I still don't understand the distinction you're looking for. You're obviously not seriously suggesting that there aren't any deontologists, that no one is a utilitarian... That would be absurd. So what is the distinction you're trying to make between people who have read, say, Kant, and try to follow his method, and people who have read, say, the Bible, and try to follow its methods? — Isaac

Ok, let's pick an example: marriage and divorce. Each religion has its own elaborate rules on that matter.

By the way, religious marriage is strongly resurgent. Governments across the world are increasingly losing the power to impose their views in these matters. Governments are simply not the most effective principle at using violence to get their way, as there are clearly much stronger principles at play. In that sense, it is pretty much inevitable that religious marriage will find itself completely reinstated.

What are the deontologist rules on marriage and divorce? Do you know of anybody who has entered into a deontologist marriage? Without rules on marriage and divorce, a system of morality is incomplete, say, even crippled.

Without rules on marriage and divorce, a system of morality is incomplete, say, even crippled. — alcontali

A system of morality that doesn't have anything to say about marriage and divorce implicitly considers them morally irrelevant. Just like a system of morality that doesn't impose any dietary restrictions implicitly considers diet morally irrelevant. A "completely system of morality" doesn't have to either oblige or prohibit every single action: it can leave wide swathes of behavior merely permissible, without saying either that you must or must not do such-and-such with regard to so-and-so.

he's asking for a philosophical ethics text that has had anywhere near the cultural impact on ethics--the ubiquity, pervasiveness, etc. of the Bible or Quran. — Terrapin Station

In the interest of some rhetorical comprehension help... I know that's what he was probably after, but he said "Is there one example of a documented, atheist system for morality with at least some followers" and in support of the claim "atheism does not build any system. Atheism only rejects religious systems, without building anything else instead". So, if he meant to qualify what counts as contrary evidence (must be high impact, many followers) then he'll have to similarly qualify the claim (atheism doesn't build anything high impact with many followers).

It's disingenuous to make a broad claim, then later narrow it specifically so that contrary evidence can be discounted.

As I've long since lost any hope of engaging in meaningful discussions here, baiting idiots into making the outlandish claim we all knew lay behind their oh-so-meek initial interjection is all an asshole like me has left to get any pleasure out of from here.

What are the deontologist rules on marriage and divorce? Do you know of anybody who has entered into a deontologist marriage? Without rules on marriage and divorce, a system of morality is incomplete, say, even crippled. — alcontali

Of course a deontologist has rules on marriage, its the same set of principles which govern all their other interactions, no reason why marriage need be any different. I know they can be frightening to the unititiated, but women are alright once you get to know them...promise, most people really don't need special rules for dealing with them any more.

Theology's always rubbed me the wrong way. I think if you 'let god in' to your thinking it has disastrous effects. It isn't really the god that does it, it's the kind of thinking that allows god in in the first place. Some general principles I think are important, and how god relates to them:

1) ontological materialism; paying attention to dynamism, becoming and individuation. A summary of this standpoint might be a focus on studying how systems become imposed on or emerge out of assemblages; genesis of structure and structure of genesis.

God only has a holiday home in becoming.

(2) a methodological rejection of idealism, foundationalism and correlationism; refused givens, thought is tailored through conceptual links which aim at and are embedded in a contextually circumscribed real indifferent to its conceptualisation

God's the biggest given to let in, and rarely indifferent to how he (!) is conceptualised.

(3) methodological pluralism - anti-architectonic thought; the phenomena should dictate not just what we think but how we think; ontologies and epistemologies produced are always regional and topic specific respectively.

Having one thing which constraints all adoptable styles of thought is bad.

I know they can be frightening to the unititiated, but women are alright once you get to know them...promise, most people really don't need special rules for dealing with them any more. — Isaac

That's true, but still...some people need special rules for dealing with almost anything! :gasp:

Beautiful! :heart:

. It isn't really the god that does it, it's the kind of thinking that allows god in in the first place. — fdrake

:up:

That's true, but still...some people need special rules for dealing with almost anything! :gasp: — Janus

Given the long-term trend in atheist populations of going extinct, as we understand that their currently low birth rates are going to implode even further, the lack of special, i.e. specific rules for marriage and divorce does not look like a particularly good strategy.

Religious people transmit their religion's rules to their children, while atheist people fail to do so because they generally don't have any rules nor any children.

Given the fact that the State seeks to force non-religious rules on marriage and divorce, there is not even a need for extra provocations to fuel the growing hostility that religious demographics have for the atheists.

At the same time, as their numbers shrink and as on average they get older, atheists are understood to find it more difficult to defend themselves, and are therefore turning into increasingly easier targets. In other words, every day that passes by, the likelihood of hostile reprisals keeps increasing. In terms of cost/benefit analysis, the cost of lashing out is shrinking dramatically. It is simply getting cheaper to do that. Furthermore, why do people do what they do? Well, because they can.

Therefore, in my opinion, atheist populations will not just gradually go extinct. They will suddenly do so. In other words, atheism looks like a suicide pact.

