Atheists: Do you believe in absolutes?

Answer 1

2+2=4, absolutely.

Answer 2

Absolutely.

Answer 3

There can be absolutes.

Light travels at an absolute maximum speed.

The speed at which an object has to travel to escape earth's gravity is absolutely calculable.

An atom of hydrogen (or any other element for that matter) has an absolute atomic weight.

A water molecule contains absolutely two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

A nuclear fission or fusion explosion will not occur unless you have absolutely the correct conditions and minumim quantities of fissionable or fusionable material present.

Sound absolutely will not travel in a vacuum.

There are millions of absolutes that have been established by science.

Plus, there is absolutley no scientific proof to establish the existence of a god along the judeo-christian-muslim paradigm.

Answer 4

What is absolute one day, may not be the next.
Absolute is a word used to describe something that is true only in the here and now.
It is liable to change at any given moment.
Nothing is absolute. Not even infinity.
Our knowledge grows each day, and absolute is not forever.

Answer 5

Absolute zero is -273C.
But it's pretty hard to get there.

Or- as the joke goes, an engineer and a scientist (both sexually deprived) were told that they could have their way with that beautiful woman over there. They could take as many steps towards her as they wanted, but each step could only be half the distance between them and the chick.

The scientist claimed 'but then I'll never be able to reach her!'

The engineer said- "that's OK... I'll get close enough"

so - the moral of the story is atheists are more like engineers than scientists.

Answer 6

I believe there are very few and most of them mathematical. If you mean moral absolutes, not at a practical level. There are too many paradoxes in life and every ethical situation can have a different interpretation depending on the contributing factors considered. There are fairly "universal" species survival values such as preserving life, compassion and interdependent cooperation, but every application in law seems to produce a tangle of exceptions and mitigating circumstances that can actually obscure the underlying value. Most people opt for being "legal" rather than doing actual "good". Often desireable outcomes are in conflict or unavailable, requiring a compromise with a "lesser evil". And too often, rendered "justice" involves ignoring a lot of social injustices for the sake of social order.

I've always been interested in Jesus' rant against the Pharisees, and his distinction between the letter and the spirit of the "law". Moral absolutists seem mostly concerned with defining specific infractions so that people can be classified as either "good" or "evil". My experience is that there is always more to any story than anyone is willing to admit. Absolutism sounds simple, but for some reason, people with means and influence always have more exonerating legal excuses for their pecadillos than poor and powerless people do. The underlying institutional inequities that drive desperate people to desperate survival acts are seldom addressed.

A man is tried for armed robbery. Worse, the robbery was apparently intended to support his drug habit. It doesn't matter that the addiction resulted from the psychological need to escape a situation in which he could not pay for rent or food because no one would hire him because he dropped out of school because education was irrelevant to the culture he found himself in and wasn't any good anyway because the school couldn't afford enough teachers or supplies because it was in a poor district populated by people who had to work multiple low-wage jobs to barely support their families in neighborhoods of high crime (by other hopeless people), situated far away from "good" neighborhood where people had no trouble obeying the laws because they made enough money to have a decent life. That's no excuse. But if a business reposesses a car or shuts off phone service or power there for non-payment, that's just business. There's no excuse for not paying, at least not in that part of town. That's what I mean by "no absolutes".

"Absolutes" are nothing more than arbitrary standards set by people who have no trouble abiding by them because they live well-insulated, care-free lives. The purpose of these "absolutes" is to keep the people who have few viable choices in their place. Just like the Pharisees, who "make a great public show of praying and love taking their seats in places of prominence," yet refuse to lift the burdens they impose on the poor and struggling by their impossible legalism and religious obligations. The "absolutes" twist and morph when they are applied to their promotors, but turn into iron hammers when applied to the poor, powerless and unpopular.

I have an absolute for you: "God" always shows his approval to the side that has the most money and equipment.

Answer 7

Absolute what? Are you talking morals as in something is absolutely right or wrong? Perhaps in some cases, but I think that the human approach to ethics tries to be more "black and white" than practice allows for.

Answer 8

As a skeptic there are no absolutes but there are certain facts that are absolutely true, certain ideas that have absolutely been proved to be real, other ideas that have absolutely no proof what so ever.
Then there is Absolute Vodka.

Answer 9

There are a great many absolutes , but why do you ask Atheists that question ?

Answer 10

Absolute zero???

Absolutely.