anarchocyclist

DaveJes1979:

Dave: fine. Then you haven't actually presented us with an ethical system that atheists can use to justify moral norms.

What I have done is summarize the scientific findings of a few zoologists who have been searching for a biological (naturalistic) explanation for the development of what humans call "ethics." I'm not attempting to found a new field here, and I don't pretend to have the intellectual or edcational experience of other frequent posters. I have come to the conclusion that the universe explains itself without the need for a deity, and these theories of evolutionary ethics seem sound to me.

anarcho: Apples and oranges. Factual veracity and moral correctness are two different meanings of "rightness." So if you want to start a
semantical debate....

Dave: not at all! There is a moral dimension to all linguistic propositions. This is demonstrated by what I said next:

Even if you are, SHOULD I believe it ("should" implies ethical norms)??

Even so, correctness is different than morality, even if the concepts are linked. I may indeed be "right" (correct) in coming to the conclusion that evolutionary theory adequately explains morality, but this has nothing to do with moral "rightness."

anarcho: Hey, beats me. If it seems to be valid, if it appeals to you, then believe it. I think it's more likely than any explanation which involves a deity.

Dave: "beats me"? Well, that's what happens when you try to seperate epistemology from ethics.

What I meant to say was: You SHOULD believe it if it seems sound to you. To paraphrase a certain effective debater from these very forums (fora? fori? forae? Latin is so confusing), I don't believe; I either know it to be true, know it to be untrue, or come to a conclusion based on the evidence available to me. Such conclusion is subject to change upon the discovery of new evidence. I don't care what you believe, as long as you don't impose it on me. So, no, I guess you shouldn't believe it after all.

Pomp

DaveJes1979,

Quick suggestion: you might want to read up on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=ubb_code_page" target="_blank">UBB Code</a>, if you're not already familiar with it. Your posts would be much easier to read if you'd put the text to which you are responding in either boldface or , so that it could be easily distinguished from your response.

HRG

Where does the theist find a non-arbitrary standard of good? "Good is what God X commands" is as arbitrary as "Good is what the Golden Rule commands".

Actually, the second definition is more objective, because it doesn't single out a specific being.
No. Theists have built a strawman saying that.
"Pure chance" is actually as uniform as possible (all alternatives are equal).
An oversimplification, which should have read "reproduction of the fittest" in the first place - or "survival of the fittest genes".
You assume that there is some Platonic intrinsic standard of "goodness". "Good" is just a word; as all words, its meaning is defined by its use in human language. Since we all want to survive rather than be killed, we have defined survival as "good" = "desirable". Organisms with different defínitions did not leave many descendents.

Of course, the survival of your genes is improved
if you sacrifice yourself to save your three children.

Coming from a theist - whose moral stance is plainly based on "Might makes Right" -, this statement fried a couple of irony meters.
Not at all. Abstract concepts are shorthand for configurations of neurons in our brain, just as the abstract concept of boldface is a shorthand for specific charge patterns in the RAM of your computer.
This strawman has been refuted so often I lost count. We define purpose, rightness and wrongness.
No, it was the scattering of intelligent beings. Intelligence is rare in this universe, which makes it valuable
Your notion of physics is obviously stuck in the 19th century. Quantum processes are not "fatalistic" or "mechanical" in the sense that you are using the words.
Meaning cannot be found, only defined.
And according to naturalism, man has intrinsic worth as an intelligent being. It is Christianity which tells us that we are worthless sinners, remember ?

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!
HRG.

dangin

Dave says: what, then, makes the society intrinsically "good" or "right"? The system you have proposed is simply another variation of "might makes right" ethics. Nor does it even address the issue of inter-societal ethics. Does this system also not hamper moral or civil reform?


Nothing, why should a society be "good or right" We are animals, that have evolved to our current capacity. Our social structure is an outgrowth of our historical social norms, mixed with the slight differences of our cultural mythologies. But the core of our preliterate, prehistorical social norms remain the most important. This is why murder, assault, and home invasion are more serious crimes than drug use, masturbation, and other consenting sexual pecadillos.

Moral and civil reform is hampered by religion. Look at the Taliban, they want the world to be a 13th century islamic theocracy. Is that a good reform, or a shitty one? Christians are really no different, just the date they want modern society rolled back to is about 1952 on average I would guess.

Social, medical, and scientific reform is held back by the stubborn mule of religion at every front. But its nice and hypocritical of you to try to turn that around.

Philosoft

Dave: God is a non-arbitrary standard because He is, by nature, eternally and perfectly good. Goodness is one of his attributes. Nor do His decrees have to "align with our inherent motivations" in order for them to be normative standards of good.

You're not applying your standards consistently. If God is a being, distinct from other beings, the very fact that other beings have differing standards of goodness invalidates your argument. It is not logically possible to deny an 'objective standard of goodness' yet we, as distinct beings, obviously do so regularly. It seems to me theists like to throw around this word 'objective' willy-nilly without a good grasp of its meaning.

<strong>Dave: yet many of the atheists I have talked to speak of "chance" as if it was a governing universal in their worldview.</strong>

I so hate to be accusatory, but this is either a misunderstanding or a lie. It doesn't even make any sense to say "chance" can be a basis for subjective morals.

Dave: the great thing about God is that He is not only MIGHT, but He is also, by nature, right, good, and just.

The logical incompatibility of these characteristics notwithstanding, we are still forced to take His word that he will employ these standards in His judgement because His standards are by definition His and not ours.

Dave: ahhh, but God's decrees are a manifestation of His own eternal nature. And God's eternal nature is not contingent.

Whatever this means, it is clearly a non-sequitur. God's nature has nothing to do with it. If his decree is required for our worth, then our worth is not intrinsic by definition. If God can take away our worth (and I must presume he can), then our worth is not intrinsic, by definition.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi Dave,
Just a few questions here to break up the monotony.

