Godless morality

[pinkocommie]

Obvious troll is on thin ice.  I typically don't issue a second warning in the same day so we'll see what harriet has to say tomorrow.

 

[zookie]

The idea that religious belief is required for maintaining moral standards, and that if there is no God, there is no reason to be moral is fallacious for two reasons.

The first fallacy is to suppose that morality needs an ulterior justification. The second fallacy is to suppose that a God can supply it.

The fallacy which involves people thinking that morals could be founded on 'divine authority' has been exposed by many philosophers, but was put succinctly by Bertrand Russell, who said:

'Theologians have always taught that God's decrees are good, and that this is not a mere tautology: it follows that goodness is logically independent of God's decrees.' What this means is that moral standards can never be justified merely by an appeal to authority (human or divine). There has to be the additional premise that the person whose dictate we are to follow is good, or what he commands is right, and this cannot be the mere tautology that 'He is what He is' or 'that he commands what he commands'.

I believe that morality is innate in humans without the need for external influence. I feel that without a basic moral compass within us, humans (who are social animals and thrive by working together for mutual benefit) would not have evolved as far as they have.

If murder and rape were made legal today, I would not commit them because I know it is morally wrong to hurt another. I did not need a 'god' to tell me this, nor even any law. It is innate in me. Because human individuals have independent brains and actions influenced by a plethora of socio-cultural and biological factors, laws are in place to protect us from those who may act in ways that go against the safety and well-being of society.

I believe that morality is flexible and reacts to situation. I also believe that it involves the component of choice and intention. An action can only be 'immoral' if the intention was present to cause harm or hurt.

Morality has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe or the presence of a creator. It also has nothing to do with the continuance of any 'divine plan'. It is about making choices as a human individual to treat other people, animals and the environment with respect and care - causing as little harm as possible during your time on the planet. No great plan beyond doing good where possible. No 'divine' purpose.

I am extremely moral, and I am an atheist. I form my morality through compassion, empathy and logic. Does that not bring Harriet's whole argument into disarray?

I would like to suggest this link to Austin Cline to Harriet, as she needs some basic information about Godless Morality and Ethics;

http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicsandcu ... Morals.htm

I was also dismayed by Harriet's ridiculing of logical and honest thought. There is nothing wrong with saying we need evidence before reaching any conclusion. There is nothing wrong with saying 'the information is lacking', and there is nothing wrong with relying upon intelligent probability (based on previous evidence) to draw a conclusion - being open to re-evaluating one's position in the face of further evidence. One big problem I have with religious faith is that it breeds a culture that ridicules logic and evidential-based intellect, whilst somehow making 'blind faith', assumption, presumption and illogical irrationality the superior pursuit.

As a post-script, I wish people like Harriet would stop assuming they know what I believe about the earth and the universe. It is most irritating! She could try asking people what they believe or think and actually respond to them appropriately. Atheists each have a different perspective and we are not united by any doctrine or tenet. I know theists find that hard to grasp and tend to box us all into the same package... it is annoying in the extreme!

[zookie]

Obvious troll is on thin ice.  I typically don't issue a second warning in the same day so we'll see what harriet has to say tomorrow.

 :pop:

[harriet_tubman]

The fallacy which involves people thinking that morals could be founded on 'divine authority' has been exposed by many philosophers, but was put succinctly by Bertrand Russell, who said:

'Theologians have always taught that God's decrees are good, and that this is not a mere tautology: it follows that goodness is logically independent of God's decrees.' What this means is that moral standards can never be justified merely by an appeal to authority (human or divine). There has to be the additional premise that the person whose dictate we are to follow is good, or what he commands is right, and this cannot be the mere tautology that 'He is what He is' or 'that he commands what he commands'.

that's not what i believe at all.  i do not believe that morals come arbitrarily from a divine authority.  i believe morals are rooted in the premise that we live in an intended universe.  in an intended universe construction is good and destruction is bad because if the creator loved destruction then we wouldn't be here.

I believe that morality is innate in humans without the need for external influence.

if morality is so innate then why is it that what is moral changes every century?

