Discussion with Atheist on morality vs. ethics, 7/9

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Continuing a discussion took place due to my video Atheist defines morality “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.” See all portions of this discussion here.

Continuing a discussion took place due to my video Atheist defines morality “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.” See all portions of this discussion here.

While you are at it, see my book Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors starring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker, and Neil deGrasse Tyson and also my book Reasons for Being An Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide.

eddy eldridge
“so that this proves that Atheism is your worldview.” Nope. That’s skepticism. Its rational thinking. Its applying the scientific method. Atheism is still a single position on a single topic.
Is my lack of belief that a god has anything to do with chemistry atheism? Nope. Its skepticism. Its a result of my skeptical and naturalist worldviews. Even if I believed a god exists, I’d still be skeptical of him doing anything with anything until it has been demonstrated. Its still not a worldview. I don’t know why its so hard for you to understand that atheists don’t have this invisible list of things we must all believe.

“you do not/cannot say what counts as evidence, you leave it to theists to decide that,” If I left that to theists to decide, they’d present a mountain of logical fallacies and call that evidence. Which they do. Because I don’t recall ever meeting a theist who could tell the difference. You claim a god exists, so the burden of proof is on you. If you don’t have empirical evidence, then why do you believe its true?
How about this: get a book, written in a language all humans, regardless of age, intelligence or language understands, it says the exact same thing, according to everyone, and no human alive is capable of writing this language. And this book tells of a divine creator.
That would certainly count as evidence. Do you have it? No? Now, do you understand why its not up to the person who needs to be convinced what you need to present as evidence?
“and you sit around shrugging everything off since you are an Atheist and, by definition, reject any evidence for God’s existence.” You say that as if any evidence has been presented. Logical fallacies are not evidence.
“That “all organisms on Earth, including humans, are just a complex series of chemical reactions” is merely a myopic and restrictive statement of “faith” based on your Atheism (by any other name such as materialism, naturalism, reductionism, physicalism, etc.).” No faith required on that belief, as I have evidence for it. And those other bits are not “atheism by another name” since you can believe a god exists and hold into each of those beliefs. They’re not mutually exclusive. You keep trying to conflate atheism into being more than it is.
Even if you proved a god exists, what proof do I have that there’s anything more to our universe than the “material?” I still have no proof for a soul. If a poor man claims he actually owns a mansion that was built by a duck, I’d be very skeptical of the whole claim. If he proves to me he does, in fact, own a mansion, he still hasn’t proven a duck had anything to do with it.
“You then claim, on your own authority, that the foundational imperative dogma is empathy” Nope. I wouldn’t call empathy foundational, as I doubt its the root of most people’s, if any’s, decision making. Nor imperative, as selfishness also works, but for different reasons (hence why a healthy balance should be found). And dogma? Are you just not capable of understanding something if its not a religion?
“but that is just that: a claim based on your own authority—even if it is a good idea, it is as I have noted.” Do you doubt that your brain has the key roll in decision making? Do you think that one’s soul is the driving force? If you were of the religion that says “People don’t wear shoes, because gnomes protect their heat from the elements,” well, that’s at least half wrong. We very clearly wear shoes. Even if you were to proves gnomes with magic feet-protecting powers do exist, humans still wear shoes.
Even if you prove your god exists, all of our actions and thoughts are the direct result of chemical reactions, in our head. Don’t believe me? Try doping up with serotonin or dopamine, see if you behavior changes. Or maybe a heavy blow to your frontal lobe and watch your whole personality change.
“May I recommend helping others for their sake and not just to feel good, perhaps even feel good about yourself, etc.?” I’m not doing it for the sake of getting high. You know that warm, comforting feeling you get when you hug a loved one? Or when you’re making out with your significant other? That’s the dopamine. Do you think that if a help someone with their groceries, that the first thought going through my head is “boy, this’ll get me that dopamine hit!” Well, of course you do.
But its not. I see someone in need, I instinctively go to help. They say thanks, I say they’re welcome, we both feel good. Oh [****], that’s the dopamine! And they got it, too!
I’m not going against some evil nature and pretending to be good, just to get the dopamine. I get the dopamine from giving into my nature of being a good person. That’s how empathy works. Its the same for you and almost every other person on the planet. You just attribute that sensation to a soul, because your parents fed you theology growing up, rather than biology.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Ken Ammi
Well friend, since I already noted that “this is getting unmanageably verbose” then writing a lot more and attempting to cover various subjects at the same time is only making it worse. At this point, you are merely playing semantic games: the reason why you take the views you take is due to your premise of Atheism which you then decided to call “skepticism…rational thinking…naturalist,” etc. You know that as an Atheist you cannot logically take the position you take about God and then also affirm God so call it what you will: your view on God infects your view of everything. In fact, if informs and infects your skepticism, rational thinking, naturalism, etc. Also, you misuser the concept of the scientific method by claiming to apply a tool that was designed to observe the material/physical realm and claim to conclude therefrom that there is no non-material/non-physical realm. This is like claiming there are no cells because you looked through a telescope or that there are no planets because you looked through a microscope: wrong tools for the wrong job.
Lastly, of course, you still demand that things be “demonstrated” and “proof” and logic but you clearly in most of what you believe on nothing of the sort, by the very nature of our inability to investigate most of what we believe. Your Atheism, or naturalism, or skepticism—by any other name—cannot even account for logic, rationale, science, or anything so you are begging, borrowing, and stealing from my worldview in order to claim that yours is valid: and, of course, your worldview is primarily based on random bio-chemical neural reactions.

