Why being an Atheist is wrong.

[Deacon Frost]

I wanted to explore this a bit as I'm self-studying utilitarianism atm, and trying to figure out how the whole thing works. Figured I'd present an argument, and have some other perspectives.

Right and Wrong can be determined by what is rational and what is irrational. Rational and irrational can be determined by what brings about the most pleasure and what brings about the most pain. (TDD pointed this out: Rational and Irrational can be determined by what course leads to the most pleasure vs. the most pain. (Can't get the right words >.<))

Atheists have a hard time as they're surrounded by folks who constantly attack them for not falling to their knees and worshipping. This is painful. Therefore, not changing is irrational, and therefore, being an Atheist is wrong.

Being a theist of any kind is more accepted as a social norm, thus making life easier, thus minimizing stress and optimizing pleasure, thus making it rational, thus making it right.

Am I right?


EDIT: Another simple example, so TDD gets off my back about 'misinterpretation' .

You can have a piece of chocolate, but you're allergic to chocolate. If you eat that chocolate, the pain will outweigh the pleasure. It would be irrational to eat that piece of chocolate. Instead, it would be rational to not eat the chocolate as there would be no pain, and no pleasure. Therefore the right choice would be to not eat the chocolate, and the wrong choice would be to eat the chocolate.


EDIT 2: ('Why being an atheist is wrong' argument redone).

Being an atheist gives you no additional pleasure. The social normality is theist, with over 50% being of some religion. In general, atheists are not accepted, and are seen as hateful people. This makes their life stressful at times, which is painful. However, they usually take enjoyment in the fact that they're probably right. Thus making the choice to be an atheist irrational.

Being a theist, you are essentially ignorant and accept more things just because. Being religious can be truly bliss. You'll also fit in more with society, and have better opportunities in life. This makes life less stressful, and tends to lead to more pleasure as well. Thus making the choice to be religious is rational.

Being rational is right, whereas being irrational is wrong. Right?

 

I wanted to explore this a bit as I'm self-studying utilitarianism atm, and trying to figure out how the whole thing works. Figured I'd present an argument, and have some other perspectives.

Right and Wrong can be determined by what is rational and what is irrational. Rational and irrational can be determined by what brings about the most pleasure and what brings about the most pain.

The fallacy in this reasoning starts here. The meaning of right/wrong is used first in the moral sense then redefined to refer to correct and incorrect, then returned to the moral sense. This is referred to as equivocation, and is a fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

Being a theist of any kind is more accepted as a social norm, thus making life easier, thus minimizing stress and optimizing pleasure, thus making it rational, thus making it right.

But the greater fallacy of the argument is more subtle, and is in the form of begging the question / circular reason. If one posits that utilitarianism is the only rational or valid system of ethics, then identifies a case in which the majority believe X, then concludes that X is right, then all one has done is said Y is right, X is Y, therefore X is right. Circular reasoning.


I would add also that just because something is more physically painful or stressful does not make the choice to undertake that action irrational. The values of the subject determine which actions are rational and which are irrational. Without knowledge of these values it is impossible to determine if the action is rational or irrational.

 

[Deacon Frost]

The fallacy in this reasoning starts here. The meaning of right/wrong is used first in the moral sense then redefined to refer to correct and incorrect, then returned to the moral sense. This is referred to as equivocation, and is a fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

But correct and incorrect can also be seen as right and wrong? I mean, what else is there in relation to correct and incorrect? It is correct to choose the path that has the greatest output of pleasure vs. the path that has the greatest output of pain. Rational and Irrational isn't being argued from the logical perspective, but from the moral perspective.

But the greater fallacy of the argument is more subtle, and is in the form of begging the question / circular reason. If one posits that utilitarianism is the only rational or valid system of ethics, then identifies a case in which the majority believe X, then concludes that X is right, then all one has done is said Y is right, X is Y, therefore X is right. Circular reasoning.

Indeed, I saw the circular reasoning after TDD mentioned it. I'm simply trying to understand the utilitarian point of view right now, asserting that it's the only valid method of determining accuracy won't work, I get that.

It's a bit confusing. Consequentiality in entirety is.

I would add also that just because something is more physically painful or stressful does not make the choice to undertake that action irrational. The values of the subject determine which actions are rational and which are irrational. Without knowledge of these values it is impossible to determine if the action is rational or irrational.

We could then assert that you cannot know if your actions are morally right until you know all the values.

 

But correct and incorrect can also be seen as right and wrong? I mean, what else is there in relation to correct and incorrect?

Correct or incorrect according to whose values?

Is it correct to favour strawberry icecream over vanilla? Working a day job over working a night job? Furthering one's education over getting a raise?

It is correct to choose the path that has the greatest output of pleasure vs. the path that has the greatest output of pain. Rational and Irrational isn't being argued from the logical perspective, but from the moral perspective.

You can't make an ought from an is without an if, and a set of values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-value_distinction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

We could then assert that you cannot know if your actions are morally right until you know all the values.

You've fallaciously muddled facts and values, in a sort of appeal to complete knowledge, when all perspectives necessarily have incomplete knowledge, and not all values have truth-value.

The field of study you are somewhat entering is called Praxeology. While values are subjective, there are still truths about values, their formation, and their purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

 

[jake__]

That's all fairly reasonable, if you assume that everyone everywhere is being abused for not being Theist, which is a pretty big assumption, and also incorrect for a large proportion (note - I'm not saying majority).

