Looking forward to working with you on this cause!

 I am 50% sure that FSGP will get the Ethical Society building in Rittenhouse Square for this.  Hoping RRS or other Philadelphians will join us!

I'm on a variety of medications, so donating blood is a no-go.

This should be on TV! Have you guys thought about making this a TV commercial (how much does that cost?) or are you hoping that it will  get enough media coverage in the news?

 

See what this org says: www.americasblood.org

We prefer them over the Red Cross, a helpful rep is openly atheist who does a lot of leg work for us behind the scenes. 

The tattoo/piercing thing... I'm not sure how much of a concern that really is...

They gay thing - that's just discrimination. I'd wouldn't say a thing if I were them. Don't ask. Don't tell... or... just don't tell.

I would definately characterize the gay prohibition as discrimination.  But, in terms of being a tattooed person, I think it's a stimga that's also unwarranted ... The Studio I get work done is impeccably clean, I do not have HIV, Hep A,B or C, I've never had a staff infection, nor have I had a blood born illness, and yet I can't give blood, while a promiscuous heterosexual can give blood no prob ... To me, it doesn't rise to the level of the discrimination in the same way the prohibition of gay donation does, but I'd like the perception about body mod to change ...

 I donate blood every 8 weeks or so and today was my day to donate again (Coincidence or God?).  During the screening process I had a conversation with the nurse about this very subject.  I find it interesting that a monogamous homosexual can not donate but an unprotected heterosexual can fuck anything that moves, even animals I might add, and still be able to donate.  As if the ONLY people to get STD's are gays, intravenous drug users, hookers and those who have sex with same.  Now some people may be upset about this because it’s homophobic but I frown upon the practice simply because it an insult to peoples intelligence.  =(

Can someone make some posters that can be put up on campuses and malls and whatnot?

All the blood donation in my country (UK) is done through the National Health Service. The UK is openly tolerant of atheists and homosexuals. There are gay MPs, atheist MPs. Homosexuality has been legal in this country for 40 years now. The only blood they don't accept is from unhealthy people.

I'm planning on giving a pint of my blood soon. Although I have a big (not entirely irrational surely(?))phobia of needles.

That's really uplifting, I mean that you're doing all this amazing stuff not the illness. Good on you man, you're an atheist saint if there can be such a thing.

One of the biggest problems I've had since I became an atheist six years ago at 14 is death. It's not so much that I want immortality in heaven or an afterlife, I think to live forever would be horrible but imagining what experiencing nothing is like, I know you don't experience it, but I can't imagine not experiencing anything, that is the limit of my human brain.

There is one thing I do know, that I don't want to be put in some varnished oak coffin and put in a cemetary. I want my body to benefit science whether that be for medical students to cut me open and find out how to cure diseases or for scientists to study in more detail than they already know, especially the brain. I'd like to know that my body would be doing something useful. I'm not sure about donating organs though, the amount that I drink I don't think my liver or kidneys will be of much use to anyone, and I only have one of the other things. Blood though is important. Give blood people, it saves lives.

Here is my view on this.....

 HIV does not care if you are old, young, male, female, gay or straight.  If you become infected it really doesnt matter.  On the other hand, anal sex is a much more likely way to get HIV than vaginally or orally.  So sexually active gay men (whom anal sex is the only way to have penatration) are more likely to contract HIV from an infected partner than heterosexuals not having anal sex. 

 I do think anal sex should be inquired about.  and a window (maybe five years) should be used to screen out all recipients of anal sex, gay and straight.

To Mr. Saipient. Your blood drive has provoked in me the most intense curiosity. Might I inquire sir, why are you encouraging blood donation? Moreover, why sir are you personally an organ donor? 

Thank you

 

SDG

Agustine  

I cant speak for Sapient but

I donate my blood because, people in trouble need it.

I will donate my organs because...well... people will need them.

I want to donate what is left (but I dont know how) and useful to science because if something can be learned from it, then education is served. 

What ever is left, if anything, gets cremated and scattered.

 In case your wondering, I also donate unwanted items to shelters, and ocasionally donate money to other causes.