eddy eldridge
if you don’t want me getting verbose, stop making so many incorrect remarks that I then have to correct. Science was not made as a tool to study the physical world. It was used to study the world in general. If there was a non physical world, science would be able to detect and study it. If it hasn’t found it, what makes you so sure that it does exist and science merely can’t find it, and not that it simply doesn’t exist?
And again, no, my atheism does not affect my skepticism. My atheism is a result of my skepticism. If I wasn’t a skeptic, I wouldn’t be an atheist. If I wasn’t an atheist, I’d still be a skeptic.
The problem is that you don’t want to argue against skepticism, because you acknowledge it’s a good thing. You use it on most every other topic. But atheism, you disagree with. That’s the thing you want to go away. But since you can’t attack it without attacking its rational source, you pretend it doesn’t have a rational source. That it is, itself, a source, that spreads its irrationality to other topics.
You have this habit of redefining reality when it doesn’t go how you want it.

Ken Ammi
Friend, please stop redefining known history in order to fit things into your worldview. Of course science was designed to study the physical world (I actually referred to the “material/physical realm”) but if you deny this and follow it up with that “It was used to study the world in general” then you are implying that there is a non-physical nature of the world which is that against which you have been arguing all along but then you argue against yourself by writing “If there was a non physical world…” In any case, the last bit is a mere assertion and you ignore the nature of the scientific method but you are actually arguing in favor of scientism, which is part of your worldview, whereby if science (actually, scientists) cannot find it then it does not exist.
I can prove that your Atheistic worldview affect your skepticism because I am a skeptic and not an Atheist so that yes, “If I wasn’t an atheist, I’d still be a skeptic” but your skepticism is presently infected with and by Atheism. As for the “rational source” of Atheism let us keep in mind that by rational you mean your subjective interpretation of bio-chemical neural reactions within a haphazardly evolved brain that evolved for survival and not necessarily truth.
You have this habit of redefining reality when it doesn’t go how you want it. In short your view is that nothing caused nothing to explode for no reason, made everything without meaning, here we are to discuss it, you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. You are merely asserting that when that explosion happened from it proceeded truth, logic, and eventually a brain that could accurately discern reality—and yet, even if it does it does not matter because there is no ethical imperative in such a universe that tells us that we ought, must or should ascertain actual truth. In short, your worldview provides not even the basic prerequisites for intelligibility, nor ethics, nor anything but here today, gone tomorrow and everything about you will very, very, very soon not matter at all.

eddy eldridge
You tell me not to get verbose, and then you do this. Exactly what I told you not to do, if you don’t want me going into long explanations of why you’re wrong. And you’re wrong on multiple points, in each paragraph. But you don’t want me leaving long replies, so…

Ken Ammi
You do not need long replies nor any replies since your endeavor fails before it begins due to the nature of your worldview provides no premise upon which you should consider any of this to be the least bit important.


A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.