Godless morality

[Sophus]

I wouldn't say it's a philosophy at all, just a label

It's a philosophy. But unlike the theistic philosphy it doesn't dictate other philosophies on life. Theists don't seem to grasp this concept.

[Wechtlein Uns]

I wouldn't say it's a philosophy at all, just a label

It's a philosophy. But unlike the theistic philosphy it doesn't dictate other philosophies on life. Theists don't seem to grasp this concept.

wait... what's a philosophy? I don't understand.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I wouldn't say it's a philosophy at all, just a label

It's a philosophy. But unlike the theistic philosphy it doesn't dictate other philosophies on life. Theists don't seem to grasp this concept.

No, all "atheism" says about someone is that they do not believe in a god or gods ... any philosophy associated (IMO wrongly) with atheism is due to philosophies that led one too become atheist. I also believe that is true of the generic theist i.e. it takes a specific "flavour" of religion to gain a philosophy.

Kyu

[Asmodean]

I wouldn't say it's a philosophy at all, just a label
You are right and yet you are not. Atheism is technically a (part of) personal life philosophy. Of course, this technicality is defined by the huge masses of people letting religion directly affect their lives. If you look away from that, then atheism is just a word for a lack of belief and thus is but a simple label.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I wouldn't say it's a philosophy at all, just a label
You are right and yet you are not. Atheism is technically a (part of) personal life philosophy. Of course, this technicality is defined by the huge masses of people letting religion directly affect their lives. If you look away from that, then atheism is just a word for a lack of belief and thus is but a simple label.

I don't (can't) agree ... what philosophical point of view does atheism advance?

Kyu

[Asmodean]

I don't (can't) agree ... what philosophical point of view does atheism advance?

The one that views life as ours and no-one else's..?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't (can't) agree ... what philosophical point of view does atheism advance?

The one that views life as ours and no-one else's..?

I don't think that is an inherent part of atheism. For a start there is nothing in atheism that stops you believing in ghosts or spirits or UFO's or anything else like that ... I mean, as far as I know, Scientologists don't believe in a "God" so they are atheists and they're as batty as fruitcakes.

Kyu

[AnnaM]

Reading some of my posts, I figured I should write this one to avoid a fatal misinterpretation of my views.
I have said that I view ethics, properly construed, as a practice of a semi-classical virtu, of those formulations which lead to our success.  I do not, however, accept ideals or morals at all.  Morality is a ghost, a spook, a delusion, a self-slavery, a self-deception.  The idea is shot full with more logical holes than Platonism, indeed, it is Platonism in disguise however dressed up it may be.  Right and wrong have meaning only to me for what pleases me or does not, and one's cause is not (can not) be anything other than that: one's cause.  Those who set themselves up with 'higher', more 'noble', more 'reasonable' causes than themselves, they are not paragons of wisdom but of foolishness.  Not freedom, but tyranny is the true source of all value, all action, all will.  And not the tyranny of an abstract formulation, of a principle, of a god, of justice; none of these things whatsoever, but my tyranny.

[Sophus]

Good to have another who shares my thoughts on morality. I've said before there is no right and wrong. Only good and bad intentions (accompanied by either intelligence or stupidity in carrying out those intentions).

[Wraitchel]

Pppft! Moral relativists!

There's really no point in disagreeing with you. It is the next logical step after atheism. You probably object to my use of the term "moral," though. Too bad. The phrase sums up the sentiment nicely, I think.

[AnnaM]

Pppft! Moral relativists!

There's really no point in disagreeing with you. It is the next logical step after atheism. You probably object to my use of the term "moral," though. Too bad. The phrase sums up the sentiment nicely, I think.

I am not a moral relativists, I am an amoral egoist.

[Wraitchel]

"amoral egoist!"

At least you're honest! Me, I am a moral relativist ( by Sartre's definition). I'm not so picky about how the term "moral" is used. I guess I'm a semantic relativist, too.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Pppft! Moral relativists!

There's really no point in disagreeing with you. It is the next logical step after atheism. You probably object to my use of the term "moral," though. Too bad. The phrase sums up the sentiment nicely, I think.

I am not a moral relativists, I am an amoral egoist.

lol, yeah, I used to be an egoist too. Good luck making friends.

[AnnaM]

lol, yeah, I used to be an egoist too. Good luck making friends.

A friend who is not used for yourself, as you are (not as an imaginary thing you must 'become') is of no value in any case.
Every friend I have is a friend who is worth being a friend of.  I make no exceptions for incompetence in this regard.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Of course. Well, I agree that friends should be the ones you pick.