Atheism is contradictory.

[smoke weeb]

TrueLore

Strychnine Revolution

Just a thought I had, but here it is:

Atheists say that the is no God. Fair enough.
However, they always say "It's wrong to..." anyway.
Hold up. What?
The contradiction lies there.
As a race, we've established "All humans are equal."
So how can morality exist when there isn't someone of greater authority to make the rules?
In other words, either humans are not equal (either through survival of the fittest or self-reduction),
OR there is no real way to say what is "right and wrong."

Discuss. Preferably think before doing so, unless you'd like to contribute proof to my theory.

I'm tired of the whole "But we need objective morals" argument. Morals are subjective unless defined. For example, murder would be morally wrong if morals were determined by "Human Suffering". Personally I feel that human suffering is bad, and thus things that promote human suffering is wrong. I do not require a deity to explain this.

Actually, you have my point precisely.
Morals are subjective, nothing more. Morals can only be held by an individual person. They vary from person to person.
Also, the only way for morals to be defined would be for something to either become superior through force, or to be elected superior by choice, both of which eliminate the state of equality.

@Agorist
The moral dictum can only reside in a superior being, either that, a God, or a superior human, which, as I have established, also supposedly does not exist in modern society.
However, despite popular belief, superior humans do indeed exist, and in a combination of both force and election.
Humans elect the "lesser of two evils" in their eyes.
However, even with this, could you imagine the chaos in the streets if there was no police enforcement?
Everyone would abide by their moral code. However, they submit to the superior being.
Again, abolishing the illusion of equality.

[dhorvath]

Strychnine Revolution

Just a thought I had, but here it is:

Atheists say that the is no God. Fair enough.
However, they always say "It's wrong to..." anyway.

Do they? Always? I think you will find a fairly large range of opinions on morality among atheists, much like you would expect among any other group.

Quote:

Hold up. What?
The contradiction lies there.
As a race, we've established "All humans are equal."
So how can morality exist when there isn't someone of greater authority to make the rules?

Well how about if that greater 'someone' is a democratic principle. Any rules then come down from the ideals and sufferings of the group and no one person is elevated above the rules.

[Kiumaru]

Strychnine Revolution

So since the majority believes it, that is what we accept?
Which of course makes the majority a superior being to the minority.
The minority being those who believe exactly what the majority is proving.
Proving that because M>m (Majority is greater than minority), Majority gets to say "Everyone has equal rights."
Despite the fact that the right that the minority here is saying is "Everyone does not get equal rights."
The contradiction lies in this precisely.
In fact, it's even a paradox.

@Agorist
See above.
I mostly agree with what you say, perhaps the only difference being how I classify myself.
But yes, under a culture which believes in no God and equal rights, moral codes do not hold any value.
There is no one who can honestly say, "I have the right to make rules," especially under and equality notion.
As you state, a human's only right is what he/she earns, if I read that correctly.
"Property contributes very positively to the prosperity of all individuals, allowing them to call what resources they have expended their labor to create as their property." being the quote.

I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, but this is a good time to bring it up.
As stated, a human earns their rights. Thus, a human who earns a right to make rules is superior, and deserves to be.
My argument is not "Atheism is wrong" (though, I do believe that, it's a topic I refuse to fight as it cannot be proven), moreover it's "In a world without a God, humans cannot be equal, and thus modern beliefs are contradictory."

@Kiumaru
Even so, it could be saying just that. The thing to ponder is "Who has the right to say that it's wrong?"
I fear I am unable to establish another line of thinking as far as modern Atheism beliefs, so I'll drop that. It doesn't simply pertain to Atheism anyway.
"Equal means equal" is self-explanatory. Equal is a common word, so forgive me if you haven't encountered it. The meaning of "equal means equal" means that "human equality" is not subjective. If humans are equal, then there are no exceptions.
However, my argument is that, like stated above, without a greater being, human equality cannot exist. Not that I'm saying anyone should discriminate, but moreover I feel as if I see far too often the argument "God doesn't exist so how can you say it's wrong to _____? _____ are just like everyone else! It's wrong for you to _____!" Fill in the blanks with any controversial argument. Contradictory, indeed.
How can one get upset for one person's opinion and then fight it with theirs? If a God truly does not exist, neither person is more right or wrong than the other, no matter whether equality exists or not, unless an Earthly law prohibits it, which would be contradictory unless humans are unequal anyway.