1. First, I think you owe us an answer to why any standard of good must necessarily be, or even can be, non-arbitrary. All standards are open to interpretation automatically flinging open the door to the question of arbitrariness. You mentioned the WTC incident: The perpetrators of this crime were following a system of beliefs which included a standard of good rooted in their version of God. Yet they found no non-arbitrary reasoning to hinder them from committing murder. In fact, they arbitrated their system into an exception to the rule. There are always exceptions aren’t there? And where an exception is, a violation of the original intent is soon to follow.

rw: Regardless of how you dress up your version of the “highest authority” it is impossible to attain to a non-arbitrary system UNLESS that higher authority is there to ENFORCE it. It’s one thing to establish a systematic set of rules. It’s another to get everyone to agree to their “rightness”. It’s quite another to get everyone to COMPLY with them. And the very fact that non-compliance exists demonstrates the utter futility of attempting to establish a non-arbitrary systematic moral code. There will always be the exception and once invoked, the entire artifice crumbles.

rw: I am glad to hear you concede that. Are you willing to admit that chance and randomness are also very real attributes of human existence? If so, then I would ask you how you propose to concoct a systematic code of morals based on a supernatural authoritarian edict, capable of fluctuating with the reality of chance and randomness; a code that is anything more than just words on paper? So long as it is left up to man to ENFORCE those words on paper, the code will always be susceptible to exception and interpretation, thus effectively negating any rights conferred by a claim of supernatural origination.

Christians have no right to claim moral superiority for their code so long as it is left to man to enforce it. Now when you convince your god to step in and take responsibility for enforcement, you will have a moral leg to stand on, otherwise, you’re argument is a red herring.

Your entire argument for a non-arbitrary system is a straw man argument. The only basis for the establishment of what is right and wrong is grounded in the law of cause and effect and humanities willingness to learn from the effects/consequences. Until a supernatural deity deems it necessary to personally address the issue of enforcement, man is ultimately responsible for his behavior.

rw: The only “ONE” who allows his mind to wonder upon such a question is the “ONE” who’s never faced the question of his own mortality. Such as “ONE” who’s youth has deceived him or such a “ONE” who has bought into the belief of an after-life, from which such questions as the value of this life find their voice. Existence/non-existence is, and will always be, the final arbiter in the question of good and evil. The only way to circumvent this fact of reality is by deception.

rw: Well sir, when you invoke a SOVEREIGN deity whose might makes him right your claim of superior moral positioning is supported…how?

rw: And where, pray tell, have you come across such an errant assessment? All matter has attributes. Abstract conceptualization just happens to be one of the attributes of matter that has collected itself into the form of a human being.

rw: Perish the thought! It is, and has always been, up to humanity to ascribe a purpose for its own existence and to discover WHY things happen. Morality does not determine the things that happen, it only ascribes a value to them in relation to the continued existence of the people to whom they happen. There is no INTRINSIC good or evil residing in a man. All such valuations are a product of ideas that reside within the man. All one needs to reassign those values is to produce better ideas. Take away a man’s ability to reassign better values and no better values will ever surface. Do you hold that this code of morals allegedly established by this invisible, non-participatory god are the best value assignments available? If so, then perhaps you would care to explain the bloody history of humanity that has labored under such value assignments for the better part of its civilized history. In a stand-up comparison between atheistic and theistic moral values who do you think will get the gold medal for most bloodshed in a single century?

Now I’m certain your rote response will be something to the effect that the code is righteous but the men who embraced it were not. Of course, the fact that your god hasn’t lifted a finger to enforce this code has nothing to do with it. He’s established a church of well meaning people to enforce it for him. Of course us humans shouldn’t expect a code of such noble origins to have the power to influence men away from bloodshed that it decries as being evil. Such a non-arbitrary code as this should have some power over its constituency…shouldn’t it? But it ultimately confers that power into the hands of its constituents. And the trance dance continues among the flock.

rw: Yes, this was simply such, in a rather simplistic view. Are you claiming that a belief in God as the moral authority will somehow rearrange this human protoplasm into its original condition? Or would have somehow prevented it from happening? Wasn’t it perpetrated in the name of a god? Methinks you chose a bad example.

rw: Yes, in a rather simplistic, seeking-to-stuff-a-strawman-view it was. Would a belief in god or his authority to establish morals have prevented the matter from moving in a mechanically predictive pattern? The perpetrators all believed in their version of this god and it didn’t prevent them from being the cause, in fact, it actually provided them with the incentive. So tell me again how superior a code of morals established by a non-participatory deity is to a humanly established experientially devised constitution that promotes nothing more than a man’s right to live in peace and freedom.

rw: Because it rises as tall as the twin towers it destroyed as another clear example of the atrocities permitted under such authoritarian moral dictates.


rw: Oh, I beg the differ. One can find meaning in this that YOU don’t want to hear.

rw: That’s it! Because man was made in god’s image? That’s the only fucking reason a Christian recognizes this as a tragic loss! Are you really presenting this as a viable argument? If that is the extent of a christian’s heart how in the hell do you relate such a view with Christ? Ahhhh, there went another picture of god down the tubes…such a tragic loss. These were human fucking beings. If your god is so worried about his image why in hell didn’t the lazy bastard do something to prevent this atrocity? (Damn I’m glad I came to my senses in time to get the hell out of that mess.) So your superior non-arbitrary moral position equates to:

1. Human beings/people aren’t worth a shit

2. Only god’s image (whatever the hell that means) is qualified to produce any emotional response to mass murder.

rw: Bullshit. Man has no intrinsic worth until he creates his own. Man is born as a value to his parents. All he does is eat, sleep, shit and whine. But his parents endure this in the hopes of seeing him grow up and become a man of more self created worth than they achieved in their lives. Such a man to make them proud.

rw: And you are not likely to ever change that belief either.

DaveJes1979

jlowder:

This begs the question. You still haven't provided an argument for the conclusion that an objective ethics requires God.

Dave: because, by default, if one abandons the universal God, one must turn to a non-universal. Thus, non-objective.

jlowder: "Since atheists don't have a universal?" Please clarify what that means. I have already stated that necessary ethical truths are compatible with atheism. I don't see why I need to show anything else.

Dave: in order for a system to be objective, there has to be a universal to ground one's norms in. If you turn to a non-universal, then all you have is preference (according to the subject), or convention (according to a finite set of non-universals). But what makes a preference or convention true or non-arbitrary?

jlowder: I have interacted with what you have said in general by pointing out that ethical truths are necessary truths which need no explanation. I have interacted with what you have said in particular by pointing out 3 different normative,
objective ethical systems that are compatible with atheism: utilitarianism, Kant's deontological ethics, and Tara Smith's highly nuanced ethical egoism.

Dave: I believe ethical truths are necessary also. This is not what divides us, though. Utiliarianism, I have already criticised. Kant's, I am familair with. But I must say that Tara Smith's ethical egoism is a bit obscure. Care to explain? Actually, it would be most helpful for you to pick an ethical system which you actually think is defensible rather than throwing out ethical systems which merely formally claim to be objective.


jlowder: Shouting the assertion in all capital letters isn't a substitute for argumentation. What is the argument for that conclusion?

