Happy Atheist Forum

In the absence of gods, it is very simple to construct a working definition of morality. I think the essence of morality is living life like you're being watched by people whose opinions you care about. It's quite the same tenet as in many religions, but doesn't require you to rationalize mystical beliefs.

What's so complicated or unfulfilling about that?  

OK, so what if you don't care about anyone's opinion but your own? Then you have some real problems.

I care about very few people's opinions, do I have problems?
Still, that's a unique look at morality I've never heard before, I like it. I just try to be a good, caring person like I always have. I really like when someone tries to use morality against Atheism. I just pull out some official looking charts that show the amount of child molesters that are pastors and such compared to all the Atheists who supposedly have no morals. That in addition to the one showing religious and Atheist prison populations.

Interesting ideas!

Quote from: "winterbottom"OK, so what if you don't care about anyone's opinion but your own? Then you have some real problems.

I agree with this, but that's because of my self-interest (a part of which is my emotional nature, which I'll get to in a bit).  It is usually in my interest to have people hold a decent opinion of me.  In other words, do I care about other people's opinions simply because I care about other people's opinions (altruistically), or because I'm self-interested and care about the impact their opinions will have on me?

This is the sort of basis for my libertarian thinking and my sense of ethics.  Anytime we agree to a code of conduct we are limiting our freedoms.  Why would I limit my freedom?  Because I feel it is in my best self interest to do so, and I think I others will agree with me.  If I was totally free I could rape, pillage and murder all I want.  Of course, if everyone else was totally free, they could rape, pillage and murder me as well.  I don't think this would make life very enjoyable.  Presumably, neither do a lot of people.  So - we agree to a code of ethics and agree to live accordingly.  This is in my own interest - as it is in everyone else's interest.  Not because its fundamentally "good" or "bad", but because it makes sense, individually, for each of us to make this choice.  To sort of segue into my next paragraph, part of the reason this makes sense to us is our "human nature": what we like and why we find life enjoyable.

Getting to in, then, people aren't just rational beings, we're also emotional.  I get a strong positive emotion when people like me, and it seems others are similar.  Our sense of empathy recognizes that other people are similar to us;  we can guess, fairly well, how our actions will be perceived by others, and evolution has created in us a desire to seek social acceptance (we evolved into/from social creatures).  This works out well for us in a way: if I do something nice, both me and the recipient feel good.  Likewise if I'm on the receiving end of kindness.  This is as close to a "free lunch" as I think we can find in life.  Its almost like we're trading, but the total value of the trade is greater than the sum of the parts.  This is the "human nature" bit I was alluding to in my 2nd paragraph - and I think this is part of why our ethics make sense to us.

Getting back to square one, all of this is, of course, my opinion.  

Quote from: "Neoncamouflage"I care about very few people's opinions, do I have problems?

No, as long as you aren't the only person you respect, I think you'll be OK. Sure, it's fine to be that way, just don't expect anyone to care about you. Who needs morality if you're in this world alone?

I don't mean it like, I'm this way and if you don't like it then tough. I still try to be nice and make people happy, but if someone I don't really care about doesn't like me for some reason I'm not going to go out of my way to change their mind. If I change every time someone doesn't like something about me then I lose all that makes me unique.

imho, it's incredibly fulfilling to write one's own destiny and be honest with one's self. It's also personally fulfilling to know that I have an innate need to contribute to my existence by helping others AND make the conscious decision to accept the golden rule as logical and thus worthy of my time and energy.

Quote from: "neoncamoflage"if someone I don't really care about doesn't like me for some reason I'm not going to go out of my way to change their mind. If I change every time someone doesn't like something about me then I lose all that makes me unique.

Good point.  This strikes my "individualist" feelings with accord!

My attitude is much the same.  Sometimes, people won't like you for reasons that seem indecipherable or ridiculous or stupid or just plain wrong.  These folks I figure can go and hang for all I care.  Its better if they don't like you for a reason that you find legitimate --- self questioning can be painful, but rewarding.  But in this case, if I change as a result, am I changing because of them or because of me?  

If you feel that changing will make you a better person, or bring yourself closer to what you want to be then I'd say you're changing for you. Not so much if it's just to please others, or become more socially accepted.

Indeed, and this was my point.  I (obviously) feel that changing by my own initiative is correct, and that catering only to the desires of others is not.  (shrugs).  This is what makes me an individualist!  

Quote from: "Neoncamouflage"I don't mean it like, I'm this way and if you don't like it then tough. I still try to be nice and make people happy, but if someone I don't really care about doesn't like me for some reason I'm not going to go out of my way to change their mind.

That's not what I meant. Plus, you don't have to have personal knowledge of someone to respect them.

Quote from: "SteveS"Getting back to square one, all of this is, of course, my opinion.  

Whew! I finally read all that (I hate reading) and find it valid. The rule of mutual benefit is a good one to live by.

BTW, I think being attractive is another free ride.

Quote from: "winterbottom"BTW, I think being attractive is another free ride.

