Massimo Pigliucci takes on the “Misogyny Wars” and, rather unintentionally it appears, sums up the problem with Relativism as an ethic: what is flirting to one person might be harassment to another person. (Really? What about the groping, stalking and rape threats that have been reported? Note 1) While that Relativism is a grounding issue in determining the rightness or wrongness of an action, it leads to another more fundamental problem: if there are no rules, then there are no rules to break. To spell it out for the defender of Relativism, anything goes.
So the automatically Consequentialist and Relativist Atheist-Skeptic community is faced with having to violate their own non-principles by coming up with actual fixed principles for defining acceptable and non-acceptable behaviors for individuals at their A-S Conferences. Otherwise, anything goes, and the behaviors and reactions to the behaviors have been, well, just anything goes.
While this addition of a fixed, immutable set of rules for behavior might be seen as common sense to outsiders, it is apparently gut wrenching for the A-S crowd which has always felt “Good Without God”, and automatically “good” even without having a definition of “good”. Now they find that not to be the case, and that they must spell out what “good” is, so that the A-S crowd will know how to behave.
Massimo wraps up his article thus:
”So, where do we go from here? Here are three conceptually simple, yet I’m sure extremely difficult in practice, action items. First, let’s tone down the self-righteousness, on both sides. It just doesn’t help. Second, organizers of all future CON(s), you need to take the issue seriously, develop and clearly enunciate your policies, and be ready to deal with the consequences in a firm, if courteous and hopefully constructive, manner. Lastly, the A-S community needs to take the first step toward solving any problem: admit that there is one. Pretty straightforward, no?”So they need to admit that they cannot be “good” at their own conferences, and they need to have commandments and consequences in place to deal with those who violate the commandments.
Will they remember this when the next “Good Without God” campaign is launched? I doubt that they actually grasp the full impact of this moral issue, even now. And it is now an empirical, evidential proof that (1) A significant number of Atheists don't behave well without rules, even in the moral opinions of other Atheists, and (2) Relativism, the philosophy, fails on the ground to provide an adequate structure for civilized behavior, even amongst an all-Atheist gathering.
Note 1.
It has been suggested elsewhere that it is not Atheist-Skeptics who are involved in the harassing behaviors, but outsiders. In other words, Theists coming into the Atheist compound in order to harass women. Really.
26 comments:
Did you ever hear of this guy? Not only is he a misogynist asshole who can't understand a theistic argument to save his life, he is also pro-pedophilia:
http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.com/2012/06/theamazingpedophile.html
The harassment of women is not an theist/atheist issue. It's an issue whenever men are gathered. I've been stalked by a member of my last church and told that it was my fault because he was such a strong believer and I was the one leading him on to temptation. Quoting verses and everything. Mere theism does not solve the problem.
And where did the atheists say "good" meant "morally perfect"?
If you want to see how theists treat women look for a video entitled `this is what stoning looks like'.
Like some guy said, `take the plank out of your eye before you complain about the speck in another's eye'.
KH,
I'm sorry that happened to you. The issue here is not that Theists claim to be perfect - Christian theists specifically claim not be perfect, actually, with perfection being out of their reach, yet being their objective. That is no excuse for the extreme behavior you experienced, but that behavior can measured against the moral expectations, and be seen to be wrong without any dithering about relativistic issues.
The issue here is Atheism and their projection of moral superiority in the face of having no moral principles for right or wrong, good or bad. Atheists tend to claim that Theists including Christians want to stone their women, for example, so by comparison, they are morally superior (read the comment just above). Yet they have no actual basis for condemning anyone since they have no criteria for good or evil; but they do not let that stop them.
The idea of moral perfection actually attaches to Atheists, not Theists, because Atheists are free to choose an ethic (from a very wide and contradictory array) which matches their personal proclivities. That means that their behaviors are quite likely to match their ethic, having been chosen that way, and thus they are tautologically "good". I.e. morally superior. But that is just a word game; they are also free to change ethics at any time and for any reason, including a desired change in behavior. Because Atheists define themselves as "good" in this manner, their concept of morality is meaningless because it can encompass any behavior.
Further, when Atheists condemn Theists for not living up to Atheist expectations, that means nothing: so what, which set of ethical expectations are they referring to, today?
When they condemn Theists for not living up to the Theist's own expectations, that means nothing also: first, Theists know that they are "fallen" and "weak" and are burdened with attempting to meet perfection with imperfect human structures and might sometimes fail; second, what an Atheist thinks about it is of no consequence, anyway: the moral musings of a tautologically moral person are meaningless.