This argument has two points:
(1) If a God does not exist, either everyone is equal and no one is wrong, nor can rules be made or no one is equal and no one is right, except for those who are superior.
(2) With either given situation, any modern controversial argument is without base, and people should calm down and stop getting stressed out.

Do you not understand the concept of an "axiom"? It's a premise that we accept without argument. That's to say, it's one of those things that we simply accept as-is rather than an alternative system. It sort of also has a pragmatic effect about it. If you didn't notice, I outlined one such example of how we can be equal, although it's sort of morbid. "Humans have an ability to kill each other," and "no human is necessarily invincible" make it so that we have an equality of the ability to kill and die. Even if you aren't as strong or smart, it is still possible for you to kill another person if you can somehow manage to find an opening. At least, in the "State of Nature" for Hobbes.

Now don't say "equal is equal" without qualifying it. As I explained before, just because we mean "equal" in one state doesn't mean "equal" in another. Just as when we say that someone is "Free" doesn't mean that they are "Free" to do anything and everything that they want.

Also, is morality truly dependent on God? Is something moral because God approves it or does God approve it because it's moral? The Euthyphro dilemma. While ethics/morality can certainly be subjective, it doesn't mean we can't attempt to choose the one that suits our uses the best. There's no objective way to build a house, for example, yet we still do it. Sure, we can say that there are procedures and such to make building a house safer but it's still rather subjective in the way that we go about it; it's that we set up this guideline to help us out pragmatically. We do not need a "this is the way to build a house and the only way to do so" written down in stone or any permanent or objective feature, yet we can firmly establish something objective with our subjective decisions. "This is the way we have decided to build a house because it happens to work for now," is a good framework to work with. If it happens that it's faulty or flawed in some way, we have the leeway to change it instead of being dogmatic about it.

Even if God exists, does it necessarily follow that I have to follow what He, She, or It says? Sure, you can talk about how They might punish or reward me in such and such a manner but it's still subjective whether or not I decide to do so in spite of it.

[smoke weeb]

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

No group believes humans are equal. You cannot measure equality if everyone is completely different.

There is no theory that states, all humans are equal.

Then why is discrimination based on uncontrollable factors illegal in most nations?
This is based on the theory of "equality."

Based on the theory of equality doesn't make anything so. Most people feel that people should have equal rights regardless of uncontrollable factors.

So since the majority believes it, that is what we accept?
Which of course makes the majority a superior being to the minority.
The minority being those who believe exactly what the majority is proving.
Proving that because M>m (Majority is greater than minority), Majority gets to say "Everyone has equal rights."
Despite the fact that the right that the minority here is saying is "Everyone does not get equal rights."
The contradiction lies in this precisely.
In fact, it's even a paradox.

The majority generally decides what happens for everyone else. The majority is superior because that's exactly what it is. Putting it as some idiotic tautology doesn't further your post.

Actually, I believe everyone is agreeing with me, yet no one admits it.
You said exactly what I'm trying to say: There is a superior group in the world, despite the claim of "human equality." We base our values, as humans, on majority vote and/or brute force. We cannot be equal if we submit to this, or if we cannot overcome it. Likewise, it is impossible to overcome a government, thus making us inferior to any given force.

I guess you could say humans have made an idol of government, and has consoled themselves with another idol made of the illusion of equality.

[If Only I Was Juxtaposed]

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

No group believes humans are equal. You cannot measure equality if everyone is completely different.

There is no theory that states, all humans are equal.

Then why is discrimination based on uncontrollable factors illegal in most nations?
This is based on the theory of "equality."

Based on the theory of equality doesn't make anything so. Most people feel that people should have equal rights regardless of uncontrollable factors.

So since the majority believes it, that is what we accept?
Which of course makes the majority a superior being to the minority.
The minority being those who believe exactly what the majority is proving.
Proving that because M>m (Majority is greater than minority), Majority gets to say "Everyone has equal rights."
Despite the fact that the right that the minority here is saying is "Everyone does not get equal rights."
The contradiction lies in this precisely.
In fact, it's even a paradox.