At one point I was registered to donate marrow.

Not to him, no. I'm having an agonizingly frustrating discussion with him on MattShizzle's forum, Original Sin. He just cannot understand why atheists should be moral/good people. As if someone should require a reason to be moral.

To my friend Mr. deludedgod. Sir, how can you, an atheist, utilize the term "should," or any other terms that imply duty such as "ought" and "must". Without positing a common point of reference for the unconditional ought, one is left with human beings as the locus of moral values and thus notions of duty within the atheistic worldview are merely subjective, pragmatic, utilitarian or emotive. Such a view is markedly devoid of any measure of coherence.  God Bless...

SDG

Agustine  

I echo that. 

To Mr. deludedgod. I understand how my comments may have made you feel and for that I do so apologize. Again that was not my intention sir. My intention was to provoke analytic thought regarding a subject of paramount concern. With respect to your comment concerning dishonesty sir, I have not nor have I ever been dishonest in our dialogues. I find such a claim entirely spurious. Although you claim to have refuted my argument, I have not been made sufficiently aware of such a refutation, especially in light of your own comments whereby you indicate that you do not even understand the substance of my argument.

 

Deferring to our previous dialogue, the initial thesis of your argument primarily consists of a negative critique wherein you decried any moral ontology grounded in theism, describing it with the pejorative “fear-based.” Operating within the sphere of Christian theism however, I countered with a series of quotations derived from the Christian source documents that indicate the contrary, for example “He then proceeded to explain to the disciples that the very the foundation of obedience rests not upon fear but upon love, to wit: “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15; Jesus then said shortly thereafter “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves Me will be loved by my Father, and I will love Him and manifest myself to him.” John 14:21” You responded with “I have no idea what you are talking about because you are not even making an argument.” The fact that you did not understand my argument coupled with the clear absence of a discernable telos on your part – I suspect resulting from your non-comprehension of my argument - makes the prospect of a successful refutation quite remote. To increase my vulnerability though, I cannot deny my culpability and so begrudgingly, I must accept evident blame for the lack of clarity on my part, and accordingly I apologize sir. I am not very bright and as such I would implore your patience.

 

Proceeding to the substance of our dialogue, the gravamen of your complaint is existential yet the very problem inherent to your worldview is logical. Take for instance your claim that I have thus far been dishonest. Sir, in raising the charge you invoke a moral law. For if you intended the word “dishonesty” to connote something good it would be entirely appropriate for me to consider it a complement. However, we all know what “dishonesty” means. Words are not infinitely malleable. Yet, in order for your charge to carry with it the force of moral opprobrium, it cannot reasonably be construed as lacking objective import. Otherwise, with all due respect sir, you have said nothing. As the philosopher and theologian G.K. Chesterton once quipped, “For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind.” Orthodoxy If it lacks objective import sir, then the substance of your claim is reduced to mere folly, wholly the product of personal preference. This is the principle reason why the atheist blood drive has peaked my curiosity. I think that what your organization proposes is a pristine example of goodness. Moreover, I think that the blood drive itself exemplifies what one ought - might I use the word “ought” - to expect from a good and descent society. I applaud your efforts! Yet, most decidedly, my claims carry with them the weight of objective import and accordingly it is not unreasonable to conclude that they would arouse the moral imagination of those within earshot. Taking into account the foregoing then, what I find to be abundantly clear is the problem resulting from the fact that the values the atheist wants to espouse cannot be rationally defended within their worldview; thus the proverbial free lunch etiology of atheistic ethics. This sentiment was expressed by the ethicist Richard Taylor quite well, quote “The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion. He concludes, Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.” cited from The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality, by Dr, William Lane Craig

 

Conversely, theist in general and Christian Theists in particular are sufficiently enabled from within their worldview to rationally justify such claims. Now, the distinction I draw among the competing worldviews should be at least existentially apparent: the theist is duty bound not only to affirm such activities as the blood drive and the underlying intentions that motivate them, but is compelled to act in a like manner. Much to the contrary the atheist cannot logically affirm one position over above another. For example, within the atheistic worldview there is no objective moral difference between giving blood and/or spilling blood. It is merely the expression of what one prefers predetermined by his biology. This was expressed quite well be the philosopher of science Michael Ruse, an avowed agnostic, when he said “The position of the modern evolutionist...is that humans have an awareness of morality...because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than are hands and feet and teeth.... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves…. Nevertheless…such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction and…any deeper meaning is illusory.” Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics, in The Darwinian Paradigm