 

[dam prayer noobs]

I think atheists need to be more open minded. They depend too much on logic and build their life around it, when there are many many things in this world that can't be explained with logic. Logic is only limited to this realm, when you experience other realms you will eventually lose a sense of self and the need to argue with people. Many spiritual people have reached this stage in many types of religions. I think Ughster understands this very well but doesn't go on these forums anymore.

 

[blindkilla]

I think atheists need to be more open minded.

Most of them are.

there are many many things in this world that can't be explained with logic.

Give me one example.

 

[The Riddler_]

Most of them are.

Did you finish reading what he said/understand it? He's saying being an athiest is being not open minded. In that aspect.

Give me one example.

Paranormal activity. Not the movie.

 

[Comprensión Mutua]

Your thread explains (through utilitarian ethics) why atheism may be morally wrong, but it doesn't explain why the utilitarian approach is the correct approach.

 

[Arya]

In a boiled down version, this concept, idea, is basically represented as plausible under ANY standard by assuming that 'ALL' atheist have the living conditions stated above. Since this obviously isn't true, one of two things could be the next best choice.

1) This concept applies to only the atheist with a lesser conditioned life because of their views.
2) This is wrong.

Since you can't take an argument that uses the entirety of two sides of people and only use a certain amount for one side, as it would be irrational/invalid, option 1 isn't available.

Give me one example.

Love.

 

[tofurocks]

I was thinking of this viewpoint a lot recently, and I have still not decided my position on it. It is quite interesting though, I didn't know there was a word for it.

 

[blindkilla]

Did you finish reading what he said/understand it? He's saying being an athiest is being not open minded. In that aspect.


Paranormal activity. Not the movie.

I know what he said, and paranormal activity isn't an example.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Most of them are.

Atheism by definition promotes close mindedness.

Give me one example.

Love.

 

[Evan Wears Prada]

Atheism by definition promotes close mindedness.

So when a religious person is presented the idea of atheism and denies it are they close minded because they weren't willing to see it from the athiest's point of view? They weren't willing to open up to new ideas?

 

[pie_row]

I think atheists need to be more open minded. They depend too much on logic and build their life around it, when there are many many things in this world that can't be explained with logic. Logic is only limited to this realm, when you experience other realms you will eventually lose a sense of self and the need to argue with people. Many spiritual people have reached this stage in many types of religions. I think Ughster understands this very well but doesn't go on these forums anymore.

You are delusional.

Is it open minded to follow a faith because you are told it is correct?
Are you saying making observations on reality is wrong and closed minded? you are a fucking idiot.

Ok, some things cannot be explained... yet. so why automatically assume its some supernatural force behind it. you cant be fucked thinking for yourself and just say "god did it". Lots of things couldnt be explained in the past, then people used logic and reasoning and found out that its not infact a miracle, its FUCKING REALITY.



ok, rant is over. I have drank too much so il probably get infracted for this post but I seriously couldnt give a fuck.


now.

Why do you care that athiest think for themselfs and dont follow your childish beliefs? what does it matter to you what others think? Why do you think people need to believe in a (your) religion in order to find meaning in life? go blow yourself.

Edit: athiests means you do not follow a faith, which equals the complete opposite to closed minded. It means you take ALL the information given to you and make a rational decision. not coppin head jobs from your priest because he says so

 

[God Father]

Religion is Religion.

You cannot Rant about this is wrong, this is wrong.

Yes Some should be considered completely wrong, but they are not.
Religion dates back to way back when, Its gotten so strong if the pope told you its ok to have sex with your sisters, you would think "oh cool, its ok"

It is completely Diffrent For everyone. People have their own beliefs, Fucked up or not, its still Religion.

 

[Pkpkpk]

So when a religious person is presented the idea of atheism and denies it are they close minded because they weren't willing to see it from the athiest's point of view? They weren't willing to open up to new ideas?

If athiest by definition is closed minded, then you can not be closed minded by denying to be closed minded.

 

[Schnell]

Love.

Try again. There are examples you can use which haven't been explained... yet.

What is love?

 

[PublicityFtF]

Atheism by definition promotes close mindedness.

Atheism
A - without
Theism - belief in a god

A proper definition would be the following: Lack in the belief of a god or gods.
That in no way promotes close mindedness.

 

[tomnothere]

Haha, I like your definition. I don't know I just find it funny because I have always liked weird logic thrown around but yet it presents a valid argument, as in your case.

However I would like to point out that feeling pain and pleasure is solely an individual's desires and does not have a whole definition for everyone. Pain to one can be pleasure to another.

Being an Atheist myself, I have to say that I don't feel much displeasure in being criticized. I take all constructive criticism and rule out the ones that doesn't make sense. Doing this gives me a feeling of pleasure and peace because I'm actively participating in a debate instead of passively repressing my thoughts.

Often, arguments thrown at Atheists just don't make sense, and since I feel pleasure in pointing flaws in others' arguments, being an Atheist in my shoes is rational and therefore correct.

Of course, there are others that feels pain being an Atheist because their self-esteem prevents them from standing bold against other threats. I understand that in their case, being an Atheist themselves is wrong because it is bringing them unhappiness.