I think you're indulging in gross over-generalization.

Where is the "I'm an atheist, and it is of no consequence in the rest of my philosophy" option?

I feel like the question is posed incorrectly. Answer the question "How much does being a theist affect your philosophical world view?", and then the atheist can answer "by *not* same that amount".

Question for all: How much does your lack of belief (or even disbelief) in Zeus or Quetzalcoatl affect your philosophy or worldview?

People argue about religion because it has important implications to the lives of many people, it touches many issues and topics. Abortion, marriage, sexuality, education, politics, science, history, morality and so on, are all impacted by the claims of theists. That's why I find myself talking about religion even though it's not something I think about or care about.

There is quite a bit of evidence that affluence is a key factor in people opting to have fewer -- far fewer -- children. The theory is that with high survival rates among their children, redundant children are not necessary -- the ones they have will survive. Further, affluent people don't have to worry about not having children to care for them when they are old and feeble. Affluent people can hire poor people to that sort of work at affordable prices.

I haven't read any stats on atheism being a causal factor for reduced birth rates. Maybe it is, but I haven't seen the evidence.

I think one can make an argument (I don't have any stats for it) that it is affluence that leads to atheism. Poor people need to keep their options open, and one of those options is that a god is going to internet on their behalf, at some point. God is an affordable comfort, too.

Zeus or Quetzalcoatl — VagabondSpectre

I believe Zeus turned Quetzalcoatl into a toad. I feel greatly relieved because I never did like mesoamerican religion. Hail Zeus! Hail Jupiter!

Where is the "I'm an atheist, and it is of no consequence in the rest of my philosophy" option? — VagabondSpectre

I think the "incidental consequence" option is adequate. I would say that being an atheist is highly unlikely to be of no consequence to the way you think about things. In other words if, for example, per improbable, you were to became a theist, it would seem implausible to think that nothing else about your philosophy would change..

Where is the "I'm an atheist, and it is of no consequence in the rest of my philosophy" option? — VagabondSpectre

The fourth option should cover that. Saying that atheism is an incidental consequence is not saying that it is of consequence. Being of consequence would be more like option 3: the atheism comes first and other things follow from that. Being a consequence means the other way around: the rest of your philosophy just is what it is independent of (a)theism, and then when the question "is there a god?" gets posed your philosophy just says "nope".

There is quite a bit of evidence that affluence is a key factor in people opting to have fewer -- far fewer -- children. The theory is that with high survival rates among their children, redundant children are not necessary -- the ones they have will survive. — Bitter Crank

That may have been an interesting observation possibly a century ago.

With most people living in an urban setting nowadays, the poor also do. The reason why the urban poor fail to reproduce, is not because of the survival rate of children. It is because they cannot keep their families together for long enough.

Once a woman has a child with one man, it becomes harder for her to find another man to commit to funding a second one. He would be compelled to provide funding for the first one too, and men generally don't like doing that. Hence, rampant family breakup systematically reduces the number of children per woman.

Having a lot of children requires the same nuclear family staying together for all that time. That just does not seem to happen much outside the context of religious communities.

Further, affluent people don't have to worry about not having children to care for them when they are old and feeble. Affluent people can hire poor people to that sort of work at affordable prices. — Bitter Crank

That may be true for the really wealthy ones, but certainly not for the middle class. They depend in their old age on a unilateral transfer of resources mostly from people who may not even have a middle-class level of income. With the younger generations being increasingly of strong religious background -- otherwise they would not even be there -- the government will try to ask them to give up resources to pay to retired, middle-class atheists. It is obviously not in the interest of these younger generations to do that. For reasons of religion, they will each take care of their own parents. Religion does not suggest in any way, however, that they should fund someone else's atheist parents.

I think one can make an argument (I don't have any stats for it) that it is affluence that leads to atheism. — Bitter Crank

In the West, the economic elite may be mostly atheist, but outside the West, this is certainly not the case. Furthermore, the difference in income is shrinking rapidly. These societies are getting much, much wealthier. I can easily see that around me. Therefore, the idea that affluence leads to atheism is probably just one more western ethnocentric view. Neither the ruling elite nor the economic elite here in SE Asia is atheist.

That may have been an interesting observation possibly a century ago. — alcontali

Actually I was wondering which century you were living in. Seems to be something of a perception-distorting time warp going on here.

Actually I was wondering which century you were living in. Seems to be something of a perception-distorting time warp going on here. — Bitter Crank

If you have never lived outside a western country, you do not understand 80% of the world. You will also fail to unlearn the deceptive and manipulative views that you were indoctrinated with from a young age. I do understand why you fail to see that your own views can only be wrong, because you may never have seen something else. In a sense, you will remain ignorant of the truth for the whole of your life.

The reason why the urban poor fail to reproduce, is not because of the survival rate of children. It is because they cannot keep their families together for long enough. — alcontali

The population increase would suggest that somehow the urban poor are managing to reproduce.

Once a woman has a child with one man, it becomes harder for her to find another man to commit to funding a second one. — alcontali

Whatever happened to fathering several children with one woman?