 

The point here should be most obvious, yet I find that the explanation proffered by Dr. Ruse contains a certain glaring defect. Allow me to illustrate my point. If the sole function of morality is to aid in the survival and reproduction of the human animal, simply put, why should I prefer survival over non-survival insofar as any reasonable construction of the proposition yields a most unnerving presumption: there is intrinsic value in the continued propagation of the species. I describe it as unnerving because Dr. Ruse simply assumes this point without any argument. Moreover, this point is central to his thesis. Remove the point and his argument self-destructs. Quite curiously, I think the entailments resulting from his thesis raise a very important question, to wit: from where and more specifically how did this value originate? Is it possible that at some point in the evolutionary process whereby matter was rearranged into more increasingly complex forms could it be that a singularly monumental event occurred, mirabilis dictu, value and/or “worth” to use Mr. Ruses’ description emerged. At some point in this painfully protracted process something became valuable, the classical evolution of the gaps scenario. How then does survival take on the character of “preciousness” to use your descriptive? Now, I agree with your characterization yet I am confounded by your use of the descriptive. When I consider the entailments of Dr. Ruses’ so eloquently stated claim for our society, for our relationships…..  Can you imagine a meaningful family dialogue taking into account the entailments of such a worldview? “Hi honey, I’ve learned today that even though I say I love you such comments are without foundation. The only meaning our twenty-year marriage has is that it is useful in the propagation of our species.” Wow! Duck! “Kids, stop fighting, that’s not good for the propagation of our species. Dad, why should we propagate our species? Well son, I don’t know, the experts say there is value in it so we have to trust their opinion, and after all son they are the experts.” Despite the Huxlyian tenor of the language, there is I must confess some utility to the recognition of the logical entailments, namely you can have a lot of fun with them.

 

Moving now to the consideration concerning whether there can be a moral law without God. There is, surprisingly, significant agreement amongst thinking theists and atheists on this point, that of rational grounding and objectification of these peculiar meta-ethical postulates we call moral values. Take for instance the philosopher and probably the most prolific atheistic writer of the twentieth century, Mr. John Leslie Mackie, now deceased. In his book the Miracle of Theism, Mr. Mackie employs a peculiar argument in support of his atheistic views. He argues that it is chiefly because of the fact that objective moral values do not exist that God does not exist. Quote: “Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen without an all powerful God to create them.” Mackie deliberately grounds moral values in God and in so doing he ties the very existence of God to the question regarding whether moral values exist. A negative response to the existence of objective moral values inexorably requires a negative response to the God inquiry. Mackie understood the logical implications. Humanist Philosopher and editor and chief of the Humanist Journal Free Inquiry Paul Kurtz posited the following question concerning the ontological status of moral values, "The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?" ibid. He later provided an explanation of moral ontology as “rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion.” ibid. Recognizing the logical entailments of Dr. Kurtz’s claim, Dr. William Lane Craig commented, “then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.” ibid.

 

According to philosopher and atheist Kai Nielsen, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary, the choice between “adopting a moral point of view versus living a life of pure selfishness in total disregard for morality and virtue is an arbitrary, non rational choice.”  J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist Dr. Nielsen extends the inquiry to the degree which such choices cohere rationally and operating within the atheistic worldview he responds to the question in the negative. In Why Should I Be Moral? appearing in the American Philosophical Quarterly, Dr. Nielsen provides a more sobering view of the reasons or the conspicuous lack thereof attendant to adopting a moral point of view from the perspective of the atheistic worldview, quote ““We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”

 