I feel that without a basic moral compass within us, humans (who are social animals and thrive by working together for mutual benefit) would not have evolved as far as they have.

define moral compass

If murder and rape were made legal today, I would not commit them because I know it is morally wrong to hurt another. I did not need a 'god' to tell me this, nor even any law. It is innate in me.

is is also innate to commit adultery.  this is the naturalistic fallacy, it is right because it's natural.

Because human individuals have independent brains and actions influenced by a plethora of socio-cultural and biological factors, laws are in place to protect us from those who may act in ways that go against the safety and well-being of society.

laws are written by a mixture of the powerful and the majority.  check out the law that legalized slavery before 1865 in america.

I believe that morality is flexible and reacts to situation. I also believe that it involves the component of choice and intention. An action can only be 'immoral' if the intention was present to cause harm or hurt.

what if you kill stalin.  certainly that was a good harm.

Morality has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe or the presence of a creator. It also has nothing to do with the continuance of any 'divine plan'.

let's just say for the sake of argument that you wanted to build a pyramid and you created robots to help you to do it.  moreover, since 1000 minds thinking is better than 1 mind thinking you managed to create in them an independent mind. it would be in your interest to make it instinctual in these robots to hate any action that detracts from the construction of the pyramid and love any action that encourages the construction of the pyramid. it's the same with life.  

It is about making choices as a human individual to treat other people, animals and the environment with respect and care - causing as little harm as possible during your time on the planet. No great plan beyond doing good where possible. No 'divine' purpose.

how do you prove to someone like nero who believes that this world is kill or be killed that that's true?

I am extremely moral, and I am an atheist. I form my morality through compassion, empathy and logic. Does that not bring Harriet's whole argument into disarray?

this is the because atheists are good people God therefore does not exist fallacy.  what man does does not affect the existence of God whatsoever, no more than they can affect the existence of gravity.

I wish people like Harriet would stop assuming they know what I believe about the earth and the universe.

definition of God: that entity responsible for the creation of the cosmos
definition of atheist: one who does not believe in God

therefore atheists do not believe the cosmos was created by an entity.

really, i've been debating in atheist forums for years and i have never encountered such resistance to this notion that atheists believe in an accidental cosmos.  this is something they should be proud of.

[Tank]

dawkins certainly does.  do you believe the cosmos is the result of an intention?  if you do then you're a theist.

To add to your warning...if you continue to insist that Dawkins is some sort of atheist pope I'm going to give you another warning then ban you.  Continuing to try to shoe horn all atheists into what you think they should be is evidence of not wanting to have a civil and productive conversation and we don't need that type on nonsense around here.

if you ban me that will send a message to other atheists: we hate to hear other people's ideas. besides, i've clicked on your sponsors more than 10 to 20 times.  i've brought you a lot of business.

If Whitney bans you the message it will send is that 'talking bollocks' and 'making shit up' is not acceptable behaviour around here, bliss!!! I am so glad I've found a forum where somebody has the guts to ban people who don't engage in debate but just grandstand and preach!  

[EssejSllim]

You know. I'm no longer going to argue with you. Obviously, with your infinite amount of knowledge, your deep connection with the purpose of the creator, I have realized something. YOU are the creator. It all makes sense now.

On a side (and more serious note) I think you should know that I think the USA is the worst country in the world.

[Tank]

You know. I'm no longer going to argue with you. Obviously, with your infinite amount of knowledge, your deep connection with the purpose of the creator, I have realized something. YOU are the creator. It all makes sense now.

On a side (and more serious note) I think you should know that I think the USA is the worst country in the world.

I suggest you think about this list before you rubbish the USA.

Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Burma
China
Ethiopia
Haiti
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Korea, North
Libya
Qatar
Rwanda
Somalia
Syria
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Vatican City
Yemen  
Zimbabwe

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

[Cecilie]

According to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index the U.S. is the 13th best country to live in. (Guess who's on top?  )
Not sure if that's what you ment though...

[Tank]

According to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index the U.S. is the 13th best country to live in. (Guess who's on top?  )
Not sure if that's what you ment though...

At a quick glance Kuwait appears to be the highest ranked Islamic country at 31!

[Whitney]

Thanks for what appears to possibly be an attempt at having a civil discussion...but...

really, i've been debating in atheist forums for years and i have never encountered such resistance to this notion that atheists believe in an accidental cosmos.  this is something they should be proud of.

