Are Atheists who Stand on Morality Conceding God?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Are atheists who stand on some sort of moral principle as absolute, conceding some sort of God?

I'm not saying a bearded man in the sky or even any conscious entity at all, but merely, something deserving of worship. If you say we want to make a society without murder because that will benefit everyone, that is different from saying, murder is wrong, just because, and that's the end of it. By doing the latter, even if the person is supposedly atheist, do they not give the same type of unconditional moral deference to that idea that is wrong "just because" that religious people give to God? Does this premise, that something is wrong just because, not take the space of a god? Is it not gaining faith, and worship?

In other words, I don't care if you worship a cardboard box, the sky, a tree, or a fortune you pulled out of a fortune cookie. If you give faith, you're arguably religious. And whatever you give faith to, is arguably a god.

[Purple Knight]

Logically, scientifically or on evidence, there is no reason for a god

There's no scientific or logical reason for morality that does not further the survival of the organism, either.

[TRANSPONDER]

Logically, scientifically or on evidence, there is no reason for a god

There's no scientific or logical reason for morality that does not further the survival of the organism, either.

I agree. Survival is, I would say, the reason for us to have any instinct, including the religious one. Survival, not necessarily correct understanding.

[1213]

Question for Debate: Are atheists who stand on some sort of moral principle as absolute, conceding some sort of God?
...

I think everyone has something as their god. It is revealed by what rules the person, or and what the person serves with his actions. For example liars serve the father of lies. And if one is ruled by fear, fear is the god of that person.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's semantic equivocation if you like We can call anything we revere, respect and try to live by Our "God" with enough quotes to sink the Scharnhorst.

One can call materialism, critical thinking and evolution the atheist 'god' if you like. It only serves to confuse the issue (deliberately I would guess), does not validate an intelligent creator and only shows that you have no case and have to try (in a very clumsy way) confusing the issue.

This is not at all new, on my Other board there was a poster who tried an argument that because atheists had things that they valued, that was their 'god' and therefore God existed. But of course i believe he was just Winding -up an atheist for Jesus.

[brunumb]

I think everyone has something as their god.

The conventional understanding is that God is a being that some people believe exists. The notion that everyone has "something as their god" is not the same thing and just a feeble attempt to project god-belief into the non-believer. Try demonstrating that God actually exists instead. But, you can't and that's why we get the word games.

[1213]

...Try demonstrating that God actually exists instead. ..

If gravity is demonstrated by showing its effect, can God be demonstrated by showing God's effect?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Try demonstrating that God actually exists instead. ..

If gravity is demonstrated by showing its effect, can God be demonstrated by showing God's effect?

Yes and no. Newton showed the effect and physical laws of gravity, but did not know what it was. Was it some kind of magnetic effect? Was it God's invisible hand pressing us all down? Similarly, we see 'effects' such as misinformation, misunderstanding and arrogance which one might ascribe to God through His followers, but it might just be electromagnetic effects in the neural pathways of the brains of those who get sucked into the religious morass.

No, there is no good reason to see the hand of a god (name your own anyway) in Effects any more than in gravity.

[armchairscholar]

Question for Debate: Are atheists who stand on some sort of moral principle as absolute, conceding some sort of God?

I'm not saying a bearded man in the sky or even any conscious entity at all, but merely, something deserving of worship. If you say we want to make a society without murder because that will benefit everyone, that is different from saying, murder is wrong, just because, and that's the end of it. By doing the latter, even if the person is supposedly atheist, do they not give the same type of unconditional moral deference to that idea that is wrong "just because" that religious people give to God? Does this premise, that something is wrong just because, not take the space of a god? Is it not gaining faith, and worship?

In other words, I don't care if you worship a cardboard box, the sky, a tree, or a fortune you pulled out of a fortune cookie. If you give faith, you're arguably religious. And whatever you give faith to, is arguably a god.

Interesting question you've got about atheists and moral absolutes! I've got some thoughts.

You're onto something when you say that holding moral principles as absolute might be a kind of faith. Humans do seem to need some foundational beliefs to make sense of the world. For religious folks, that's often God. For atheists, it might be moral principles.

But I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling these principles 'gods' or saying atheists are worshipping them. Worship usually involves reverence and ritual that isn't there when someone just believes strongly in a moral idea.

That said, you've got a point about faith. If someone believes something is absolutely true without proof, that's a kind of faith, right? But is that enough to call it religion or god-worship? I'm not so sure.

It reminds me of this idea from a theologian named Paul Tillich - he said whatever someone values most could be considered their 'god'. It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it quite captures what most people mean when they talk about God or religion.

What do you think? It's a tricky question and I'd love to hear your take on it.