The majority generally decides what happens for everyone else. The majority is superior because that's exactly what it is. Putting it as some idiotic tautology doesn't further your post.

Actually, I believe everyone is agreeing with me, yet no one admits it.
You said exactly what I'm trying to say: There is a superior group in the world, despite the claim of "human equality." We base our values, as humans, on majority vote and/or brute force. We cannot be equal if we submit to this, or if we cannot overcome it. Likewise, it is impossible to overcome a government, thus making us inferior to any given force.

I guess you could say humans have made an idol of government, and has consoled themselves with another idol made of the illusion of equality.

Except you're not tying in atheism to this.

[smoke weeb]

Kiumaru

Strychnine Revolution

So since the majority believes it, that is what we accept?
Which of course makes the majority a superior being to the minority.
The minority being those who believe exactly what the majority is proving.
Proving that because M>m (Majority is greater than minority), Majority gets to say "Everyone has equal rights."
Despite the fact that the right that the minority here is saying is "Everyone does not get equal rights."
The contradiction lies in this precisely.
In fact, it's even a paradox.

@Agorist
See above.
I mostly agree with what you say, perhaps the only difference being how I classify myself.
But yes, under a culture which believes in no God and equal rights, moral codes do not hold any value.
There is no one who can honestly say, "I have the right to make rules," especially under and equality notion.
As you state, a human's only right is what he/she earns, if I read that correctly.
"Property contributes very positively to the prosperity of all individuals, allowing them to call what resources they have expended their labor to create as their property." being the quote.

I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, but this is a good time to bring it up.
As stated, a human earns their rights. Thus, a human who earns a right to make rules is superior, and deserves to be.
My argument is not "Atheism is wrong" (though, I do believe that, it's a topic I refuse to fight as it cannot be proven), moreover it's "In a world without a God, humans cannot be equal, and thus modern beliefs are contradictory."

@Kiumaru
Even so, it could be saying just that. The thing to ponder is "Who has the right to say that it's wrong?"
I fear I am unable to establish another line of thinking as far as modern Atheism beliefs, so I'll drop that. It doesn't simply pertain to Atheism anyway.
"Equal means equal" is self-explanatory. Equal is a common word, so forgive me if you haven't encountered it. The meaning of "equal means equal" means that "human equality" is not subjective. If humans are equal, then there are no exceptions.
However, my argument is that, like stated above, without a greater being, human equality cannot exist. Not that I'm saying anyone should discriminate, but moreover I feel as if I see far too often the argument "God doesn't exist so how can you say it's wrong to _____? _____ are just like everyone else! It's wrong for you to _____!" Fill in the blanks with any controversial argument. Contradictory, indeed.
How can one get upset for one person's opinion and then fight it with theirs? If a God truly does not exist, neither person is more right or wrong than the other, no matter whether equality exists or not, unless an Earthly law prohibits it, which would be contradictory unless humans are unequal anyway.

This argument has two points:
(1) If a God does not exist, either everyone is equal and no one is wrong, nor can rules be made or no one is equal and no one is right, except for those who are superior.
(2) With either given situation, any modern controversial argument is without base, and people should calm down and stop getting stressed out.

Do you not understand the concept of an "axiom"? It's a premise that we accept without argument. That's to say, it's one of those things that we simply accept as-is rather than an alternative system. It sort of also has a pragmatic effect about it. If you didn't notice, I outlined one such example of how we can be equal, although it's sort of morbid. "Humans have an ability to kill each other," and "no human is necessarily invincible" make it so that we have an equality of the ability to kill and die. Even if you aren't as strong or smart, it is still possible for you to kill another person if you can somehow manage to find an opening. At least, in the "State of Nature" for Hobbes.

Now don't say "equal is equal" without qualifying it. As I explained before, just because we mean "equal" in one state doesn't mean "equal" in another. Just as when we say that someone is "Free" doesn't mean that they are "Free" to do anything and everything that they want.