In summation, my purpose here has been to induce a much-needed critical thought. I support wholeheartedly the blood drive and encourage you to continue with such activities in the future. I applaud your organization and its participants for this much needed public display of affection for one’s fellow mankind. It is not my intention to disparage anyone, for that would be sinful. I have not been dishonest as some may claim. If you so choose to silence me that is certainly your prerogative, however please take the following sentiments in consideration. I am a Christian and I disagree wholeheartedly with the atheist, in point of fact the worldview that I espouse is diametrically opposed to the beliefs that you hold. Yet to quote Voltaire, “I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.” I would never support any effort to silence your organization. In my estimation you have the absolute right to lawfully express that which you wish even to the point of making my blood boil. The world in general and our nation in particular needs more and not less speech. I commend you sir to your considerations. God Bless….

 

SDG

 

Agustine

 

To answer you question why would athiests have a blood drive.

 

2 answers.

 

The First is doing something that you think will help someone makes you feel good.  People like doing things that make them feel good. 

Even if you hold the view athiests have no regard for human life you have to accept they would still do something to makethemselves feel good even if it is illogical.

 

The Second one, the mission statement of AtheistVolunteers states as it goal to change the perception held by people that athiests are not "good" people.  So by doing things viewed by our society as "good" or "beneficial" get some good publicity and that could lead to a greater acceptance of atheist.

I was wondering how an Atheist in Atlanta could go about donating blood on the 3rd without having to go through notably theistic organizations (ie St. Somebody hospitals and what not).  Are there plans to organize atheist blood drives in major cities or is there a particular blood-donation organization being used?

I will be giving blood this saturday

As this forum has also become a discussion justifying the atheist blood drive, I feel compelled to share my reason for donating blood. To repeat the reasoning of others, I know that life is short -- therefore I believe that every moment is precious. By donating my blood (A renwable resource) I sacrifice nothing but a little of my time to give someone else a chance to keep living.

Also, to quote RRS's reasons for becoming a subscriber... "Consistent support makes you feel all gooey inside."

To Mr. deludedgod. Thank sir for your most thoughtful response. As always I consider your opinion to be of great value. With respect to your comment “I understand your argument perfectly……” I am less convinced. The central premise of my argument, to put it most succinctly, is that the values the atheist wishes to espouse are indefensible from within the atheistic worldview. Period! Take for instance your comment “There is no evidence which would support the notion that the religious, who believe a divine lawmaker gives them such decrees as right/wrong, are any more moral than the atheist.” I have never made this argument. I have argued quite to the contrary, to wit: “I would absolutely agree that such a proposition as “One cannot be moral unless they were a theist.” is inherently fallacious.” see Agustine, post 14, Original Sin Thread. Moreover, your comment “What I could discern from Craig's writing is that he is under the delusion that society steals from religious morality,” is entirely incorrect. Dr. Craig was quoting the ethicist Dr. Richard Taylor, which ought to have been plainly apparent insofar as I made that point explicit. Here Dr. Taylor’s point, echoed by Dr. Craig, is the meaninglessness of ethics absent a transcendent foundation. Judgment in this regard resides in the periphery. Again, the obdurate persistence, albeit, the demand for logical coherence remains the focal point of the discourse. I don’t see any good reasons to assign objective import to either denunciations and/or affirmations made by atheists. I don’t even know why you would raise the specter of judgment in that it is plainly irrelevant to the instant question. As we have progressed in our discussion what has become patently clear to me is that in every instance wherein I force you to the logic of your own presuppositions you embark upon this extravagant digression. I propose kind sir that we suspend any further inclination to digress in the future.

 