Dave: I am just stating that this is what the Christian conception of God entails. I did not realize that typing in caps = shouting, rather than emphasis.


jlowder: Another assertion without argument. The fact of the matter is that no theist has ever been able to come up with a sound argument for God's necessary existence. God's existence is not necessary. You may not like it, but there are logically possible worlds in which God does not exist.

Dave: I deny this on the basis of the transcendental argumentation that I have maintained in this thread. God's existence is the necessary precondition of any knowledge or meaning whatsoever. Thus, this deals with "all possible worlds". I have argued for this claim by pointing out that God's existence is necessary to account for morality, in particular. I would argue similar for any other form of knowledge (logic, induction, science, etc.)

jlowder: You are conflating meta-ethics with normative ethics:

Dave: actually, I am simply trying to point out that one cannot discuss meta-ethical issues "in a vacuum," without addressing particulars in normative ethics. I criticize any "meta" study (ethical or not) that feels it can operate this way. It is a sort of epistemological platonism, where the "one" is emphasized without reguard for the "many" (if you follow what I am getting at).

What good is it if meta-ethics tells us that "theoretically", an atheistic objective ethical system can exist - yet, the moment one examines the possible foundations of such an ethical system, it is found that these "objective" basis' are not objective at all, or at least arbitrary, incoherent, or non-meaningful????? When has not bridged the theory with reality.

jlowder: This is false. There are 2 things that secular objective ethics have in common, and I can identify both characeristics for you:

(1) Such ethical systems are autonomous -- they are independent of God.

Dave: this is only a negative assertion, though. It does not construct a positive system.

jlowder: (2) Such ethical systems hold that ethical propositions are objectively true or false -- the truth of ethical propositions is independent of anyone's opinion about such propositions

Dave: but this just repeats your meta-ethical claim. It still begs the question, "what does such a system [that has such a quality] look like?"


jlowder: I have great respect for Richard Dawkins. I agree with the statement you quote, but note that unpredictable doesn't necessarily mean "random." Since humans are not omniscient, it may well be the case that an event is unpredictable given our lack of knowledge, yet determined (and hence non-random) by mechanistic causes.

Dave: yes, I did take not of that nuance in the wording Dawkins used. But I think that, in the context of Dawkins' discussion, it seems to me that "unpredictability" entails inherent randomness in the universe. It would not have made sense for him to comment that it is "unpredictable" because of the fact that humans have only finite knowledge. Perhaps this quote is contestable. I'll let you make that judgement call yourself.

jlowder: Re-reading your original question, I now think I misunderstood your question. I don't think sensory data is "the standard" or even part of "the standard," if by "the standard" you mean the normative standard according to which actions are judged. Sensory data is factual information. Sensory data is relevant in the sense that it can help determine whether a given moral principle is relevant. For example, consider the principle, "One should not inflict pain or death on innocent people when no greater good will result." Such a principle is not based on sensory data, but sensory data can help us to determine when that principle is relevant.

Dave: very well. I would even agree with that understanding of sensory data. But the question of normativity still lurks.


jlowder: I don't follow you at all. I don't know if this is the case, but perhaps the issue is that you feel an atheistic objective ethics must be grounded in atheism, just as theistic objective ethics must be grounded in theism? If so, I should point out that I don't believe atheism, naturalism or materialism can be the foundation of objective ethics.

Dave: what I mean is this: what does the atheist ground his moral norms in? I then ask myself this: since God does not exist in the atheistic worldview - WHAT DOES exist in the atheist worldview that an atheist might use to ground their ethical norms in? You are going to have to find a "foundation of objective ethics" somewhere in your atheistic worldview.

jlowder: Because it is objectively morally wrong that thousands die, families be destroyed, etc. The terrorists had no right to do what they did.

Dave: but why is it "objectively morally wrong", and why did the terrorists "have no right"?? You are trying to answer ethical questions with meta-ethical statements.


Datheron: And here is what I find:

Atheists have tried to substitute God with "chance" or "randomness" as ultimate principles controlling the universe....

So if the materialist tells me that matter is all there is to the universe...

Strawman equivocation? You tell me.

Dave: Carl Sagan once stated that "the comos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." That is classic materialism.


Datheron: You label it right on the forehead, and you still don't see the emotional appeal? Why use the WTC attacks? Furthermore, what of the theists that created the destruction in the first place, hm?

Dave: well, you are welcome to substitute any other injustice with "the WTC attacks" that you would like. It seems to me that almost any injustice will illict some emotion, so it is true that there is an emotional ELEMENT to those sorts of illustrations.

Considering the Islam theists who created that destruction - I would say that this is what happens when one worship a false god (Allah) rather than the true God. Abandoning the One True God leads to futility always - whether one be atheist or Muslim.

Datheron: Anyway, to answer your question, the simple question is that humans consider human life valuable. Every person on the face of this planet can tell you this without the need for any God or any guiding deity.

Dave: will Bin Laden tell you that all human life is valuable? Even if that were so, the question remains - WHY do you, or "every person on the face of this planet" consider human life valuable?


quote:
Datheron: Once again, you're already claiming to know that matter and abstract concepts cannot mix. This can only be the case if we already know all that matter can do and entrail. Unless you do, the claim is baseless.

Dave: I never said "matter and abstract concepts cannot mix". I believe that both exist. Materialists deny only that the former exists, and that the latter does not.

anarcho: What I have done is summarize the scientific findings of a few zoologists who have been searching for a biological (naturalistic) explanation for the development of what humans call "ethics." I'm not attempting to found a new field here, and I don't pretend to have the intellectual or edcational experience of other frequent posters. I have come to the conclusion that the universe explains itself without the need for a deity, and these theories of evolutionary ethics seem sound to me.

Dave: and this STILL leaves you with no defensible ethical system.

anarcho: Even so, correctness is different than morality, even if the concepts are linked. I may indeed be "right" (correct) in coming to the conclusion that evolutionary theory adequately explains morality, but this has nothing to do with moral "rightness."

Dave: they are indeed linked, as you point out. But this contradicts your claim that "this has NOTHING to do with moral righteness."

anarcho: What I meant to say was: You SHOULD believe it if it seems sound to you.

Dave: why should I believe something if it "seems sounds" to me? What is soundness? All of these things presuppose an ethical system - the very thing you have not provided!

anarcho: To paraphrase a certain effective debater from these very forums (fora? fori? forae? Latin is so confusing), I don't believe; I either know it to be true, know it to be untrue, or come to a conclusion based on the evidence available to me. Such conclusion is subject to change upon the discovery of new evidence. I don't care what you believe, as long as you don't impose it on me. So, no, I guess you shouldn't believe it after all.