Also, is morality truly dependent on God? Is something moral because God approves it or does God approve it because it's moral? The Euthyphro dilemma. While ethics/morality can certainly be subjective, it doesn't mean we can't attempt to choose the one that suits our uses the best. There's no objective way to build a house, for example, yet we still do it. Sure, we can say that there are procedures and such to make building a house safer but it's still rather subjective in the way that we go about it; it's that we set up this guideline to help us out pragmatically. We do not need a "this is the way to build a house and the only way to do so" written down in stone or any permanent or objective feature, yet we can firmly establish something objective with our subjective decisions. "This is the way we have decided to build a house because it happens to work for now," is a good framework to work with. If it happens that it's faulty or flawed in some way, we have the leeway to change it instead of being dogmatic about it.

To condense my reply to one statement, an axiom is an example of an inferior body submitting to a superior one.

@dhorvath
Precisely. If you peruse my prior statements, you'll notice my argument isn't against Atheists particularly, but against the range of moral principles mixed with the notion of equality.

[azulmagia]

Strychnine Revolution

Just a thought I had, but here it is:

Atheists say that the is no God. Fair enough.
However, they always say "It's wrong to..." anyway.
Hold up. What?
The contradiction lies there.
As a race, we've established "All humans are equal."

So you're saying that as a race, we've abolished sexism and established a classless society?

Quote:

So how can morality exist when there isn't someone of greater authority to make the rules?

What do mean, "someone of greater authority"? Authority is subjective. It doesn't get you out of this bind that you've mentioned. Certainly, nobody could gainsay God (if he existed), but you're magicking power (an objective datum) into authority (which needs the recognition of subjects). Might makes right, anyone?

[Craja]

Strychnine Revolution

TrueLore

Strychnine Revolution

Just a thought I had, but here it is:

Atheists say that the is no God. Fair enough.
However, they always say "It's wrong to..." anyway.
Hold up. What?
The contradiction lies there.
As a race, we've established "All humans are equal."
So how can morality exist when there isn't someone of greater authority to make the rules?
In other words, either humans are not equal (either through survival of the fittest or self-reduction),
OR there is no real way to say what is "right and wrong."

Discuss. Preferably think before doing so, unless you'd like to contribute proof to my theory.

I'm tired of the whole "But we need objective morals" argument. Morals are subjective unless defined. For example, murder would be morally wrong if morals were determined by "Human Suffering". Personally I feel that human suffering is bad, and thus things that promote human suffering is wrong. I do not require a deity to explain this.

Actually, you have my point precisely.
Morals are subjective, nothing more. Morals can only be held by an individual person. They vary from person to person.
Also, the only way for morals to be defined would be for something to either become superior through force, or to be elected superior by choice, both of which eliminate the state of equality.

@Agorist
The moral dictum can only reside in a superior being, either that, a God, or a superior human, which, as I have established, also supposedly does not exist in modern society.
However, despite popular belief, superior humans do indeed exist, and in a combination of both force and election.
Humans elect the "lesser of two evils" in their eyes.
However, even with this, could you imagine the chaos in the streets if there was no police enforcement?
Everyone would abide by their moral code. However, they submit to the superior being.
Again, abolishing the illusion of equality.

Who says equality had anything to do with atheism or atheism anything to do with equality? These things are separate.

[Kiumaru]

Strychnine Revolution

Kiumaru

Strychnine Revolution

So since the majority believes it, that is what we accept?
Which of course makes the majority a superior being to the minority.
The minority being those who believe exactly what the majority is proving.
Proving that because M>m (Majority is greater than minority), Majority gets to say "Everyone has equal rights."
Despite the fact that the right that the minority here is saying is "Everyone does not get equal rights."
The contradiction lies in this precisely.
In fact, it's even a paradox.

@Agorist
See above.
I mostly agree with what you say, perhaps the only difference being how I classify myself.
But yes, under a culture which believes in no God and equal rights, moral codes do not hold any value.
There is no one who can honestly say, "I have the right to make rules," especially under and equality notion.
As you state, a human's only right is what he/she earns, if I read that correctly.
"Property contributes very positively to the prosperity of all individuals, allowing them to call what resources they have expended their labor to create as their property." being the quote.