Having a lot of children requires the same nuclear family staying together for all that time. That just does not seem to happen much outside the context of religious communities. — alcontali

Hogwash.

the government will try to ask them to give up resources to pay to retired, middle-class atheists. — alcontali

The government will not merely TRY to make you give up resources for aged atheists, they will be successful in making you pay for the luxurious assisted living and skilled care homes we shall require. So work hard, earn lots of money, cheerfully pay your taxes, and know that you are a blessing to old atheists everywhere.

You will also fail to unlearn the deceptive and manipulative views that you were indoctrinated with from a young age. — alcontali

And you weren't? Come now... How is it that you and you alone managed to overcome the deception and manipulation that was visited upon you, and that nobody else in the world could overcome?

The government will not merely TRY to make you give up resources for aged atheists, they will be successful in making you pay for the luxurious assisted living and skilled care homes we shall require. — Bitter Crank

Well, in that case, these governments will have to improve their game, because they has never managed to make me pay one dollar. You see, taxes are paid by less intelligent people to more intelligent ones. That is why I find it so insulting to pay them, and that is why I have never paid them.

Furthermore, not all governments seek to extract that many taxes.

The local minister of interior affairs has recently clarified that he thinks that foreigners should simply pay their yearly visa fee (a few hundred dollars), and that he does not expect more than that. He obviously knows that he is competing for these few hundred dollars per year with lots of other countries. Hence, the reasonable nature of his views. So, we've got a nice deal going here!

You know, "bring back our jobs" will simply not happen. Either you are reasonable, or else you get nothing.

How is it that you and you alone managed to overcome the deception and manipulation that was visited upon you, and that nobody else in the world could overcome? — Bitter Crank

Because... God did it.

It's really much easier this theist philosophy. I don't know why I didn't convert earlier. I'm reviving Quetzalcoatlism... Zeus be damned!

And you weren't? Come now... How is it that you and you alone managed to overcome the deception and manipulation that was visited upon you, and that nobody else in the world could overcome? — Bitter Crank

I think that you purposely misunderstand what I have said. I may have been manipulated too, but I unlearned all of that, or at least most of that, by living in other parts of the world. Furthermore, I think that 80% of the world is not deceived nor manipulated. Therefore, unlike you, I believe that the majority on this planet is not deceived. They clearly think differently from you, but that is because they are right.

Bed time. Tomorrow.

Because... God did it.

It's really much easier this theist philosophy. — Isaac

That is a popular internet meme, supposed to convey the idea that ‘belief in God is an end to all questioning’. However if you really did come to believe, I think it would provoke enormous questions; it might cause one to question many things that one previously assumed. So the idea that it’s an ‘end to questioning’ can only really be entertained on the basis of the assumption that it really doesn’t mean anything in the first place.

if you really did come to believe, I think it would provoke enormous questions; it might cause one to question many things that one previously assumed. So the idea that it’s an ‘end to questioning’ can only really be entertained on the basis of the assumption that it really doesn’t mean anything in the first place. — Wayfarer

That's an interesting thought. What kind of questions might arise out of a faith in some particular god, do you suppose, that weren't there before?

Definitely, but I've always had the impression that the complexity was a factor of smart people who had been indoctrinated with religious beliefs as a kid--so that they couldn't exactly just drop the beliefs on a emotional level--realizing that they need to try to figure out some way to make something that's pretty obviously ridiculous seem not-so-ridiculous instead. That's why you get ideas like, "Yeah, it's not a big boogie man in the sky, it's an 'organizing force'" and so on. — Terrapin Station

You got it nailed down well. However, you can still argue with the smarter religious, even if you don't convince them. And the arguments, while clean, are enjoyable. Only about half the time does it devolve to mud-slingings, with the smarter religious. There is respect mostly, on both sides. I respect their learnedness and their politeness, I respect that I can reasont with them to some point. Whereas you can't even get your foot in the door with the less complex believers. They don't disrespect me, they just bounce back from every argument with a joyful smile on their faces, and keep bouncing about like little rabbits in a sun-beat field of daisy chains and blossoming dandelions without a care in the world.

One more thing... on the forums you encounter really smart religionists. But they can't keep out the not so smart ones. Whereas the atheists comprise only really smart people. This is what gives me hope in my efforts to proselyse. Because in the one-time communist countries you find a lot of dumm atheists. I mean, almost everyone is atheist there. This sort of tells me that reason will win, and then the masses will follow.

That is a popular internet meme, supposed to convey the idea that ‘belief in God is an end to all questioning’. However if you really did come to believe, I think it would provoke enormous questions; it might cause one to question many things that one previously assumed. So the idea that it’s an ‘end to questioning’ can only really be entertained on the basis of the assumption that it really doesn’t mean anything in the first place. — Wayfarer

.... precisely! Thanks for sharing Wayfarer... !

precisely! Thanks for sharing Wayfarer... ! — 3017amen

Well, perhaps you can answer the question I put to Wayfarer then. What are these questions which a belief in God causes you to ask that were not there before? How many angels...?