Bad Faith Atheists

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Are there bad faith atheists? Do you know any? What would be their motivation?

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular? For example, atheists that say, "trust the science" while well knowing it's all behind a curtain, atheists who fall into self-help scams that are copy-paste versions of Christianity, and atheists who trust organisations without those organisations having legitimately earned that trust.

If so, what's their motivation? Do they just want to sound cool? Do they just want to shirk the obligation of the tithe or going to church, when many religious people don't even do that anymore? Frankly I think I have observed these bad faith atheists but I can't imagine what their underlying motivation could be. It seems to me that they just picked up atheism because it sounded cool or because they didn't want to feel responsible for Crusades or witch burnings. (But, if they are responsible for those things, I don't think discarding Christianity changes that.)

[Purple Knight]

It's like this; reality is so no matter what humans prefer or what is to their benefit; human constructs like arts, sports and literature are entirely down to human benefit and a consensus that it is beneficial. The question, or debate is, is morality reality (objective) or a human construct (relative).

This comes down to one test question. And I actually think there are examples that prove morality is objective.

The test question would be to discover some way of going about things that was horribly morally distasteful but was hugely beneficial. If people go, "no no no that's just immoral" then that points to that being so, and morality being objective. But if they shrug their shoulders and accept it, then they understand that it's a human construct.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's like this; reality is so no matter what humans prefer or what is to their benefit; human constructs like arts, sports and literature are entirely down to human benefit and a consensus that it is beneficial. The question, or debate is, is morality reality (objective) or a human construct (relative).

This comes down to one test question. And I actually think there are examples that prove morality is objective.

The test question would be to discover some way of going about things that was horribly morally distasteful but was hugely beneficial. If people go, "no no no that's just immoral" then that points to that being so, and morality being objective. But if they shrug their shoulders and accept it, then they understand that it's a human construct.

I don't think that works. As a moral rule can either be instinctive (which is the nearest we can get to 'objective') or it can dinned into us so often that we think it is valid apart from what we think about it.

Slavery is a good example. It is a very profitable method, even though we instinctively dislike it when it is done to us. The Bible knows it, but still let it pass.

So really religion has already lost this debate, and whether ethics is a cosmic rule or a human construct is the only discussion left, and academic, in the end.

[Purple Knight]

Slavery is a good example. It is a very profitable method, even though we instinctively dislike it when it is done to us. The Bible knows it, but still let it pass.

So we need a version of the Golden Rule that is aracial is what I'm hearing, and then it all fits together very nicely.

[TRANSPONDER]

Slavery is a good example. It is a very profitable method, even though we instinctively dislike it when it is done to us. The Bible knows it, but still let it pass.

So we need a version of the Golden Rule that is aracial is what I'm hearing, and then it all fits together very nicely.

Yes. And the Golden Rule is based on Reciprocity - co -operation for mutual benefit, and I think this is an instinct. It is down to an evolutionary basis which is the nearest to objective you will get - while still being relative to humans well -being. It is 'human preference' as the cosmos doesn't care if we survive, let alone do well. So all morals and the basics, such as they are, are relative, and judged by human standards.


And for those tempted to claim that it was God after all that gave it to us, the Goslen rule on various forms is known from China to Egypt. Like, in fact other human constructs like music, art and dressing up. There is no reason at all to ascribe the Golden Rule, nor any morals and ethics to anything other than human, and the evolved instinct of empathy of just co - operation that allows species to survive. Once out of 100 times, anyway.