The comment from Sam Fox just above is a case in point. The discussion was about "Good Without God" Atheist pretensions of uber morality, which he attacks with a Tu Quoque as if we are radical Islamists here. His comment is without any weight or meaning regarding the subject at hand which is this: Atheist uncivil behavior which exists without some sort of fixed rules to limit their normal lack of "good / bad" definition - and that is a contradiction of their usual moral superiority swagger.
Sam Fox,
You have said nothing which even addresses the issue of the supposedly morally superior Atheists vs. their actual moral characteristics. And if you actually believed the "plank" business, you wouldn't be accusing me with your Tu Quoque Fallacy, would you? So your accusation is meaningless and your comment has no bearing on the subject; feel free to try again. But this time, address the failure of Atheism.
Don't fool yourself into thinking no-one has noticed that you switch between theism and Christianity, and good and prefect whenever it suits you.
in the year 2012, theists decapitate women, burn women, stone women using their gods and their religion as their excuse.
atheists discuss how they can treat women better.
as a civilised human and a member of society, I know that I'd rather be on the side working towards solutions that work rather then having men tell us what their god wants (as their gods will never appear and set the record straight).
Religion worked for the societies of primitive man but has become more and more out-dated. it's claims are baseless and it's moral system is evolving slower than society.
basic theism is simply the belief that a god exists. religion is the belief that you know what your god wants. no religion has ever been proven true. and I believe this is because there are no gods.
Libro Lector and ogsOurg nemodus,
Aside from changing the subject rather than addressing the actual issue being discussed (Red Herring Fallacy), the claim was that Theists treat women thus: stone them.
Not only was the response a Tu Quoque Fallacy, it was also false because he attributed characteristics of one subcategory to another subcategory but made the claim as if it were a claim against all members of the main, supercategory: a logical failure. That is two logical failures in one proposition. That logical failure was pointed out by the use of the term, “Christian Theists” in order to differentiate that subcategory as one which has never stoned women, contra the false implication being made that stoning is a property of the supercategory (Theism): it is not.
Further, not only did the proponent make two logical errors in one sentence, he did it knowing that the subcategory, Christian Theists, do not stone women. So there is the element of dishonesty added to the two logical errors, which is quite a load for a single sentence.
And then he added a moral component which he did not even believe in, since he violated it himself, and because the source is considered fictional by Atheists and thus having no moral value. This was an attempted accusation of hypocrisy, which fails for two reasons, (a) the presumption that I subscribe to stoning is false; (b) the charge is being made from a position either of moral void (Atheism) or of moral relativism, wherein hypocrisy, being a moral issue, cannot be a moral issue to the accuser (e.g. there is no injunction against stoning - or hypocrisy for that matter - under Atheism or Relativism, so any moral indignation expressed is phony).
As for perfection, that is the projection of a significant number of Atheists who claim to be "Good without God", and who project moral superiority and self-righteous indignation and condemnation at Theism based on no inherent moral principles of their own. Their own view of themselves is that they are tautologically good, i.e. good by their own definition (behavior=ethic=behavior). Thus their self-image is moral perfection. But that is not morality; it is a convenient belief, accepted purely due to its convenience of allowing the Atheist to preserve the false aura of moral superiority in the face of any behaviors he might choose. It preserves the Atheist position of moral arrogance without the need for actual morals or personal principled restraint for the Atheist.
That is the point of the original post: it is false that all Atheists Are Good without any need for specific rules for civil behavior, because it is well known that some Atheists will abuse even other Atheists without those rules being in place. Interestingly, the Atheist rules for behavior apply only in Atheist gatherings, as protections for Atheists from other Atheists.
Hence, moral indignation by Atheists is irrational.
logos,
”in the year 2012, theists decapitate women, burn women, stone women using their gods and their religion as their excuse.”
The subject here is Atheism. In the last 100 years Atheists tortured and murdered 250,000,000+ people, including other Atheists. In the year 2012, a few Atheists have finally decided to implement actual rules for behavior, but only for purely Atheist events, not for any or all civil situations.
”atheists discuss how they can treat women better.”