Maybe it's because this group is smarter than those other atheist forums   Words have meanings and people at HAF tend to really care if those words are being used correctly to convey the intended concepts.

You need to realize that what people are trying to tell you is that they do not believe the universe is an "accident"  You cannot have an accident without having a being that made a mistake.  If you were just saying that atheists thought the universe is likely not caused by a god then you'd be right.  But, it would not be right to say that atheists all think the universe is uncaused as there are  natural (not requiring a god) theories on how the universe came to be that involve causes (though then the cause or noncause of the cause is a question) and some atheists are religions (such as buddhists who would be inclined to think that supernatural forces are at play but not a god being).

So, instead of saying accident, say not caused or uncaused (by a god) and you'll have demonstrated that you are listening. Then if you want to talk about those who think the universe is an accident (of which we don't seem to have many at HAF) then address them separately from atheists at large.

Most atheists fall into the "I don't know how the universe got here but I see no reason to assume a god had a hand in it" camp.

[Davin]

provide me with a concrete example.

Super Mario Brothers.

my reasoning is simple.  let's take wind, there's a random force.  i have been watching wind all my life.  i have never seen wind take some sticks and create anything of any significance whatsoever.  it takes intelligence to fine-tune parts.  let's say you build a car.  only an intelligence can know what bolts are needed, what crews are needed. an unintelligent force cannot distinguish between a 1000 different parts. an unintelligent force, like a computer, can follow orders such as those written in code, but a computer cannot write a code.

If the planet had screws and bolts holding it together you might have something here.

you said people have similar goals, therefore there is right and wrong.  i say how do you prove to someone who has dissimilar goals that his goals are wrong.

actually laws are mostly written by the powerful.  so let's take the bailout.  wall st managed to legally steal millions and millions of dollars from the american people.  back in 1800 it was legal to enslave people.  mankind having similar interests has nothing to do with right and wrong.

I'm pretty sure that you're not getting the point. We were talking about laws. You asked where laws came from if there isn't some kind of absolute crap or whatever. You didn't ask if I wanted to consider every kind of possible situation to evaluate if I think it's moral or not or whether you think it's moral or not. If you disagree that laws come from the similarities of mankind then discuss that, however if you do agree then we can move onto something else.

Really, cute little rabbit frolicking in the forest is a destructive life force?

cute little rabbit is not a destructive life forest.  i don't see how you imply that i believe that.

Really? You need me to go over the conversation with you? Why don't you go back reread the conversation.

i read it and didn't find out what you're referring to.

Rabbit is food. A carrot is also a non-destructive life form. People destroy essentially non-destructive life forms all the time for food. You said destruction is bad. How do you eat without destroying something?

in the past people tried to determine what God wanted by referring to some stupid passage in a book.  what i'm suggesting is that we determine what is good based on whether or not it helps life on earth as a whole, hardly a controversial enterprise.

Same difference: people assuming that there is a god and then to know what that made up god wants.

you have clearly stated that most humans share common goals, therefore right and wrong can be determined, haven't you?  if you haven't then where do right and wrong come from?

No, I clearly stated that laws came about from the similarities of mankind. If you agree with me then we can move on to something else.

i'm suggesting that if you start from the premise that the universe is accidental then morality is basically "anything goes."  do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. Even if the universe were the result of some accident from some dude dropping a bunch of chemicals, it wouldn't mean that "anything goes" could be the only result, similarly if the universe happened due to the laws of nature it also wouldn't mean that the only way life would work is "anything goes." If "anything goes" was successful, then I'd probably be saying that "anything goes" works. However I think that working together as a species is what brought us to this point and the better we get at working together the better life will be for all of us.

[zookie]

I'm really not sure I should answer this, as I feel like I'm feeding the troll... Anyway, I will try to say just a few more points addressed to Harriet.

Firstly, I would like to know how many of Bertrand Russell's texts you have read, Harriet? And have you understood them? I have a feeling his philosophical understanding of the world way surpassed anything you or I could come up with here in this thread. Just because you want to believe in a creator, and you have a specific view of morality you want to be true, this does not justify or validate your ideas.

