000 mutually exclusive religions doesn't alter the truth of the one - if one is true. Nor does 10,000 false voices alter the truth of the true voice - if there is a true voice.

nozzferrahhtoo

UDP wrote: »

Then how do you know what your god wants you to do/behave?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That which seems reasonable and fitting to me is considered real.

So you use your knowledge, common sense, intuition, education and wisdom to decide what is right, wrong, ethical or moral.... then using this you decide if the words of god are really god speaking. If the gods position appears unreasonable to you, it must not be god.

Welcome to our world. That is what we do too. Use our knowledge, common sense, intuitions, education and wisdom to decide what is right, wrong, ethical or moral. We just stop before the inventing an imaginary god or an objective standard and pretending it agrees with everything we just decided.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you use your knowledge, common sense, intuition, education and wisdom to decide what is right, wrong, ethical or moral.... then using this you decide if the words of god are really god speaking. If the gods position appears unreasonable to you, it must not be god.

Welcome to our world. That is what we do too. Use our knowledge, common sense, intuitions, education and wisdom to decide what is right, wrong, ethical or moral. We just stop before the inventing an imaginary god or an objective standard and pretending it agrees with everything we just decided.

:rolleyes:

Where the heck is Michael Nugent...

nozzferrahhtoo

He is a busy man from what I have seen. I am amazed he invests as much time posting here as he does.

B_Fanatic

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean acting immorally according to your standard?

No, to the social standard accepted by the society you're in or consider yourself a part of.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Modern moral laws? As in 'modern' is more moral? Do you have a TV at all?

Never said modern is more moral, it was a benign adjective that in no way takes away from the point... If there was one, I can't even remember. Replace it with current if you want. What is considered morally acceptable changes over time and with society.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for the circumstances you suggest, I'd need a little bit more convincing it was God than him just speaking out of the blue one day. I mean, just because I've 30 years good mental stability history doesn't mean mental instability can't commence in year 31.

I agree. I didn't mean he talks to you out of the blue. I meant he provides you with whatever you need to be convinced of his existence. Predicting an objective future, maybe? I don't know, whatever you would feel is necessary. I stated below that that there would be no rational alternative. The only reasonable explanation being that god has just given you clear orders of what to do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd be doing it because it was the morally right thing to do. We tend to do the morally right thing in order to come into equilibrium with a sense of 'oughtness' to which we are exposed.

Yes. As I said, without an objective though it would be hard to justify the hardship you'd be putting yourself through in slaughtering dozens of young 'uns.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd be more concerned with what God thought of me than what folk who are at enmity with God think of me. It is only those who are (currently) at enmity with God who would frown upon God's actions.

Of course you would, you believe in God!

Without a god your peers tend to take the centre stage... In saying that I'm not stating that all athiests are egotistical b*****ds either though.

Hope that clears everything up!