The non-Atheist western societies already have positions on the treatment of all humans. Atheists, and not all Atheists, are just now coming to grips with uncivilized behaviors of a large element of morally unrestrained Atheists in their ranks. Discussion of restraint is meaningless without a culture or philosophy of defined situational self-restraint and personal character development: i.e. the commandments for behaviors which some Atheists now realize are necessary. Since Atheism has previously been proud of its lack of restraint and fixed objective morals, it has championed the exact anything-goes behavior which it now wants to control.
”as a civilised human and a member of society, I know that I'd rather be on the side working towards solutions that work rather then having men tell us what their god wants (as their gods will never appear and set the record straight).”
Atheist solutions have always been initially pagan, switching to draconian when the Atheists have actual power. Draconian always works, at least for a while. If what works is the only objective for moral systems, then totalitarianism is acceptable as a solution. That is where Atheism cum power has historically wound up. Atheism, under the natural hubris and hegemony it breeds, is not a respecter of individual human rights. Evolution/natural selection has seen to that, and the evidence is in abortion and especially the unequal aborted lives of racial minority humans. The evidence is also blatant in the soviet and North Korean gulags and the huge Chinese social purges. No restraint inheres in Atheism.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
”Religion worked for the societies of primitive man but has become more and more out-dated.”
If you mean that having fixed moral principles for behavior is outdated, then you are swimming upstream. Atheists have always dictated morals for people other than themselves. Only in 2012 have they realized their own internal moral necessities, and then only for inter-Atheist interactions. Atheism is lagging by millenia.
” it's claims are baseless…”
Kindly take the Atheist Challenges and demonstrate the truth of your assertion (made here without any proof or evidence), using disciplined logic and/or disciplined material, scientific, experimental evidentiary procedures. Only with such irrefutable, incorrigible proof can your claim be accepted. Otherwise it is a false assertion.
” and it's moral system is evolving slower than society.”
False to the core: Society kept slaves for long after western religion condemned slavery. The battle for eliminating slavery was not a secular battle, it was a religious battle. Even now racism is preserved by amoral Leftist plantationism, not by the moral system of the religious. And the sexism of the amoral Left is demonstrated by their demeaning treatment of upstart women politicians who are not part of the amoral Left. These outrages are not matched by western religious moral systems. The failure to differentiate is dishonest.
Further, the rise of the irreligious is marked by the degeneration of social morality, not by an increase in personal responsibility for one's actions.
”basic theism is simply the belief that a god exists.”
No. Basic Theism is a disciplined deduction made under the principles of logical inference. You are invited to refute that deduction using principled logic and/or empirical, scientific, experimental evidence to support your refutation. See the Challenges to Atheists on the side bar.
”religion is the belief that you know what your god wants. no religion has ever been proven true. and I believe this is because there are no gods.”
Religion (ecclesiasticism) is what humans add to basic Theism. So Atheism is the human ecclesiastical claim against basic Theism, made without the support of either logic or empirical data as positive evidence for the position taken: a purely non-evidentiary, blind belief; i.e., a morally empty religion based on a void.
"it was also false because he attributed characteristics of one subcategory to another subcategory but made the claim as if it were a claim against all members of the main, supercategory: a logical failure."
That's not what happened at all.
We are talking about theists verses atheists and their treatment of women.
It is true that Islamists and Christians are members of the category "theism".
It is also true that both of these members of the category "theism" stone and burn women. Islamic men tend to stone women more often than burn women. Christian men tend to burn women more often than stone them. If you are ignorant of these facts then find a better newspaper.
What's amusing about this so-called "logical failure" is that you do it in your very next comment!
"In the last 100 years Atheists tortured and murdered 250,000,000+ people"
First, that is not true. And second, you've attributed the supposed characteristics of one subcategory of government to all members of a larger category "atheists." The cognitive dissonance is so obvious you could see it from space.
"“Christian Theists” in order to differentiate that subcategory as one which has never stoned women,"
Never stoned women? Let me guess, the Christians who do stone women are not really Christians, am I right?
And let's put this into perspective - we are talking about discussions about what constitutes sexual harassment verses smashing in women's skulls with rocks and setting them on fire.
"”basic theism is simply the belief that a god exists.”
No. Basic Theism is a disciplined deduction made under the principles of logical inference."
No. Theism is the belief that a god exists. Maybe you feel the rest of your redefinition is true for you... but that doesn't make it true.
”Christian men tend to burn women more often than stone them. If you are ignorant of these facts then find a better newspaper.”
No. You have made the assertion and allegation; It is up to you to support it.
"it was also false because he attributed characteristics of one subcategory to another subcategory but made the claim as if it were a claim against all members of the main, supercategory: a logical failure."