I believe that the universe has patterns and natural laws that are repeatable and verifiable - therefore the universe was not an 'accident' as you seem to keep insisting I must believe and be proud of (although how anyone can be 'proud' of any idea they have is a little mysterious to me).

These patterns, however, in my understanding, do not necessarily point to a 'creator' and certainly not the kind you appear to believe in.

As Albert Einstein said in these three quotes:

'Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.'

'A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.'

'The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.'

I think that greater minds than mine can put the ideas more clearly... that is why I am using quotes today.

The 'moral compass' is that little voice inside us all that guides us in our actions and reacts to situation and influence. Do I really need to spell this out? As situation and influence changes, human reactions will change as we all have free will as individuals and we adapt and change to circumstance. However, that moral compass is still there. Some people will behave morally or immorally dependent upon circumstance.

You mentioned adultery... well, in some cases it is immoral and in others it is not. And some people will never cheat and others will. Some people only cheat when certain sets of circumstances arise whilst some will actively seek adulterous relationships. This is only to do with individual circumstances and emotions. It is based on things like upbringing, social position, availability, peer attitudes... in short, all behaviour is a reaction to a stimulus - and so is ethical behaviour as a part of the human psyche.

I studied Latin and Roman history and I specialized for a year in Nero's reign, reading the original Annals of Rome (Tacitus) in Latin. He had a severe mental illness and was not able to make any decisions based upon moral guidelines. The same with Stalin and Hitler... they were irrational and were obviously acting immorally, but their mental state was the influence upon them and was created by human situations and influences. That a person like Hitler could arise and commit the atrocities he did, surely points away from the concept of a creator?

There is a lot of natural 'evil' in this world - where the patterns and outcomes (made by the creator that you would say - I would say by probability within the laws of nature) do not further creation or work for the good of the creation. Children born with fatal diseases and deformities, natural disasters that kill thousands... there is no purpose for a creator to have created a world with these outcomes contained within the design. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that there actually is any guiding hand or 'intelligent design' to the universe.

You have used peculiar false analogies with other people in this thread, and you really are out on a limb. The pyramids and my robo-skeleton army will live on in my mind as the most ridiculous 'what if' I have ever been presented. I like to talk about facts and reality, so I will not answer this strange question because it makes no sense.

I could go on, but it seems to me that you are repeating yourself and actually negating your own ideas with many of your posts. I will be watching the thread with interest, just to see how deeply you can bury yourself over the next day or so...

[EssejSllim]

You know. I'm no longer going to argue with you. Obviously, with your infinite amount of knowledge, your deep connection with the purpose of the creator, I have realized something. YOU are the creator. It all makes sense now.

On a side (and more serious note) I think you should know that I think the USA is the worst country in the world.

I suggest you think about this list before you rubbish the USA.

Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Burma
China
Ethiopia
Haiti
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Korea, North
Libya
Qatar
Rwanda
Somalia
Syria
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Vatican City
Yemen  
Zimbabwe

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

Sorry. I typed that pretty fast. I didn't really mean worst. Obviously the USA does nothing to its own people along the lines of a North Korea or an Afghanistan. I just can't stand how hypocritical the USA is (preeching liberty, then defending brutal totalitarian rules in states in order to maintain a flow of oil or something like that).

[Tank]

Sorry. I typed that pretty fast. I didn't really mean worst. Obviously the USA does nothing to its own people along the lines of a North Korea or an Afghanistan. I just can't stand how hypocritical the USA is (preeching liberty, then defending brutal totalitarian rules in states in order to maintain a flow of oil or something like that).

No worries.

[harriet_tubman]

they do not believe the universe is an "accident"  You cannot have an accident without having a being that made a mistake.  

i'm referring to the definition of the word accident that means unintended

and some atheists are religions (such as buddhists who would be inclined to think that supernatural forces are at play but not a god being).

atheists do not believe in supernatural beings.  

Most atheists fall into the "I don't know how the universe got here but I see no reason to assume a god had a hand in it" camp.

in this case, some atheists do not understand what the word God means.  God refers to that intelligence responsible for the universe's creation.  many theists try to attach attributes on to God, such as he dictated the koran but this is false.

to say that yes the universe was created but God did not do it is a contradiction.  that would be like saying these words were written but they were not written by a writer.