You then proceeded to make the following comment, “Really? Well, history would tell us that the theist has never placed much more value on life than the atheist. Obviously then such a claim is meaningless.” You criticism herein continues to linger upon the periphery. Was it not Agustine, not me, the real Agustine that in response to this sort of negative critique he admonished the critic according to the well-settled dictum: you should never judge a philosophy by its abuse? The appeal to history as the example you cite only demonstrates the degree to which the Christian worldview has been abused. Take for example the Inquisitions. What teaching of the Lord can one rationally draw upon in order to support such barbarity? Better yet, what specific teaching of the Lord supports any of the examples you cited. I submit to you sir, none. Historical precedent only serves to demonstrate the illogical outworking of the Christian worldview. Conversely, the internal cannons of atheism, or lack thereof do, in point of fact, lend their support logically to such barbarity. (A most necessary aside - Note! I said logically. Please do not confuse logical coherence with causality as did our friend todangst.) Why? Because there aren’t any absolutes, man is whatever you define him to be. Now, please, I am not suggesting that all atheists are barbarous. No! No! A thousand times No! That is not my point, nor am I suggesting that at all. My point is irrespective of whether the atheist chooses to adopt a moral point of view and ascribe value to man – much like the Secular Humanist attempting to qualify an indefensible position on borrowed capital - or a Stalinist point of view and excise value from man, in the final analysis, operating within your worldview, it simply doesn’t matter. The atheist cannot rationally defend one point of view over and above another. Within atheism man is whatever you define him to be. This has been the focal point of my argument from the beginning, logical coherence and rational grounding. The atheist lacks a rational grounding for moral absolutes; in fact it explicitly condemns in the absolute all notions that affirm the existence of moral absolutes.

 

I suspect more strongly that you are quite aware of this most glaring defect in your worldview. This is exceedingly evident from your gratuitous use of the purported Social Darwinist fallacy, if in fact such a fallacy exists insofar as the degree to which one may rationally taxonomize it into either of the pertinent categories is argumentative at best. Shifting the point of relevance to the entailments and thus purporting a scholarly debunking of them does not speak to the problem of coherence. For the purposes of our discussion however I’ll grant that such a fallacy is valid yet the substance of my argument militates against its applicability. I have distinguished the meta-ethical foundations within the atheistic worldview qualitatively, arguing that naturalism does not provide any good metaphysical grounds for the atheist to rationally defend the values they wish to espouse. Although the blood drive is laudable, considered within the broad context of the argument, the atheist that gives blood cannot logically condemn the atheist that spills blood. In the absence of absolutes all ethics are either subjective, pragmatic, utilitarian or emotive, and thus meaningless.

 

The net effect of jettisoning absolutes, existentially, is undeniable. Let us consider the logical outworking of the atheist worldview within the context of his intellectual commitment to Scientism and its constituent aspects as exhaustive theories regarding what can be and be known, otherwise known as “the naturalist epistemology”. The atheist’s intellectual commitment in this regard - speaking to the very questions you posed concerning values - clearly enough results in a most conspicuous separation between facts and values. The language employed by the atheist concerning quote “facts” describes the very character of things known through the faculties of sense impression as true or false, real or unreal, reasonable or irrational, and consequently science is deemed the sole repository of facts. Conversely, as it pertains to values, more specifically questions concerning right and wrong, virtue and vice, ugliness and beauty, purpose and dispurpose, the very species of questions described by the Philosopher Edmund Husserl as those that science excludes in principal and yet men find the most burning; these questions cannot be considered factual. Why? Because they are not susceptible to empirical methods of confirmation within the scientific context, and because science exhausts what is true and reasonable to believe and that applies to facts, values are left to being created by mere caveat acts of will. see Moreland, J.P., The Search for Meaning A culture that adopts such a worldview will place an inordinate emphasis on individual rights and liberties; its citizens will become increasingly narcissistic, and thus with the concomitant attenuation of values and their ability to inform our exchanges with one another, relationships will reduce insofar as they are moral to rights claims against one another. ibid. The prevailing ethic will most certainly be that one can do whatever he may wish as long as he doesn’t harm another. Sound familiar? Moreover, I think your statement “There is no data to suggest that men of God are more charitable than men without,” supports the essential features of my thesis. Allow me to inquire sir, what specific experiment may we perform in order to calculate in discreet and measurable increments the degree to which the charitable sentiment is present in the hearts of men? Interesting! How does one sort the data so as to distinguish between various charitable sentiments? For example, selfish sentiments motivating giving in order to exploit a charitable provision in the tax code, or selfishly giving in order to make one feel good, or acts of giving in order to aggrandize oneself in the presence of others, or giving anonymously for purely altruistic motives……

 