I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, but this is a good time to bring it up.
As stated, a human earns their rights. Thus, a human who earns a right to make rules is superior, and deserves to be.
My argument is not "Atheism is wrong" (though, I do believe that, it's a topic I refuse to fight as it cannot be proven), moreover it's "In a world without a God, humans cannot be equal, and thus modern beliefs are contradictory."

@Kiumaru
Even so, it could be saying just that. The thing to ponder is "Who has the right to say that it's wrong?"
I fear I am unable to establish another line of thinking as far as modern Atheism beliefs, so I'll drop that. It doesn't simply pertain to Atheism anyway.
"Equal means equal" is self-explanatory. Equal is a common word, so forgive me if you haven't encountered it. The meaning of "equal means equal" means that "human equality" is not subjective. If humans are equal, then there are no exceptions.
However, my argument is that, like stated above, without a greater being, human equality cannot exist. Not that I'm saying anyone should discriminate, but moreover I feel as if I see far too often the argument "God doesn't exist so how can you say it's wrong to _____? _____ are just like everyone else! It's wrong for you to _____!" Fill in the blanks with any controversial argument. Contradictory, indeed.
How can one get upset for one person's opinion and then fight it with theirs? If a God truly does not exist, neither person is more right or wrong than the other, no matter whether equality exists or not, unless an Earthly law prohibits it, which would be contradictory unless humans are unequal anyway.

This argument has two points:
(1) If a God does not exist, either everyone is equal and no one is wrong, nor can rules be made or no one is equal and no one is right, except for those who are superior.
(2) With either given situation, any modern controversial argument is without base, and people should calm down and stop getting stressed out.

Do you not understand the concept of an "axiom"? It's a premise that we accept without argument. That's to say, it's one of those things that we simply accept as-is rather than an alternative system. It sort of also has a pragmatic effect about it. If you didn't notice, I outlined one such example of how we can be equal, although it's sort of morbid. "Humans have an ability to kill each other," and "no human is necessarily invincible" make it so that we have an equality of the ability to kill and die. Even if you aren't as strong or smart, it is still possible for you to kill another person if you can somehow manage to find an opening. At least, in the "State of Nature" for Hobbes.

Now don't say "equal is equal" without qualifying it. As I explained before, just because we mean "equal" in one state doesn't mean "equal" in another. Just as when we say that someone is "Free" doesn't mean that they are "Free" to do anything and everything that they want.

Also, is morality truly dependent on God? Is something moral because God approves it or does God approve it because it's moral? The Euthyphro dilemma. While ethics/morality can certainly be subjective, it doesn't mean we can't attempt to choose the one that suits our uses the best. There's no objective way to build a house, for example, yet we still do it. Sure, we can say that there are procedures and such to make building a house safer but it's still rather subjective in the way that we go about it; it's that we set up this guideline to help us out pragmatically. We do not need a "this is the way to build a house and the only way to do so" written down in stone or any permanent or objective feature, yet we can firmly establish something objective with our subjective decisions. "This is the way we have decided to build a house because it happens to work for now," is a good framework to work with. If it happens that it's faulty or flawed in some way, we have the leeway to change it instead of being dogmatic about it.

To condense my reply to one statement, an axiom is an example of an inferior body submitting to a superior one.

@dhorvath
Precisely. If you peruse my prior statements, you'll notice my argument isn't against Atheists particularly, but against the range of moral principles mixed with the notion of equality.

No... An axiom is a premise that we accept without argument.

And to condense this further, the axiom that "All men are created equal" is talking about our "essential" nature. No single person is, by necessity (or the powers naturally vested within them), more superior than another. At least, that's the fiction we like to construct even if it happens not to be true. Is there something that you don't understand about this? Atheism doesn't even say anything about this ideology, either. If you're talking about contemporary atheists, you might have a case, but atheism itself, as the ideology, says nothing about a person's position on it.

And atheism is hardly the sole purveyor of the ideology of equality. Initially, this idea of "All men are created equal" was birthed from Modernity during the Enlightenment.

[smoke weeb]

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Strychnine Revolution

If Only I Was Juxtaposed

Based on the theory of equality doesn't make anything so. Most people feel that people should have equal rights regardless of uncontrollable factors.

