A taxonomy of atheism

5wize

Well-known member
That is a bad counter to say acts of self-defense are based on moral laws. Most animals, to include humans, instinctually will defend themselves when attacked. It requires no weighing of ethics, or right and wrong. It is: ouch!, his teeth in my flesh hurts,…adrenaline surge, fight or flight, —no moral decision involved.

Try telling a chimp that attacking his neighbor is wrong and he will likely throw poop at you to see you run.
It's not just acts of self defense, but self promotion. Groups of monkeys and apes are found cooperating socially in many ways for their survival beyond fighting.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Well, you could try if you actually had any facts to back it up.
Study a little history and you will find that the leaders of those civilizations were identified as a god or intermediary of the national God who took care of their people. One cannot demonstrate more influence of religion upon daily life than that.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
It's not just acts of self defense, but self promotion. Groups of monkeys and apes are found cooperating socially in many ways for their survival beyond fighting.
So you are now an expert on monkey behavior and cognition?
 

5wize

Well-known member
Study a little history and you will find that the leaders of those civilizations were identified as a god or intermediary of the national God who took care of their people. One cannot demonstrate more influence of religion upon daily life than that.
Well, yes you can. What you need to study is what the thrust of their religion entailed. Was the purpose of the state religion to provide for the people or to merely gain the grace of the gods so they would not fall prey to sickness or famine or defeat in war? Many of the ancient religions had nothing to say about the care of the people beyond invoking some supernatural, yet false, protection over the mysteries of disease, war and famine - and most of that was directed to protect the royalty only anyway. Taking care of the day to day of the populace was a purely secular activity.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
Well, yes you can. What you need to study is what the thrust of their religion entailed. Was the purpose of the state religion to provide for the people or to merely gain the grace of the gods so they would not fall prey to sickness or famine or defeat in war?

Many of the ancient religions had nothing to say about the care of the people beyond invoking some supernatural, yet false, protection over the mysteries of disease, war and famine.
You did exactly what I said you would do after demonstrating religion was a key influence upon those cultures given that the leader was identified as a god caring for its people. You still do not believe it.

If the leader represents the national God and he administers the affairs of state then religion is more than mere superstition. It is your personal bias peeking through, -that every religion is a fake, mindset that you cannot break out of. Someone who was religious really messed you up, didn’t they?
Taking care of the day to day of the populace was a purely secular activity.
 

5wize

Well-known member
You did exactly what I said you would do after demonstrating religion was a key influence upon those cultures given that the leader was identified as a god caring for its people. You still do not believe it.

If the leader represents the national God and he administers the affairs of state then religion is more than mere superstition. It is your personal bias peeking through, -that every religion is a fake, mindset that you cannot break out of. Someone who was religious really messed you up, didn’t they?
I just know that the caring for one's people was not a religious concern is all. It was a perennial social concern regardless of the religiosity of the civilization, so just stick to the arguments.

But if you want to know the history of my disdain for these whack-a-doodle concepts it wasn't that some religious person "did me wrong". It was that I was exposed to soooo many religious/spiritual/other worldly concepts as a youth that by the time I became an adult I had the data. I could smell intellectual garbage a mile away.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I’m excluding personality disorder and disorders of thought here. They pop up everywhere...
Interesting.

The reason I say that is I see a deep commitment to 'morality' among this crowd of atheists.

In the analysis paralysis of the mystery that is man, sometimes the obvious can't be ignored.

Now I don't think you mean the obvious to be nihilistic truth, so I wonder what the disorder would be.

Can 'morality' lead one to believe no God?
 

Algor

Well-known member
I just know that the caring for one's people was not a religious concern is all. It was a perennial social concern regardless of the religiosity of the civilization, so just stick to the arguments.

But if you want to know the history of my disdain for these whack-a-doodle concepts it wasn't that some religious person "did me wrong". It was that I was exposed to soooo many religious/spiritual/other worldly concepts as a youth that by the time I became an adult I had the data. I could smell intellectual garbage a mile away.
I suppose that's a 5th category of atheism: "Run away". I know a guy like this. Parents are really nice folks. I like them quite a bit. Dad is conventionally religious, a serious, studious man, very intelligent, no nonsense, very successful. Mum is one of the nicest, warmest hearted people I know, but honestly a bit...I dunno. She has a lot of odd ideas, and I have to watch my mouth a lot, because I really do like her. Her youngest son is a hoot. "Aw Mum, not this stuff again." and very much an atheist. Finished law school now.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Interesting.