Now, let me be absolutely clear, I have not argued that atheism is untrue because of the unsavory entailments. I have argued that the atheist cannot rationally affirm any particular ethic over and above another, and that makes the vociferous denunciations of the atheist appear absurd. I have alluded to the entailments solely to illustrate the logical outworking of atheism, not to affirm or deny its veracity. Returning to the substance of your response, you commented, “I notice distinctly that your reference is solely Abrahamic. Furthermore, using words like "ought" and "should" far rather short of reality.” To point one – Yes, I am a Christian Theist. Point Two – it appears as though you do not affirm the existence of “duty” in that the words “ought” and “should” are of deontological import. Finally, a point of coherence; in order to live out your worldview consistently there aren’t any good reasons for you to affirm notions of duty. Well done sir! Accordingly, the next time someone runs a red light and almost hits your car don’t get angry, for no such duty attaches to drive according to the rules of the road within your worldview and therefore no injustice has occurred. Or, if a bank teller makes a mistake concerning a deposit of yours do not get angry, no such duty exists to truthfully record deposits, no injustice done. If a scientist deliberately conceals the negative results of some experimental medicine and you and/or others become sickened by it do not demand justice by suing, no such duty to truthfully report scientific findings attaches to the scientist within your worldview. Again, in emphasizing the entailments I am merely illustrating the logical outworking of atheism and simply requesting that its adherents live out their worldview consistently, to the best of their ability, as should those who call themselves Christians.

Now, this particular comment that you made I find to be utterly confounding to the intellect, quote “Each one of us is here by trillion to one odds. The number of genetic permutations that could have been instead of us...outnumbers the atoms in the universe. The fact that we will one day die makes us the lucky ones. The fact that life comes only once is what should make it taste so sweet. We must make the most of the time we have here on this Earth. Every second is precious. We should wake up and think "what is the most constructive thing to better myself and humanity that I could do today"?” What immediately arrested my attention is the fact that your argument emphasizing quote “trillion to one odds,” however unintentional, appears to tacitly affirm design and not accident. see Mathematician William Dembski’s The Design Inference, Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities Unintentional consequences aside however, are you seriously suggesting that life is inherently valuable, in speaking of the “sweetness” – well said by the way – which I take to be a metaphorical reference for “value,” is the net result of an accident, the rough equivalent of a cosmic anomaly and its attendant finitude. Sir, may I inquire, even if I grant the rarity of our etiology or essentially “luck” with which you hold to so dearly, why on that basis should I ascribe any value to life operating within the atheistic worldview. An accident does not appear to be a good reason to ascribe any value to something. “Making the most,” why? Platitudes aside sir, what compelling reason do you have to make the most of anything? Why? A thousand time why? Please give me one good reason. I do not understand your concern for humanity sir when I consider the fact that looking through the lens of your worldview all either you or I am is essentially nothing. We came from nowhere, we exist but for a moment, and return immediately to nowhere. Consider the sentiment expressed by the most notable atheist Bertram Russell, "That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.” Value sir within the atheistic worldview, preposterous! I cannot make sense of the world intellectually through the lens of the atheistic worldview. To echo the Oxford Philosopher Ravi Zacharias, “it is plainly unlivable”. Personally sir, I couldn’t fool myself into imputing value to anything as a result of the most improbable origins and a finite existence. Improbability and finitude for me do not provide adequate grounds sufficient to satisfy the demands of logical coherence and rational grounding.

Another interesting comment you made was the following, “Now, if you recall, I already explained why atheists also feel duty-bound to help their fellow man:” Are you now suggesting that notions of duty within atheism are the result of feeling. I suspect any number of comments are appropriate here. What immediately comes to mind though, if in fact feeling provides the locus of duty is the following question: in some cultures they love their neighbor, in others they eat them, all on the basis of feeling, sir do you have a personal preference? see Ravi Zacharias, id. However, it appears as though within the course of your commentary you revert yet again to the theory of improbability and finitude as the foundation of ethics. I am completely at a loss sir….

God Bless

Agustine

You cannot possibly expect me to reply to the whole post right now, as I must leave soon. I requested explicitly that they be less long. This is a debate not an essay exchange. I will respond to the important parts now.