Dave: indeed, I shouldn't. Unfortunately, your appeal that I shouldn't "impose" my beliefs on you ignores the fact that we don't live in a sociological vacuum. Any contact we have with others can potentially involve imposition. Of course, we ought to have ethical systems that guide us, so that we don't wrongfully impose ourselves when that happens!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6 | From: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

MadBastard: DaveJes1979,
Quick suggestion: you might want to read up on UBB Code, if you're not already familiar with it. Your posts would be much easier to read if you'd put the text to which you are responding in either boldface or

Dave: my apologies. I will attempt to do this from now on. I'm getting used to this forum's interface.

HRG:Where does the theist find a non-arbitrary standard of good? "Good is what God X commands" is as arbitrary as "Good is what the Golden Rule commands".
Actually, the second definition is more objective, because it doesn't single out a specific being.

Dave: the first definition is not arbitrary because of the fact that God's NATURE is good. Thus, what he commands is good. The second is not any more "objective", because it simply happens to "single out" an impersonal, abstract rule rather than a personal being.

HRG: "Pure chance" is actually as uniform as possible (all alternatives are equal).

Dave: so are you defending the idea of the existence of "pure chance"?? If so, then I think that you have proven that my argument does not employ a strawman.

HRG: An oversimplification, which should have read "reproduction of the fittest" in the first place - or "survival of the fittest genes".

Dave: if I am oversimplifying things- then what precisely am I missing?

HRG: You assume that there is some Platonic intrinsic standard of "goodness". "Good" is just a word; as all words, its meaning is defined by its use in human language. Since we all want to survive rather than be killed, we have defined survival as "good" = "desirable". Organisms with different defínitions did not leave many descendents.
Of course, the survival of your genes is improved
if you sacrifice yourself to save your three children.

Dave: the person who commits suicide is not intent on survival. That is not "desirable" for him/her. So survival is not even a universally desirable principle. The suicidal person is much more of an existentialist - looking for the cessation of negative sensory data or mental states (unhappiness).


HRG: Coming from a theist - whose moral stance is plainly based on "Might makes Right" -, this statement fried a couple of irony meters.

Dave: well, you still did not deal with my critique of utilitarianism. Not only that, but your criticism is not warranted, since God is not "right" because He is more powerful. He certainly is powerful. But God is "right" because He is Truth itself - by nature. He is the standard of good.

HRG: Not at all. Abstract concepts are shorthand for configurations of neurons in our brain, just as the abstract concept of boldface is a shorthand for specific charge patterns in the RAM of your computer.

Dave: then those abstract concepts are not abstract at all, they are material. Your "shorthand" makes the term "abstract" meaningless.

HRG: This strawman has been refuted so often I lost count. We define purpose, rightness and wrongness.

Dave: but the question is this: on WHAT BASIS do you define those things? I contend that you have no coherent basis (as I have been arguing all along). Thus, my argument is not a "strawman", it is a reductio ad absurdum.

HRG: No, it was the scattering of intelligent beings. Intelligence is rare in this universe, which makes it valuable

Dave: so are those more intelligent more valuable?

quote:
HRG: Your notion of physics is obviously stuck in the 19th century. Quantum processes are not "fatalistic" or "mechanical" in the sense that you are using the words.

Dave: whether your physics is governed by newtonian, relativistic, or quantum mathematics, it is still mechanical. That is unless, of course, you want to appeal to chaos or randomness to account for certain phenomena.

HRG: Meaning cannot be found, only defined.

Dave: what makes a social, linguistic convention meaningful, non-arbitrary, or consistent?

HRG: And according to naturalism, man has intrinsic worth as an intelligent being. It is Christianity which tells us that we are worthless sinners, remember ?
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!
HRG.

Dave: as sinners, we are certainly repugnant to God and we deserve only wrath. Nonetheless, God's image does remain in us, although we have corrupted this image.


dangin: Nothing, why should a society be "good or right" We are animals, that have evolved to our current capacity. Our social structure is an outgrowth of our historical social norms, mixed with the slight differences of our cultural mythologies. But the core of our preliterate, prehistorical social norms remain the most important. This is why murder, assault, and home invasion are more serious crimes than drug use, masturbation, and other consenting sexual pecadillos.

Dave: but what makes our "prehistorical" social norms "right"? Is historical precedent the standard? If so, why?

dangin: Moral and civil reform is hampered by religion. Look at the Taliban, they want the world to be a 13th century islamic theocracy. Is that a good reform, or a shitty one? Christians are really no different, just the date they want modern society rolled back to is about 1952 on average I would guess.

Dave: actually, Martin Luther King, being a Baptist minister, lead the way for civil reform based on his convictions, derived from the teachings of Christ.

dangin: Social, medical, and scientific reform is held back by the stubborn mule of religion at every front. But its nice and hypocritical of you to try to turn that around.

Dave: these are very "broad-brush" criticsms. What exactly are you talking about? How do you define reform?

Dave: God is a non-arbitrary standard because He is, by nature, eternally and perfectly good. Goodness is one of his attributes. Nor do His decrees have to "align with our inherent motivations" in order for them to be normative standards of good.

philo: You're not applying your standards consistently. If God is a being, distinct from other beings, the very fact that other beings have differing standards of goodness invalidates your argument. It is not logically possible to deny an 'objective standard of goodness' yet we, as distinct beings, obviously do so regularly. It seems to me theists like to throw around this word 'objective' willy-nilly without a good grasp of its meaning.

Dave: You have left out the fact that human beings are NOT, by nature, good. Much less are they, by nature, perfectly good. Furthermore, created beings are both ontologically, epistemologically, and ethically dependent upon the only authoratative standard, from which all meaning derives - God. God created the universe and made the rules. The standards that His creatures hold to must conform with God's standards.

philo: I so hate to be accusatory, but this is either a misunderstanding or a lie. It doesn't even make any sense to say "chance" can be a basis for subjective morals.

Dave: I was not saying that I have met atheists who explicitly affirm that "chance is a basis for subjective morals".


philo: The logical incompatibility of these characteristics notwithstanding, we are still forced to take His word that he will employ these standards in His judgement because His standards are by definition His and not ours.

Dave: yes, we must take God's word, because His word is the necessary precondition for humans to have any meaningful, non-arbitrary, coherent moral norms.

