Wow. I've been reading your moral dilemmas all these years and it never, till now, dawned on me you're trying to demonstrate that atheism has no justification for morality, or at least that atheists never give the justification. Maybe you're too cryptic at times.

I have always wondered why in debates "John thinks X subconsciously" translates to "I know that John thinks X".

lol@subconscious theism. Atheists are not actually atheists and we should "doubt their atheism" and in fact they are "subsconsciously theists". Why? Because DS doesn't like the answers he imagines they will give to his silly hypothetical.

There is an actual issue of interest somewhere in here, namely about questions of whether it is or is not possible to objectively justify a valuation of human life or - as notready suggests - even larger questions about moral justification more broadly. Atheists undoubtedly will have a range of different views on this, many of which won't even be well formed. But to just start throwing out that if their views are not entirely aligned with DS's, then they must be subconscious theists is just ridiculous.

... Humanity already thinks like that. Or it did, for a long time. Past generations didn't give a crap about pollution, because it wouldn't affect them.We give no crap about wasting food, because it doesn't affect us right now.
Past generations didn't make an effort to make more fuel efficient cars, because there was plenty and was cheap, so not their concern!

I would vote no against that 600years, unless Earth would be destroyed, but you managed to colonize another planet before that happened!

Why would we not fight for the survival of our species...? We always did, not because we believed in a god, but because, we , as a species, and as all species, do not want to perish. Is that so hard to grasp??? Survival is our biggest and most developed instinct! Look at the world wars and the progress that was achieved while we were at times of war. Why? Because the country with the most advanced tech would have more chances of SURVIVAL.
It's all about survival and leaving a legacy ( for some ppl ) - That's the reason most people have kids. To have something to live on for them on this world, even if they don't believe in a god ( I don't. ).

Can't an atheist believe that denying future generations the joys of life is worse than to alleviate the pain of the current generation? I don't see how this form of empathy implies souls or a special place.

What about future intelligent life that started and evolved on a planet millions of life years from us? What about future earthlings that are 90% machines and reproduce by cloning? What would you give up to perpetuate their existence?

Don't forget that in my OP I specified that ending humanitie's existence in 600 years resulted in much greater happiness now. Thus a slight inclination to perpetuate the species would not be a good enough reason to pick that alternative.

Finally, I think most would agree that religious people would tend to feel more strongly than atheists that humanity should survive. From that follows that the closer the atheist aligns himself with that outlook the more likely there is vestiges of theism in him.

Consuming some sorts of drugs would make you very happy for a few hours, but then destroy your life. Seems you didn't take them yet, so there's your answer.

lol "vestiges of theism".....no this most certainly does not follow. Humans are a social species with natural tendencies towards sympathetic views of humans, of caring for other humans and valuing other humans existence more than that of sand flees and alien species or whatever else. That someone might value the continued existence of humanity doesn't make them a subconscious, vestigial theist. It makes them human. Your entire attempt to convince us that atheists must secretly be pseudo theists unless they take your side in your ridiculous thoughts experiment is preposterous.

Besides, while your deduction is embarrassingly obviously not true, I question whether your assumption is either. Many atheists are humanists, and there is a big group of theists who are predicting - and sometimes cheering - for the end of life on this planet in exchange for some heaven like thing. So I don't even think it is obvious that atheists care less about humanities survival than theists. But you will probably chalk that up to the atheists just being subcontious theists

this claim is unsupported and unconceded. You are underestimating the number of religious nutjobs out there who would gladly welcome an apocalyptic event and consider it a gift from god or punishment for our sins.

-People who gamble on football are more likely to watch football games.
-Joe doesn't gamble and watched a football game
-therefore Joe is more likely to have gambling inclinations.

That is similar to the structure of the logical argument that you are making and it's significantly flawed in that it is not generally useful at providing relevant information, ignores lots of other relevant information, and is misleading in correlation/causation.

Its more human to disregard the present day for the benefit of unborn far into the future? Your arguments are ignoring the original proposition that continued existence is very costly to present day humans and the next several generations.

You need to work on your analogies.

People who watch a lot of football are more likely to have thoughts of betting on football than those who don't ever watch.