 The values the atheist wishes to espouse are indefensible from within the atheistic worldview. Period! Take for instance your comment “There is no evidence which would support the notion that the religious, who believe a divine lawmaker gives them such decrees as right/wrong, are any more moral than the atheist.” I have never made this argument. I have argued quite to the contrary, to wit: “I would absolutely agree that such a proposition as “One cannot be moral unless they were a theist.” is inherently fallacious.” see Agustine, post 14, Original Sin Thread. Moreover, your comment “What I could discern from Craig's writing is that he is under the delusion that society steals from religious morality,” is entirely incorrect. Dr. Craig was quoting the ethicist Dr. Richard Taylor, which ought to have been plainly apparent insofar as I made that point explicit. Here Dr. Taylor’s point, echoed by Dr. Craig, is the meaninglessness of ethics absent a transcendent foundation.

This last part is what I have tirelessly argued against. Men are not children. They need no transcendent being to tell them of right and wrong. Here is my take on morality. It is partially evolutionary as being of some selective advantage (altruism and foundational neurological ethics), to some extent, it is societal hence built upon various cultural foundations, which is why it changes (hence the subjectivity comment). Societal morality arises from necessity, and as society becomes more advanced, it's inherent drive is progressive and towards increased ethical humanity. This is easily observed. In fact, it has always been, from the Ancient Greeks to the Founding Fathers, that men of reason have always been best at ascribing humane law and moral foundations.

  What immediately arrested my attention is the fact that your argument emphasizing quote “trillion to one odds,” however unintentional, appears to tacitly affirm design and not accident. see Mathematician William Dembski’s The Design Inference, Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities Unintentional consequences aside however, are you seriously suggesting that life is inherently valuable, in speaking of the “sweetness” – well said by the way – which I take to be a metaphorical reference for “value,” is the net result of an accident, the rough equivalent of a cosmic anomaly and its attendant finitude. Sir, may I inquire, even if I grant the rarity of our etiology or essentially “luck” with which you hold to so dearly, why on that basis should I ascribe any value to life operating within the atheistic worldview. An accident does not appear to be a good reason to ascribe any value to something. “Making the most,” why? Platitudes aside sir, what compelling reason do you have to make the most of anything? Why? A thousand time why? Please give me one good reason

Life is not an accident. By trillion to one odds, I was referring to the possible genetic permutations (aka other people) that could be here instead of me. I have read Dembski's work. I am a biologist, so I am familiar with all that Design nonsense. Insofar as everything he says is based on Behe's long-since debunked Irreducible Complexity, I do not take him seriously.

Insofar as you would operate under the delusion that "inherent value" would be a requsite for ascribing value to something is false. There is nothing wrong with the notion that men can create value and meaning for themselves. Everything you say would thus strike me as an Argument From Nature Fallacy. The facts of the matter are that the universe has conspired to create life. We happen to sit at the top of this totem pole, having higher cognition and conciousness. This is the most beautiful gift that could be bestowed. Thus my mantra as to why I am moral and lead a good life. We only have one, it is rather short, and it should be lived to the full.

Now, let me be absolutely clear, I have not argued that atheism is untrue because of the unsavory entailments. I have argued that the atheist cannot rationally affirm any particular ethic over and above another, and that makes the vociferous denunciations of the atheist appear absurd.

As I said, we are not relativists but progressivists. And I think I already explained that we would be born into a culture which champions a certain set of ethics. Christians too, have no absolutist  doctrine. They too, merely project their underlying character onto the beliefs on which they were raised. This is why we have some nice peaceful sets, and some violent physcotic ones. 

Are you now suggesting that notions of duty within atheism are the result of feeling. I suspect any number of comments are appropriate here. What immediately comes to mind though, if in fact feeling provides the locus of duty is the following question: in some cultures they love their neighbor, in others they eat them, all on the basis of feeling, sir do you have a personal preference?

As it turns out, the most humane cultures, like I said, have been those whose foundations were based on reason. I would expect the response to be pointing in the direction of the communist regimes, to which I reiterate that these were hardly men of reason, they were physcotic and dogmatic, with ruthless Orwellian/religious overtones. 