That's not what happened at all.
We are talking about theists verses atheists and their treatment of women.
It is true that Islamists and Christians are members of the category "theism".
It is also true that both of these members of the category "theism" stone and burn women.”
False. You are making universal statements which are false.
” Islamic men tend to stone women more often than burn women. Christian men tend to burn women more often than stone them. If you are ignorant of these facts then find a better newspaper.”
Not prepared to back up that claim yourself? Then it is dismissed.
”What's amusing about this so-called "logical failure" is that you do it in your very next comment!
"In the last 100 years Atheists tortured and murdered 250,000,000+ people"”
Yes, exactly: a demonstration of the fallacy when applied to Atheists; Atheists wish immunity for their own fallacies and scream when the exact same data-driven fallacy type is used on Atheism. To declare it a fallacy in one case but not the other is Special Pleading, which Atheists use quite commonly in order to exempt themselves but no one else.
”First, that is not true.
Yes, it is. As opposed to yourself, I provide sources:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
”And second, you've attributed the supposed characteristics of one subcategory of government to all members of a larger category "atheists." The cognitive dissonance is so obvious you could see it from space.”
Yes. Perfect. Now you understand the failure which the original proposition asserts. Only you want to allow it for yourself… and only yourself. Special Pleading. Special Pleading is a fallacy of presumed special entitlement.
(continued below)
(continued)
"“Christian Theists” in order to differentiate that subcategory as one which has never stoned women,"
Never stoned women? Let me guess, the Christians who do stone women are not really Christians, am I right?
Show me where in the New Testament red print that Christ says to stone women. That is the litmus for Christian behavior.
”And let's put this into perspective - we are talking about discussions about what constitutes sexual harassment verses smashing in women's skulls with rocks and setting them on fire.”
Let’s do put this into perspective: this discussion is about Atheism, and the Atheists’ universal claims to be “Good Without God”, a universal claim put on billboards by Atheist organizations. Your attempts to Red Herring the discussion away from the Atheist groping, rape threats, and sexual harassment indicates that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for the anguish and fear caused to Atheist women by Atheists in your very midst. Rather, you wish to claim that “Theists stone and burn women”, a universal statement which is demonstrably false, egregiously prejudicial and made without any evidence that any woman has been stoned and burned due to the Red Print in the New Testament (which is the litmus test for Christians) – yet this is your excuse for Atheist behavior. Atheists who make universal claims must produce universal evidence to support their claims; when their claim is a Red Herring dodge to avoid facing the issue at hand, they have shown their inability to deal with their own logical and, in this case, moral failures.
Atheism has no litmus test, it has no moral basis, it has no foundation upon which to actually launch a complaint regarding treatment of women, because there are no rules which inhere to Atheism. Under the No Rules of Atheism, there is exactly no basis to reject any treatment whatsoever as “bad”, because there is no defined “bad” under Atheism. Even under Consequentialism and the utilitarian Add-On ethics, there is no definition of “bad” which enjoins any treatment of women as “bad” treatment, which is “bad” because it is “bad”.
Atheism has no leg to stand on when it comes to arguing ethics and the consequences of ethics, because Atheism is a VOID without any ethical content. So any accusation of an ethical nature against non-Atheists is totally without any merit or any meaning when it comes from No Rules Atheists.
Further, the idea that Atheists are going to discuss creating a moral rule set for treatment of women hysterically funny and ludicrous. Discuss it? Really? That is their response (mostly a male response one supposes): they’ll put it into committee. Except there is no committee. Atheists are totally free agents, free from any authority, free from any objective values or truths, free thinkers with no possible grounding, so there is no possible way to assert a fixed set of commandments onto them. They have no ethical controls under Atheism and there is a diminshingly small chance that the entire group of Atheists will agree to a universal set of Atheist Commandments.
As a single data point, Atheist Wunderkind Dawkins has already staked out the New Atheist position: women should shut up (that’s the short version, metanarrative).
"”basic theism is simply the belief that a god exists.”
No. Basic Theism is a disciplined deduction made under the principles of logical inference."
No. Theism is the belief that a god exists. Maybe you feel the rest of your redefinition is true for you... but that doesn't make it true.
Then prove it false, rather than making ungrounded truth statements: The Atheist Challenges are in the right hand column. Show the logic and / or empirical experimental data that falsifies the basic definition which is common to all Theism. Absent that, your Atheism has no intellectual standing.