So since the majority believes it, that is what we accept?
Which of course makes the majority a superior being to the minority.
The minority being those who believe exactly what the majority is proving.
Proving that because M>m (Majority is greater than minority), Majority gets to say "Everyone has equal rights."
Despite the fact that the right that the minority here is saying is "Everyone does not get equal rights."
The contradiction lies in this precisely.
In fact, it's even a paradox.

The majority generally decides what happens for everyone else. The majority is superior because that's exactly what it is. Putting it as some idiotic tautology doesn't further your post.

Actually, I believe everyone is agreeing with me, yet no one admits it.
You said exactly what I'm trying to say: There is a superior group in the world, despite the claim of "human equality." We base our values, as humans, on majority vote and/or brute force. We cannot be equal if we submit to this, or if we cannot overcome it. Likewise, it is impossible to overcome a government, thus making us inferior to any given force.

I guess you could say humans have made an idol of government, and has consoled themselves with another idol made of the illusion of equality.

Except you're not tying in atheism to this.

I guess my base being "Atheism" was too general. I should have stated "Atheists who believe in human equality." Or even, "humans who don't believe in God but do believe in equality."

@azulmagia
I'm saying one thing:
In a Godless world, human equality cannot exist as long as there is any being or organization with control over another.
My reason for saying so is that many controversial arguments use human equality AND the nonexistence of God as a base.

[Kiumaru]

Strychnine Revolution

I guess my base being "Atheism" was too general. I should have stated "Atheists who believe in human equality." Or even, "humans who don't believe in God but do believe in equality."

@azulmagia
I'm saying one thing:
In a Godless world, human equality cannot exist as long as there is any being or organization with control over another.
My reason for saying so is that many controversial arguments use human equality AND the nonexistence of God as a base.

Your opposition to the idea of human equality is general enough to apply to even those whom believe in a deity.

[smoke weeb]

It seems my point is lost on this audience. I blame it on my terminology, but I'm sure if anyone were to make an effort on a comprehensive level rather than an analytical one, my point would be clearer. I feel as if many of the questions directed at me tonight were about clarification rather than problem-solution, which certainly won't go anywhere if no one is reading posts other than replies to theirs. Anyway, I must continue my Politics report, which is due tomorrow and I'm still a page short and would prefer to have some free time tonight. And before anyone asks, as I won't be here to answer, no, my report is on an entirely different subject than this thread.

[Kiumaru]

Strychnine Revolution

It seems my point is lost on this audience. I blame it on my terminology, but I'm sure if anyone were to make an effort on a comprehensive level rather than an analytical one, my point would be clearer. I feel as if many of the questions directed at me tonight were about clarification rather than problem-solution, which certainly won't go anywhere if no one is reading posts other than replies to theirs. Anyway, I must continue my Politics report, which is due tomorrow and I'm still a page short and would prefer to have some free time tonight. And before anyone asks, as I won't be here to answer, no, my report is on an entirely different subject than this thread.

Oh, I understand your point, it's just that you don't seem to understand mine.

Anyway, do your best on your report.

[smoke weeb]

Kiumaru

Strychnine Revolution

It seems my point is lost on this audience. I blame it on my terminology, but I'm sure if anyone were to make an effort on a comprehensive level rather than an analytical one, my point would be clearer. I feel as if many of the questions directed at me tonight were about clarification rather than problem-solution, which certainly won't go anywhere if no one is reading posts other than replies to theirs. Anyway, I must continue my Politics report, which is due tomorrow and I'm still a page short and would prefer to have some free time tonight. And before anyone asks, as I won't be here to answer, no, my report is on an entirely different subject than this thread.

Oh, I understand your point, it's just that you don't seem to understand mine.

Anyway, do your best on your report.

Thank you.

It's good to see someone on the internet who can not only hold intelligent debate, but also not hold a grudge. Good luck in whatever you do, as well.

[azulmagia]

Strychnine Revolution

@azulmagia
I'm saying one thing:
In a Godless world, human equality cannot exist as long as there is any being or organization with control over another.
My reason for saying so is that many controversial arguments use human equality AND the nonexistence of God as a base.

Human equality is a digression. All you're doing (it seems to me) is rehashing the old Dostoyevskian argument that without God, anything is permitted. Dostoyevsky didn't believe in human equality, as far as I know.