[Purple Knight]

It reminds me of this idea from a theologian named Paul Tillich - he said whatever someone values most could be considered their 'god'. It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it quite captures what most people mean when they talk about God or religion.

What do you think? It's a tricky question and I'd love to hear your take on it.

Well, I think it depends on the type of value. I value my cats a lot but I don't worship them. I do a lot for them because I want to, but I never put a should onto it (except that letting an animal starve is something you probably should not do, but that's because someone else could have that animal, could make it happy, and make the animal happy, so letting it starve is wasteful). I think highly of them but I don't worship them - I don't give them moral deference. If one of them tells me to do something, or wants something, if I think it's a bad idea I will try to find another alternative or just say no. I can do that because though I value them very highly, I don't place them morally higher than myself.

But yes, I agree with Tillich if the value put on the thing is moral value. Whatever moral principle has the most value, if there is no evidence that following it brings a benefit, that principle essentially becomes an object of faith, if not an outright god.

The conventional understanding is that God is a being that some people believe exists.

Okay, but we all agree that Osiris doesn't exist and he's still a god. That's categorically what he is. But maybe we shouldn't use something the people originally participating in the fiction didn't think was fiction. So a god out of a fantasy book or MMORPG or something. So let's pick something like Guthix but it doesn't really matter. Categorically these beings are gods.

(I actually argue that existence is not actually a categorical quality that things can be defined by, but rather part of the inherent sphere which logic calls upon, but that's a whole other ball of wax. Kind of. But we can skirt the issue for now by pointing out that some gods, such as those in fantasy literature, unarguably do not exist, and are nevertheless, gods.)

The notion that everyone has "something as their god" is not the same thing and just a feeble attempt to project god-belief into the non-believer. Try demonstrating that God actually exists instead. But, you can't and that's why we get the word games.

Actually I don't think so. I think 1213 is onto something. If I danced around a tree and structured my life by what I thought it wanted, wouldn't I be religious? Maybe you'd name me religious because of the dancing, but if I do this without dancing - without the ritual that earmarks a religion - I'm still just as religious. I'm just sort of hiding it.

And here's the converse question, for you: If there were a subset of Christians who did not provide any moral deference to God or Jesus, did not follow any of the Bible's laws or rules, and simply believed that everything the Bible said happened, actually happened, would you call them religious? I bet you wouldn't, anymore than you'd call people who believe some fantasy book is real are religious. See how I've picked the meat out of a very convoluted and decked-out sandwich?

More in my reply to 1213.

I think everyone has something as their god. It is revealed by what rules the person, or and what the person serves with his actions. For example liars serve the father of lies. And if one is ruled by fear, fear is the god of that person.

Though I admit I'm the oddball here, I don't think I do. It's because I don't believe in this concept of moral lordship. I don't think anybody gets to tell anybody else what to do. You lose me a little when you say a liar serves the god of lies; I just think they're self-serving, because the lie brings them a benefit. Our liar doesn't think he should lie, and should even do so even if it harms him (morally serving lies) he wants to lie, because lying helps him somehow.

But I don't serve any principle like this, nor do I believe in the degree of selfishness our liar does. You, me, and JW believe in not lying. Maybe you do so for moral reasons but I do so for the following reason. In absence of a moral lord, who can tell us what to do, if we like, we can build a society where he is not welcome, and it will succeed while he starves to death because we'll intake all the people he'd prey on. We can't tell him that lying is wrong, but since a society of him and his kind will fall on its face and die, while ours will prosper, who cares?

I'm not serving me. I'm not serving you. I'm not serving God. I'm just doing what is logical.

But the minute I say oh that poor liar he must also have the benefit of our nice society so he does not starve, I am saying Compassion comes first, so I am serving Compassion. It kind of is a god then, because it's a moral lord that gets to tell me what to do. Its dictates are moral law, and my opinion doesn't matter. That's what I think a god is. And a god is worshiped, because worship is, when stripped down, that moral deference owed to a being that is morally superior.

I say it doesn't exist and we're all equal. That makes me the only atheist in the room.

...Try demonstrating that God actually exists instead. ..

If gravity is demonstrated by showing its effect, can God be demonstrated by showing God's effect?

Sure you can. You can First Cause the heck outta that. You can define the thing that causes certain things as God.

But that says nothing about whether it did any of the things the Bible God did, whether it is even conscious, or whether it deserves worship.

[1213]

...Try demonstrating that God actually exists instead. ..

If gravity is demonstrated by showing its effect, can God be demonstrated by showing God's effect?

Yes and no. ..

Can't be both. So I take that as a yes.

I think the effect of God is for example the Bible and the existence of life.