The second link above should be:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF
This amuses Robot.
Stan said:
""In the last 100 years Atheists tortured and murdered 250,000,000+ people"”"
and linked to an article:
"HOW MANY DID
COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?”
Murder is defined as unlawful killing.
Article describes lawful killing (the opposite of murder) and neglect (as not murder) and bad management as murder.
So article fails.
Robot,
Check your batteries. I think there's a short in your shorts.
You are correct, IFF the Atheists in charge made laws directing the killing. If you have evidence of that, then share it. Otherwise, it is probable that the governments were acting in a lawless mode, in which case the term "murder" applies.
More to the point, supposing that they did pass such laws, then they are still guiilty of the deaths, which were ideological.
In any case, "slaughter" does apply.
Word games demonstrate an inability to engage the actual issue. In this case, you are actually defending the slaughter. That goes a long way toward supporting the original contention regarding Atheism.
Hey Robot,
Stan's list of death by Communism has at least one group of Christian Communists on it! LOL! Check it out!
PRS,
Which group do you claim is Christian based?
Does that, if it is the case which you have not provided evidence to support, make the hundreds of millions slaughtered by Atheists OK in your mind? The idea that you do not seem to care one whit about the massive Atheist slaughters, says volumes. Rather, you laugh. I think that the claim that Atheists have superior compassion / empathy and are "Good Without God" can be adequately demonstrated false right here.
PRS, the Sandinistas?
This robot can't memorise the ideologies of every group.
Stan, is Communism is a synonym of atheism?
I laughed at you, Stan. At your rush to equate Communism with Atheism where you include more than one group that isn't Atheist.
I'm sad that you don't think women dying because of theism is worth thinking about.
Robot,
No, communism is not a synonym, but practically speaking the corellation is quite high after Karl Marx.
PRS,
Since you have had a chance to support your claim and have not, then I'd say your comments are without any evidentiary value and are actually just troll-work.
You have no idea what I actually care about, because I restrict this blog to Atheism and its consequences, Marxism and Leftist totalitarian utopianism, for example.
So your attempt to hijack the discussion of Atheism and its culpability for the worldviews which led to the massive slaughters of the 20th Century is rebuffed, and it is noted that your rebuttal is just another attempt at Tu Quoque, and a failure at that.
So if you care to comment on the subject at hand, which is Atheist slaughters vs. Atheist claims to be "Good Without God", then make your comments in that regard. Otherwise it is obvious that you cannot or will not defend the "Good Without God claims" in the face of documented Atheist slaughters, and that amounts to a de facto defeat for Atheism and its claim to tautological ethical goodness.
Hello there!!
It's difficult to talk with people about spiritually-oriented religions, their meaning and purpose, free will, and politics when unfortunately there is no humbling but imposition of opposing views.
When debate comes to be too opinionated there's no doubt emotional springs will pop out. That's why I try most of the time to go away from journalism and political speech, because many people can't handle it and become just too arrogant and closed-minded. Such hostility causes downright the same, one just has to look
For the sake of it, I'm not a psychologist (fortunately). This sencente is just my opinion, non-relevant and not to be addressed.
What I see with militant atheism and militant religious sectarianism
is just that, totalitarianism, the greed of co-opting and controlling knowledge selfishly: this is something that is not being taught wihtin "real" religions (by "real" I mean, which are oriented to the designated source of knowledge, so to avoid the "no true scotsman" fallacy. For example, Scientology is quite materialistic regarding the object of worship, and an example of sectarianism, and unfortunately Jehovah's Witnesses just take the word of the bible just too literally, then becomes sectarian. Fortunately the nature of God is not limited to sectarianism. From whatever "sect" or religion, if it leads to the understanding of spirituality, then even under the religious label and different methodologies, sectarism does not exist and such source of knowledge is comprehended. The experiential issues make the problem that as such, are not limited to the mere concept of religious pluralism, because they are not limited to only the theoretical), so it's natural that unfortunately, under atheism, there is no way for people to not turn themselves onto extreme behaviors regarding the acceptance of that worldview (no one has said that theists still being such may not become so, over and over), and irrational, non-consistent ramblings are to be expected. Of course, mileage may vary, from a complete adherence to nihilism, to an extreme militant totalitarianism. Nonetheless, nobody should mention that there are not balanced-minded atheists, maybe it's just the lack of understanding of the consequences of accepting atheism as a worldview, and no more.
Kind Regards.
Post a Comment