Making the most,” why? Platitudes aside sir, what compelling reason do you have to make the most of anything? Why? A thousand time why? Please give me one good reason. I do not understand your concern for humanity sir when I consider the fact that looking through the lens of your worldview all either you or I am is essentially nothing. We came from nowhere, we exist but for a moment, and return immediately to nowhere.

We should make the most for many reasons. One, if we wish for intelligent life to continue indefinitely, which I hope it will, we should leave our contribution to humanity. Two, like I said: The facts are that we exist, and we are very lucky to exist. Now, are we going to wallow in nihilism? Or perhaps will we strive to make the most of this existence. And three, it is instinctive that we continue. It is in our genes. It's what we do. To some degree, we should need no reason. 

That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.”

I too, used to be depressed by this notion. Personally, the fact that I shall one day die matters little to me. But such is the nature of advanced life it would surely be a shame if it went extinct. Some study into cosmology pointed me in the direction of the Final Anthropic Principle. I'm not sure of the theoretical physics community take on this. At any rate, yes, the Universe will one day die. But I would imagine that so far in the future is this event that we shall have long since left this universe for another. 

Value sir within the atheistic worldview, preposterous! I cannot make sense of the world intellectually through the lens of the atheistic worldview.

Well, that is your problem. Have I not pointed out the logical fallacy of setting up this false dichotomy between value and inherent value? 

. Personally sir, I couldn’t fool myself into imputing value to anything as a result of the most improbable origins and a finite existence. Improbability and finitude for me do not provide adequate grounds sufficient to satisfy the demands of logical coherence and rational grounding.

What then, is your implication. That we need to create Gods to give us meaning and objective value? Insofar as I can see, Gods continue to be adhered to for perhaps this precise purpose. What is the point of this argument? The atheist drinks the facts cold, and makes sense of his own life without inputting fairy tales into the equation. At the end, he still manages to turn out a good guy. Have I not point out before that baser morality is not inherently rational, but rather neurological? 

Again, I urge you to write shorter posts. 

To Susan. I appreciate your comments however I do not find any adequate reasons from within the improbitude theory for the atheist to rationally defend the values he so desperately wants to espouse. Again, my intention here is not to refute but to induce critical thought.

Thank you and God Bless

Agustine  

Why is survival preferred over non-survival? Because the creatures who are better at survival are more likely to reproduce than the ones who do not survive as well.

To me, this is purely a mechanical process. It does not require any thought on behalf of the creature, although the creature in question, humans, do think. So sets of values are not required for this process, although you may see sets of values form from humans as a result of this process.

Value is a concept that we create. We learn that things have value as children. Children do not rationalize why they prefer to live or why they prefer things that bring them joy and dislike things that bring them harm. So rationalization is an exercise that we all take part in in varying degrees, but I do not think we need to rationalize the natural world in order to find value. Humans have survived and have found things that make them happy prior to our knowledge of what is beyond the sky. With the knowledge of what brought us into existence, I do not see any reason to be any more depressed. If anything, I find the natural process that gives us all life to be inspiring.

The way I see it, religions are created by humans to project their view of morality. If someone follows religious text, they are simply following another humans, or collection of humans for socially constructed compilations, set of morals. To me, it is better to rationalize our morals then to simply follow a fixed set of morals, especially when the fixed set of morals comes from questionable sources. Also, we do not always rationalize our morals as individuals. We can rationalize some of our morals in large groups by creating laws. To assume that we need a fixed set of morals is to underestimate our ability to improve our morals as we go along.

I appreciate your desire to understand the world from the viewpoint of an atheist, but atheism is very different from theism, and it sounds like you are very deep into theism. I used to be a Christian (hence my screen name XC). I did not get into all of the arguments for theism as you have when I was a Christian. I admire your dedication and your willingness to explore a different line of thought, however maybe it is time to play devils advocate and practice defending a naturalistic view by reading material that supports that view. Sometimes, people here can become fatigued from arguing the same points over and over. Thanks for keeping your reply to me short!