Dave: ahhh, but God's decrees are a manifestation of His own eternal nature. And God's eternal nature is not contingent.

Whatever this means, it is clearly a non-sequitur. God's nature has nothing to do with it. If his decree is required for our worth, then our worth is not intrinsic by definition. If God can take away our worth (and I must presume he can), then our worth is not intrinsic, by definition.

Dave: you say "whatever this means"...and then you say it is non-sequitur?? You need to understand what I said before you can charge me with such a thing! In any case, you are simply not understanding that my defenition of "intrinsic" simply means "inherent to our nature". But it is indeed God who is the author of our nature.

Dave Gadbois

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: DaveJes1979 ]</p>

DaveJes1979

rainbow: 1. First, I think you owe us an answer to why any standard of good must necessarily be, or even can be, non-arbitrary. All standards are open to interpretation automatically flinging open the door to the question of arbitrariness.

Dave: interpretation deals with the subjective problems of knowledge. That is a different discussion from the fact that an objective source of knowledge must be non-arbitrary. One cannot derive meaning, value, or authority from arbitrary sources.

rainbow: You mentioned the WTC incident: The perpetrators of this crime were following a system of beliefs which included a standard of good rooted in their version of God. Yet they found no non-arbitrary reasoning to hinder them from committing murder. In fact, they arbitrated their system into an exception to the rule. There are always exceptions aren’t there? And where an exception is, a violation of the original intent is soon to follow.

Dave: I would argue that their worldview was defective, based on their defective view of God, derived from the Quran and the general Islamic worldview.

rw: Regardless of how you dress up your version of the “highest authority” it is impossible to attain to a non-arbitrary system UNLESS that higher authority is there to ENFORCE it. It’s one thing to establish a systematic set of rules. It’s another to get everyone to agree to their “rightness”. It’s quite another to get everyone to COMPLY with them. And the very fact that non-compliance exists demonstrates the utter futility of attempting to establish a non-arbitrary systematic moral code. There will always be the exception and once invoked, the entire artifice crumbles.

Dave: so, basically you are telling me that there is no such thing as a set of rules (that are not arbitrary) if rule-breakers exist???? Are you joking?


rw: I am glad to hear you concede that. Are you willing to admit that chance and randomness are also very real attributes of human existence?

Dave: I deny that chance has ontological existence. Chance is merely a way of describing our ignorance - our failure to predict certain results.

rw: Christians have no right to claim moral superiority for their code so long as it is left to man to enforce it.

Dave: why?

rw: Now when you convince your god to step in and take responsibility for enforcement, you will have a moral leg to stand on, otherwise, you’re argument is a red herring.

Dave: hmmm...if your idea of "enforcement" is that God must completely prevent any lawbreaking, or that he must immediately punish lawbreaking, I say your understanding is defective. God will enforce His laws as He sees fit. Even those who "get away" with evil in this life will surely not go unpunished in the life to come. God will repay.

rw: Your entire argument for a non-arbitrary system is a straw man argument.

Dave: and, precisely, what straw man am I burning?

rw: The only basis for the establishment of what is right and wrong is grounded in the law of cause and effect and humanities willingness to learn from the effects/consequences. Until a supernatural deity deems it necessary to personally address the issue of enforcement, man is ultimately responsible for his behavior.

Dave: but your ethical system begs the question - what is a "right" or "wrong" effect/consequence??? And I agree with you when you say "man is ultimately responsible for his behavior." Man is to blame for evil, not God.

rw: The only “ONE” who allows his mind to wonder upon such a question is the “ONE” who’s never faced the question of his own mortality. Such as “ONE” who’s youth has deceived him or such a “ONE” who has bought into the belief of an after-life, from which such questions as the value of this life find their voice. Existence/non-existence is, and will always be, the final arbiter in the question of good and evil. The only way to circumvent this fact of reality is by deception.

Dave: is that supposed to be a meaningful argument? Again, what makes existence good? Suicidal people would disagree with that proposition. Or perhaps only CERTAIN people should exist. But then, how does one decide which people should survive? This ethical system raises more questions than it can answer.

rw: Well sir, when you invoke a SOVEREIGN deity whose might makes him right your claim of superior moral positioning is supported…how?

Dave: I never claimed that God's might makes Him right. The fact that God is, by nature, eternally and perfectly good, is the basis on which He is "right".

rw: And where, pray tell, have you come across such an errant assessment? All matter has attributes. Abstract conceptualization just happens to be one of the attributes of matter that has collected itself into the form of a human being.

Dave: that "errant assessment" is part and parcel of materialism. Read my post above, where I address this, and quote Carl Sagan. Your defenition of abstract conceptualization entails that there are no abstract concepts, since you defined it in purely materialistic terms!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave: Under these presuppositions, things JUST HAPPEN. Its all matter in motion, with no purpose, "rightness", or "wrongness" about it. One has to abandon morality - indeed all thought - as a result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rw: Perish the thought! It is, and has always been, up to humanity to ascribe a purpose for its own existence and to discover WHY things happen.

Dave: what I am asking, is ON WHAT BASIS one "ascribes a purpose" to existence. What non-arbitrary basis do you use to do such a thing. I have argued that the atheist does not have one.

rw: Morality does not determine the things that happen, it only ascribes a value to them in relation to the continued existence of the people to whom they happen. There is no INTRINSIC good or evil residing in a man. All such valuations are a product of ideas that reside within the man. All one needs to reassign those values is to produce better ideas.

Dave: this begs the question of what a "better idea" is. If there is no intrinsic good or evil in the universe, then what would make me adopt your values anyway?

rw: Take away a man’s ability to reassign better values and no better values will ever surface. Do you hold that this code of morals allegedly established by this invisible, non-participatory god are the best value assignments available?

Dave: yes, God certainly does establish this code of morals. I deny that God is non-participatory, simply because He is invisible and doesn't see fit to send lightning bolts down on all lawbreakers.

rw: If so, then perhaps you would care to explain the bloody history of humanity that has labored under such value assignments for the better part of its civilized history. In a stand-up comparison between atheistic and theistic moral values who do you think will get the gold medal for most bloodshed in a single century?

Dave: this is a very broad-brush criticism. You will have to be more specfic. What bloodshed? Certain bloodshed is endorsed by God as necessary to establish and defend human rights. Many forms of bloodshed are not.

rw: Now I’m certain your rote response will be something to the effect that the code is righteous but the men who embraced it were not. Of course, the fact that your god hasn’t lifted a finger to enforce this code has nothing to do with it. He’s established a church of well meaning people to enforce it for him. Of course us humans shouldn’t expect a code of such noble origins to have the power to influence men away from bloodshed that it decries as being evil. Such a non-arbitrary code as this should have some power over its constituency…shouldn’t it?