The reason I say that is I see a deep commitment to 'morality' among this crowd of atheists.

In the analysis paralysis of the mystery that is man, sometimes the obvious can't be ignored.

Now I don't think you mean the obvious to be nihilistic truth, so I wonder what the disorder would be.

Can 'morality' lead one to believe no God?
I think part of the obsession with morality is because atheists are frequently accused of not having one, or of not being able to formulate one, or things like that. There's a host of goofy people around here (a Star Trek character and a demi-French medical insider for instance) who go on like that, and I think they are symptomatic of a more prevalent idea.
 

5wize

Well-known member
I suppose that's a 5th category of atheism: "Run away". I know a guy like this. Parents are really nice folks. I like them quite a bit. Dad is conventionally religious, a serious, studious man, very intelligent, no nonsense, very successful. Mum is one of the nicest, warmest hearted people I know, but honestly a bit...I dunno. She has a lot of odd ideas, and I have to watch my mouth a lot, because I really do like her. Her youngest son is a hoot. "Aw Mum, not this stuff again." and very much an atheist. Finished law school now.
Yup... that was me... Mum was quite the "experimenter" in all things spiritual and other-worldly. Saw a lot of odd folk pass my way and attempt to explain the world of the unseen. Then I started noticing that even those that presented as less disheveled internally and externally were basically harboring the same genre of nonsense for some reason. External polish no longer worked for me. It became about the ideas.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I think part of the obsession with morality is because atheists are frequently accused of not having one, or of not being able to formulate one, or things like that. There's a host of goofy people around here (a Star Trek character and a demi-French for instance) who go on like that, and I think they are symptomatic of a more prevalent idea.
I imagine it would be a big goad, especially when it is downright elusive to formulate one from dirt and water.

Kind of a hole hanging out there with no good answer.

I find it impossible to conclude differently than what the preacher concluded, it's all meaningless.

But I just wanted to check, see if there is some new fangled thinkin out there on it.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I imagine it would be a big goad, especially when it is downright elusive to formulate one from dirt and water.

Kind of a hole hanging out there with no good answer.

I find it impossible to conclude differently than what the preacher concluded, it's all meaningless.

But I just wanted to check, see if there is some new fangled thinkin out there on it.
There really isn't much new, as the dude says.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
If an a-theist borrows from religion the Golden rule and claims it for himself/herself then kudos.
Or, religion borrowed it from humans, and gave the credit to its gods.
Religions tried to patent human behaviour that was already public-domain, that's all; writing something down doesn't make it your idea.

(Also, the golden rule is not accurate - "do unto others as they would have you do unto them" is better.)
 
Last edited:

Algor

Well-known member
(Also, the golden rule is not accurate - "do unto others as they would have you do unto them" is better.)
Treating others as they want to be treated is suicide: meet one sociopath and they will suck you dry. The reason most formulations refer to the internal state of the practitioner of the rule is that the practitioner cannot assume the other person to be honest at all, but you can achieve a minimum of honesty in yourself.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I am not saying every atheist is nihilistic because there are many reasons for individuals becoming atheists. Instead, I mean the ideology of atheism is ultimately nihilistic because its definition of good or bad is relative.
There is no "ideology" of atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods, and that's all it is. Any ideology (except a god-based one) may be attached to it.

Since there is no ideology of atheism, it doesn't have a "definition of good or bad". Atheism says nothing at all about good or bad; atheists may hold that morality doesn't exist, exists but is relative, exists but is objective or any other view they care to.

Finally, the definition of good or bad in use has nothing to do with nihilism. Specifically, holding that good and bad is relative does not make one a nihilist.
 

Torin

Well-known member
There is no "ideology" of atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods, and that's all it is. Any ideology (except a god-based one) may be attached to it.

Since there is no ideology of atheism, it doesn't have a "definition of good or bad". Atheism says nothing at all about good or bad; atheists may hold that morality doesn't exist, exists but is relative, exists but is objective or any other view they care to.
This is all correct.

Finally, the definition of good or bad in use has nothing to do with nihilism. Specifically, holding that good and bad is relative does not make one a nihilist.
It's worse: Moral relativism explicitly contradicts moral nihilism!

(Hint: How can something that varies from person to person, or from culture to culture, fail to exist?)
 
Top