Spending a lot of money so we could eventually colonize other star's planets sort of fits into my scenario.

yea, that's the whole point.

and you would not say that the limit of watching the maximum amount of football possible would only be reached by a gambler. This is obviously not true because there are lots of reasons one could watch football and there are plenty of non-gambling fans that watch far more football than their gambling counterparts.

backing out of this analogy, "the closer the atheist aligns himself with that outlook the more likely there is vestiges of theism in him" - the limit of this will not approach 1. ie, being increasing in care of the future does not necessarily imply religion in the limit. And again, this is obviously not true because there are lots of reasons to care about the future.

Ofcourse, the most glaring oversight of all... is that there is absolutely nothing that stops an atheist from believing in souls, salvation, afterlife, his/her own potential damnation and objective meaning and purpose to the universe.

Those beliefs are part of many theistic beliefs and religions yes, but they are not what makes those beliefs theistic.

I'm not trying to engage your hypothetical at all. My objection is your ridiculous and thrice repeated assertion that people not entirely on board with your interpretation of your silly hypothetical must therefore actually be these closeted, subconscious vestigial theists. Whatever interest there might be in your actual thought experiment, your attempts to shoehorn your larger skepticism about atheists being secret theists is simply too egregious to ignore.

Look, there are many stances that theists take mainly because it appears that is the stance that they think will please God. Many of these stances if thought through wouldn't hold up too well if they were analyzed totally logically. Thus when an atheist takes the same position there is good reason to suspect that he has done so not because he has found a good reason to do so but rather because of a gut feeling. And if it is a gut feeling, there is a chance it is coming from a subconscious fear of displeasing God. I just gave one of many examples. Another one might be staying on a dangerous battlefield to bury a fallen comrade who will soon be run over by tanks. If an atheist doesn't fight his understandable inclination to risk his life, he is operating based on an emotion that I suspect often stems from the fact that deep down he thinks God might exist.

Oh stop it. Even my biggest critics in this thread realize that I am defining atheist to mean someone who doesn't believe in things like souls or afterlife, regardless of what the technical dictionary definition is.

I genuinely have no idea where this is coming from. It is just such a bizarre assertion.

I think the basic mistake you are doing is taking intrinsically human impulses - human "gut feelings" - and assuming they are products of theism. Thus, when an atheist ALSO acts in a way consistent with human actions, you are erroneously concluding that this is a signal of their subconscious theism when it is just a signal of their humanness. To use your example, having empathy for humans in our "in-groups" to the point of willing to risk your own life for them is a human trait. It is well documented that in certain situations humans have been well known to do this. That an atheist might risk their life for a comrade doesn't mean some convoluted story where they secretly believe in God and think this will please him so they risk their life trying to get God's favour. It just means they are acting on that oh so human impulse.

As a side note, since you are massively overvaluing the role some form of suppressed or subconscious theism has in the actions of atheists, you are undoubtedly making the same mistake for theists as well. Namely, you likely way overvalue the cause of their action as being due to their theistic beliefs, when it is usually the other way around that theism tends to support natural human behaviors. In the example, theists - like the atheists - are not risking their lives for their comrades because of a fear of God and an attempt to curry favour. They are also doing it because it is a natural human instinct.

Just want to make sure that you realized that in the second example the soldier is already dead.

Just want to make sure that you realized that this makes zero difference to my points. Just as desiring to save your comrades is an intrinsically human - not exclusively theistic - trait, so too is showing deference and respect to the dead. That an atheist would do this doesn't make him some secret closeted theist, it makes him human. However, it is clear at this point that you are dug in here. Since you are attributing theism as the cause of so much human behavior, your "deductions" that people acting in human ways are actually subconscious theists is going to follow trivially.

So how bout this example. An atheist spills a drink on his car seat. The only thing available to clean it up is a beaten up bible that nobody wants and that he can discard without anyone knowing. If any other book had been in the car he wouldn't hesitate to use it to wipe up the mess. But he won't use the bible.

Which leaves the earlier criticism even more valid. This entire point of yours seem to be merely begging the question.


To avoid that, you will have to explain why there are no good reasons for your (specific type of) atheist to not go for your proposed improvement.

I've already given a reason for why I personally care what happens after I die and why I think we behave that way as a species without it having anything to do with any deities existing.

What? Has your account been hijacked?

I'd happily use any book if the situation required it and I had absolutely nothing else I could use (I'd use my teeshirt before I'd use a book) but as a book lover I'd search for an alternative first, even if there was a bible in my car.