Dave: the Scriptures certainly do have power of God's "constituency". Of course, I don't believe that those who are truly a part of God's "constituency" would participate in atrocities. There are those who formally attach themselves to Christianity, who do not care for, nor follow, any consistent expression of Christian ethics. Even those who are of God's "constituency", do not follow God's laws perfectly. The Scriptures cannot undo the power of sin. When Christ comes again, He will put an end to sin Himself forever.


rw: Yes, this was simply such, in a rather simplistic view.

Dave: Ok. Simplistic or not, how do you get from "scattering protoplasm" to attach the significance of a moral evil to it?

rw: Are you claiming that a belief in God as the moral authority will somehow rearrange this human protoplasm into its original condition?

Dave: no, but a believe in God's moral authority gives us reason to be morally disgusted at such an event because of God's law being violated, and because those who are made in God's image are being destroyed.

rw: Or would have somehow prevented it from happening? Wasn’t it perpetrated in the name of a god? Methinks you chose a bad example.

Dave: Allah is not the true God. Of course, a false god cannot provide a coherent basis for morality any more than atheism can.

rw: Yes, in a rather simplistic, seeking-to-stuff-a-strawman-view it was. Would a belief in god or his authority to establish morals have prevented the matter from moving in a mechanically predictive pattern?

Dave: prevention is not the issue here. How does one establish an ethical system that comdemns such events?

rw: The perpetrators all believed in their version of this god and it didn’t prevent them from being the cause, in fact, it actually provided them with the incentive. So tell me again how superior a code of morals established by a non-participatory deity is to a humanly established experientially devised constitution that promotes nothing more than a man’s right to live in peace and freedom.

Dave: again, a false god cannot, nor do I expect to, provide a foundation for ethical living or prevent unethical living. And I fail to see how an "experientially devised" constitution can truly be derived from experience. It is experience itself that must be interpreted. But with what ethical framework does one interpret history? What constitutes "good" history that we should follow as an example, vs. "bad" history that we should avoid?

rw: Because it rises as tall as the twin towers it destroyed as another clear example of the atrocities permitted under such authoritarian moral dictates.

Dave: and what makes this an "atrocity"??

rw: Oh, I beg the differ. One can find meaning in this that YOU don’t want to hear.

Dave: where do you find meaning in it, then?

rw: That’s it! Because man was made in god’s image? That’s the only fucking reason a Christian recognizes this as a tragic loss! Are you really presenting this as a viable argument? If that is the extent of a christian’s heart how in the hell do you relate such a view with Christ? Ahhhh, there went another picture of god down the tubes…such a tragic loss. These were human fucking beings. If your god is so worried about his image why in hell didn’t the lazy bastard do something to prevent this atrocity? (Damn I’m glad I came to my senses in time to get the hell out of that mess.)

Dave: I'm trying to find a rational line of argumentation amidst this very emotional rant. Alas...


rw: So your superior non-arbitrary moral position equates to:

1. Human beings/people aren’t worth a shit

Dave: how does that follow from what I stated?? I said just the opposite.

rw: 2. Only god’s image (whatever the hell that means) is qualified to produce any emotional response to mass murder.

Dave: well, you don't exactly get upset when a forest burns down, do you? Of course not. Forests are not made in God's image. Only humans are. Like God, we have consciousness, we are persons, we have feelings, intentions, volitions, and so forth. We are God's crowning work of creation. We are His ambassadors on this earth. We are creatures that He desires a relationship with, and obedience from. Thus, we derive our worth and meaning from God.

rw: Bullshit. Man has no intrinsic worth until he creates his own.

Dave: so men have no worth who have not yet created their own worth?

rw: Man is born as a value to his parents.

Dave: this is not always the case.


Dave Gadbois

rainbow walking

Dave: interpretation deals with the subjective problems of knowledge. That is a different discussion from the fact that an objective source of knowledge must be non-arbitrary. One cannot derive meaning, value, or authority from arbitrary sources.

Rw: All knowledge is subjective and must be internalized to become a working system of values and beliefs and thus problematic. A moral code is no different. Attempting to sweep the problem under the subjective rug doesn’t liberate us from the reality that any moral system, established by whomever, will always be subject to interpretation and hence open to arbitrariness, especially in application. You can’t tell me the church hasn’t dealt with this problem since its inception. It doesn’t matter if the morals are perfect and match the needs of all humans. The arbitrariness will surface in the enforcement of those moral values…every time. Is it “good” to interpret something that’s beneficial to all humans in such a way as to benefit a minority of humans at the expense of all other humans? The problem with attributing a particular moral code to a god who may or may not even exist is that you render it an exclusivity it doesn’t warrant. For such a code to truly be accepted as non-arbitrary requires everyone to believe it came from god. Never mind you have no evidence to support this contention the real problem flows from the fact that not everyone wants to believe in god and join his exclusive club. Those who do not, you claim, cannot devise a non-arbitrary moral code. Well, you’re right, because there is no such animal.

Those of us who don’t belong to his club have learned that we live by our wits and must arbitrate our lives on a daily basis. We also know that we want to live as free moral agents and pursue our own aspirations. We know that we are a community creature and recognize that this explains the necessity for arbitration among our fellow man. We have been around long enough to know that men establish and enforce their particular rules and regulations whenever it becomes beneficial to do so but will wink at some and condemn others. We have seen this to be a universal tendency regardless of race, creed, religion or sex. And this is just one reason why we prefer arbitration.

We know that his club demands we begin our lives anew under the tenet that we are damnable creatures worthy of death and incapable of regulating our own behavior without his clubs constant monitoring for which it exacts a tithe and various other commitments.
We know that we are not perfect and we harbor no illusions to that affect but we value our lives and do not consider ourselves damned nor stricken with any invisible disease. We know that taking another human life is wrong because we value our own lives and this is the basis of our code that deems murder to be wrong. We don’t need an imaginary god to tell us this. We know that condemning us as sinful only clouds our ability to value ourselves enough to transfer that value to others. We do not need a non-arbitrary moral code, even if such a beast could be devised, because we know that we live in a world regulated by chance and conflict and such a code would hamstring our progeny such that they could not adapt to any changes brought about by the cumulative effect of our community existence. We prefer adopting our own knowledge base of what is good and or evil without closing the door to arbitration to protect our children from the excesses and concentrations of power such a code would accumulate and vest into the hands of men who belong to his club. We have already adopted some of the basic tenets of this code because we believe they are valid enough to establish as our own. We don’t need to believe they came from god or join his club to adopt them. We can base our standard of good on what’s required to sustain human life and liberty for both the individual and the community. We take responsibility for our behavior and for the enforcement of such code as we establish. We also establish a means whereby the dictates of our code can be arbitrated in the event we find that a specific regulation has failed to achieve the desired result.

Dave: I would argue that their worldview was defective, based on their defective view of God, derived from the Quran and the general Islamic worldview.

Rw: Do you think Christians have never perpetrated atrocities in the name of god? I would argue that any worldview that begins by damning its constituency is defective regardless of how it’s packaged.

Dave: so, basically you are telling me that there is no such thing as a set of rules (that are not arbitrary) if rule-breakers exist???? Are you joking?

Rw: I’m telling you that “not arbitrary” is a pipe dream and a big fat juicy worm designed to reel in the unsuspecting listener to voluntarily join your club. Do you seriously think we needed a god to tell us that murder is wrong? Do you seriously think humanity is incapable of learning right from wrong and establish a moral code based on their experience? Why do you believe that a moral code must be sold to the public as having been authored by a higher authority than man? Could it have something to do with the basic tenet that all humanity is born evil and therefore unfit to dictate what is good or not good? What if this isn’t true? What if there is no god and all you’ve got is a book containing some occasional references to basic human decency and it was all compiled by men who, for whatever reason, began to package it as a moral dictate from god? What would this do to your higher authority claim of non-arbitrariness? What if this were conclusively proven tomorrow? Would you automatically begin to hurt people to secure your own pleasure? Would you murder at whim?

Dave: I deny that chance has ontological existence. Chance is merely a way of describing our ignorance - our failure to predict certain results.

Rw: I don’t care how you define it, whether you blame humanity for not being omniscient or just accept it as a fact of reality, it remains a powerful influence over the affairs of man. It is curious that you see it as a human failure though; do you see anything good in humanity?

Dave: why?

Rw: Because no one even knows what your code really is. What it is based on; which particular scriptures most accurately reflect it, which of your voluminous mounds of doctrine are correct, who we can trust to rightly divide it, why it contains references to slavery without condemnation, how we can verify its authenticity, why it isn’t effective even among the most devout believers, how its advocates, priests and practitioners appear to struggle with its dictates more than those of us who have not embraced it…whatever IT is. Why men have no problem picking and choosing some aspect of it to create a crisis from which only tragedy and death follow, or use it to justify persecution, murder, intrigue, espionage, revolution, incest, child molestation, rioting, subjugation of women, and any other crimes against humanity too numerous to commit to this rebuttal. Then add injury to insult by proudly proclaiming it to be morally pure and superior to any other code. What exactly, precisely, unconditionally, absolutely are the standards you are defending as your non-arbitrary moral code?

Dave: hmmm...if your idea of "enforcement" is that God must completely prevent any lawbreaking, or that he must immediately punish lawbreaking, I say your understanding is defective. God will enforce His laws as He sees fit. Even those who "get away" with evil in this life will surely not go unpunished in the life to come. God will repay.

Rw: There is no evidence that this god has, or ever will, see fit. And that after-life threat of punishment, is that revenge you are championing? That fate, according to your club’s doctrine, awaits anyone who rejects god regardless of how moral a life they’ve lived. Is this one of those moral strictures we should embrace as non-arbitrary? If we are to join your club and be like Christ does this mean we get to exact a little revenge along the way? But I thought Christ taught against an eye for an eye type of attitude?

Dave: and, precisely, what straw man am I burning?

Rw: The caricature of all other moral standards established independently of those you claim are superior, by virtue of their appeal to a god making them non-arbitrary, that’s implied whenever you invoke the voodoo formula. Personally I see nothing superior about them. They reflect the standards of a war-like semi-nomadic tribe of barbarians who lived in the bronze age.

Dave: but your ethical system begs the question - what is a "right" or "wrong" effect/consequence??? And I agree with you when you say "man is ultimately responsible for his behavior." Man is to blame for evil, not God.

Rw: It begs no such question, it explains how the question can be resolved honestly among humans without appealing to any imaginary supreme being. Man is also to be credited with much good. There is no god to blame. Just the idea of one held tenaciously in the minds of men who will ultimately get the blame for chaining man’s mind to such an atrocious concept as original sin.

Dave: is that supposed to be a meaningful argument? Again, what makes existence good?

Rw: Human life lived in maximum freedom and conscientious regard for his fellow humans.

Dave: Suicidal people would disagree with that proposition.

Rw: Suicidal people do not make up the majority of humanity nor are they rationally sound enough to include in any determination of what is good for humans.

Dave: Or perhaps only CERTAIN people should exist.

Rw: Yes, only those who value their existence or whose existence is valued enough by others to sustain their existence. All who fall outside this parameter perish anyway in spite of your superior morality.

Dave: But then, how does one decide which people should survive?

Rw: It isn’t one’s decision unless such decision is conferred upon them by unusual circumstances such as capital crimes or debilitating accidents.

Dave: This ethical system raises more questions than it can answer.

Rw: Try me

Dave: I never claimed that God's might makes Him right.

Rw: No? Then what was this?

God will enforce His laws as He sees fit. Even those who "get away" with evil in this life will surely not go unpunished in the life to come. God will repay.

Sure sounds to me like you’re invoking a deity who is mightier than man and will have his way.

Dave: The fact that God is, by nature, eternally and perfectly good, is the basis on which He is "right".

Rw: This hasn’t been established as a fact. It is just your say so and based on an assumption that god even exists. I won’t get into the less obvious contradictions for now.

Dave: that "errant assessment" is part and parcel of materialism. Read my post above, where I address this, and quote Carl Sagan. Your defenition of abstract conceptualization entails that there are no abstract concepts, since you defined it in purely materialistic terms!

Rw: Then you hold that matter has no attributes? That gravity, every bit as invisible as an abstract concept, isn’t an attribute of mass? That human thought isn’t an attribute of the human brain? And that the brain isn’t a mass of matter?

Dave: what I am asking, is ON WHAT BASIS one "ascribes a purpose" to existence.

Rw: On the basis of their individual needs as a self aware human being and how they can integrate the fulfillment of those needs within the broader basis of their family and community with the least amount of resistance.

Dave: What non-arbitrary basis do you use to do such a thing. I have argued that the atheist does not have one.

Rw: Then you have argued wrongly. A non-arbitrary basis isn’t required. It is, and will always be an arbitrated effort between oneself and one’s community. Just because you insert an imaginary being into the mix doesn’t change the basic nature of humans. They adjust their needs to accommodate that which they believe will gain them access to the community.

Dave: this begs the question of what a "better idea" is.

Rw: An idea that accomplishes the maximum result. To determine the value of an idea one need only examine the results of that idea in practice.

Dave: If there is no intrinsic good or evil in the universe, then what would make me adopt your values anyway?

Rw: Maximum results

Dave: yes, God certainly does establish this code of morals. I deny that God is non-participatory, simply because He is invisible and doesn't see fit to send lightning bolts down on all lawbreakers.

Rw: Your denials fail to address the realities. Your assumptions fail to substantiate your claims and your god hasn’t seen fit to intervene in the affairs of men.

Dave: this is a very broad-brush criticism. You will have to be more specfic. What bloodshed?

Rw: The crusades, the centuries old persecution of Jews for their role in the death of Christ, the Salem witch hunts, the more recent abortion clinic bombings, just to name a few…all done in the name of this non-participatory god.

Dave: Certain bloodshed is endorsed by God as necessary to establish and defend human rights. Many forms of bloodshed are not.

Rw: Oh really? Could you be more specific? What bloodshed was endorsed by god?

Dave: the Scriptures certainly do have power of God's "constituency". Of course, I don't believe that those who are truly a part of God's "constituency" would participate in atrocities. There are those who formally attach themselves to Christianity, who do not care for, nor follow, any consistent expression of Christian ethics. Even those who are of God's "constituency", do not follow God's laws perfectly. The Scriptures cannot undo the power of sin. When Christ comes again, He will put an end to sin Himself forever.

Rw: Then it’s the “they weren’t really Christians” argument, is it?

Dave: Ok. Simplistic or not, how do you get from "scattering protoplasm" to attach the significance of a moral evil to it?

Rw: I need no god to value human life or human justice.

Dave: no, but a believe in God's moral authority gives us reason to be morally disgusted at such an event because of God's law being violated, and because those who are made in God's image are being destroyed.

Rw: So if there happens not to be a god you imagine that people would have just shrugged their shoulders and went on about their business? You think that only the Christians were outraged at this?

Dave: Allah is not the true God. Of course, a false god cannot provide a coherent basis for morality any more than atheism can.

Rw: Of course, there’s that straw man argument again. Both Islam and Christianity are derivatives of Judaism. The orthodox Jews and the Muslims think that you are following a false god. So who’s right?

Dave: prevention is not the issue here. How does one establish an ethical system that comdemns such events?

Rw: Excuse me? Did you just say that prevention is not the issue? Then what in hell are morals for?

Dave: again, a false god cannot, nor do I expect to, provide a foundation for ethical living or prevent unethical living.

Rw: And again, how are we to know that yours is not the false god?

Dave: And I fail to see how an "experientially devised" constitution can truly be derived from experience. It is experience itself that must be interpreted. But with what ethical framework does one interpret history? What constitutes "good" history that we should follow as an example, vs. "bad" history that we should avoid?

Rw: Whatever expands the community without breaking the spirit of its constituency.

Dave: and what makes this an "atrocity"??

Rw: The value of human life that doesn’t require a god to determine. The value of human justice that this god has never once involved himself in.

Dave: where do you find meaning in it, then?

Rw: In reality

Dave: I'm trying to find a rational line of argumentation amidst this very emotional rant. Alas...

Rw: Let me repeat the question: If your god is so worried about his image why in hell didn’t the lazy bastard do something to prevent this atrocity? You seemed to have avoided responding to this. This appeared to be a battle of the gods and yours lost by forfeit. How do you feel about that?

1. Human beings/people aren’t worth a shit

Dave: how does that follow from what I stated?? I said just the opposite.

Rw: Let me finish.

Dave: well, you don't exactly get upset when a forest burns down, do you? Of course not.


Rw: Oh yes we do! Forests are a valuable natural resource and there are laws against arson. Why would you say this?

Dave: Forests are not made in God's image. Only humans are. Like God, we have consciousness, we are persons, we have feelings, intentions, volitions, and so forth. We are God's crowning work of creation. We are His ambassadors on this earth. We are creatures that He desires a relationship with, and obedience from. Thus, we derive our worth and meaning from God.

Rw: All unsupported assertions based on the initial assumption that this god even exists. What precisely does god’s image have to do with humanities valuation of people and trees?


Dave: so men have no worth who have not yet created their own worth?

Rw: That is correct and they suffer greatly for it. This is not to say that they are valueless to their families and community. Only they do not realize their own value until they actually participate in its creation.

Dave: this is not always the case.

Rw: That is also correct and they too suffer greatly for it. Both the child, the parents and the community. It is in the parents, child’s and communities best interest to nurture children until they are able to begin creating their own self worth.

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

This is too easy.

Game, set, and match. This is a strawman equivocation, for no one said anything about Carl Sagan or his views, nor said anything about having to adopt his views in order to be an atheist or a materialist. If you want to talk about Carl Sagan, then by all means, start a new thread and ask who shares his philosophy, but to assume that all atheists are in his boat is quite a fallacy.

No - they're basically all emotional appeals, and bad ones at that. As someone else already pointed out to you, you wish to cheapen the lives of humans by making us only valuable as servants of God.

Uh huh. So, do you wish someone to list the atrocities that have been committed by Christians, or are you already familiar?

Because that is all we have.

I'm still confounded at how many theists put this charge forward, but never stop to think about what it means. I find human life valuable, simply because it is the only thing that I have; there is no afterlife to look forward to, so one tries to make the most of one's life. I can also argue from Darwinian evolution that since survival is the aspect that we need to preserve, that by definition makes life valuable. This is so blatantly obvious that theists would either not think about it or just skip over it in most cases.

On the flip side of the coin, what makes you think that your life is valuable? All your God does is SAY that your life is valuable, but your entire belief system shows otherwise. You are taught that you're all worthless sinners from birth, and that you only live to serve God. Furthermore, you have an eternal afterlife, supposedly better than this one, so this life should really mean nothing to you. Ah, the pleasantries of religion.

What I meant is that you claim to know that matter cannot represent the abstract in some shape or form, when we obviously have no clue what it can or cannot do. If you want to argue the merits of materialism, start a new thread instead of trying to stuff your strawman.