Yeah, probably.  If a person has the good fortune to be physically attractive, this certainly seems to open up opportunities that aren't available to others.  Still, I doubt its without effort - maintaining the physique of the "beautiful people" has got to be a lot of hours in the gym (plus eating really healthy, and who wants to do that?    )

Woah... I was just about to post about how I wish there were more religious people on this site because generally, the threads are a post and then 20 people agreeing.   I read this first post and disagree with a bunch of it.  Let me throw my philosophy in the pool.

Morality is relative.  This means that morals are different for each person.. there is no right or wrong.

Now as to acting with self interest, this is important.  If self-sacrifice is ever made because of others, you are disservicing yourself, which is the most horrible thing you can do.  If everyone followed this philosophy, things like murder would never happen.  No one would act spitefully.  I am a strong advocate of selfishness and hope that no one even considers the opinions of others.  Let them have their opinions.  They are correct.  Yours are too.  Everyones opinions of a person are based on their morality which is based on the individual.  Stop living through others and letting others dictate your decisions.  Its a difficult concept to grasp, but I love discussing it.  

Also, read The Fountainhead... My philosophy is a slightly modified version of Objectivism.   She comes pretty close to what I believe in a much more articulate manner.

Quote from: "mrwinkie1330"Morality is relative. This means that morals are different for each person.. there is no right or wrong.

True enough, however: if your version of morality starts to stray too far from the herd mentality, and you continually act based on your own morals and not those of the herd, people will react strongly against you, and therefore you may not be acting in your own interest any more (which would seem to contradict your next paragraph).This is why I think there is a minimum of morals that have to be accepted by society as a whole before anyone can expect to live peacefully with others, even though I accept that "there is no right or wrong", as such.

Quote from: "mrwinkie1330"Now as to acting with self interest, this is important. If self-sacrifice is ever made because of others, you are disservicing yourself, which is the most horrible thing you can do. If everyone followed this philosophy, things like murder would never happen. No one would act spitefully. I am a strong advocate of selfishness and hope that no one even considers the opinions of others. Let them have their opinions. They are correct. Yours are too. Everyones opinions of a person are based on their morality which is based on the individual. Stop living through others and letting others dictate your decisions. Its a difficult concept to grasp, but I love discussing it.

I think the often overlooked cause behind morality seems to be our emotions. Rationality almost never comes into it, even when we think it does; most of the time we do things for others simply because it makes us feel good (or conversely, might make us feel bad if we had failed to act). What behaviour society celebrates and that which it condemns is nothing more than people's gut feelings on the issue. And I would argue though that even if we often act in ways that are driven by our emotions, we are still acting in our own self-interest. Surely if the positive emotional benefit of an act has driven us to do it, we must subconsciously favour that benefit to say, the feeling we get when we make a more 'rational' choice?

I don't disagree with you, I do think people should act out of their own self-interest, I just believe they already do act this way, probably universally. I doubt there has ever been a person to walk the earth that didn't base their every action on their own self-interest, rational or emotional (if we can even seperate those categories). Even Jesus Christ, if there was such a man, still would've helped people only because it made him feel good...

Quote from: "pjkeeley"Even Jesus Christ, if there was such a man, still would've helped people only because it made him feel good...

It is without question why these people put themselves through such horrific shows of corporal mortification:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&c ... a=N&tab=wi (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox&rls=en&q=philippines%20easter%20crucifixion&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)

A friend of mine wrote a great post in response to the question: “As an atheist, what keeps you from doing just anything?”

His response can pretty much be summed up with one word: empathy.

I’m new to the forum and would really love to hear what you guys think of his article.  Feel free to comment on the blog as well.  I’m sure he’d be pumped to hear feedback.

Check it out here:

http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/2008/09/08/secular-morality/

Loved it. Although I've always found Dawkin's reply to be substantial, this is important to understand as well.

Hmm...  

I guess empathy is a good answer for many but it doesn't quite work for me. I'm not immoral out of desire not to hurt someone's feelings, nor am I moral out of desire to help.

My stock answer to where my morality (just like yours and his and her and their) comes from is the very basic social contract there is: I won't harm you if you won't harm me and I will attempt to aid you if you will attempt to aid me. What it means is that I usually treat the world how I myself wish to be treated. And since I don't wish to be killed or stolen from or raped in a dark alley or you name it, I don't do it to others.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Hmm...  :D   Good answer.But put simply.Treat others the way you want to be treated.One thing that bothers me the most is why is it that the religious always say because they have the good book they have morals.I think it's rather sad that you have to have a book tell you what is good and not.

I think in this context, talking about empathy - he could substantially find more support for his argument by referencing the research involving mirror neurons.

Wikipedia actually has an excellent article:

Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron)

In relation to empathy:

QuoteEmpathy

Mirror neurons have been linked to empathy, because certain brain regions (in particular the anterior insula and inferior frontal cortex) are active when a person experiences an emotion (disgust, happiness, pain, etc.) and when he sees another person experience an emotion.[26] [27][28] However, these brain regions are not quite the same as the ones which mirror hand actions, and mirror neurons for emotional states or empathy have not yet been described in monkeys. More recently, Christian Keysers at the Social Brain Lab and colleagues have shown that people that are more empathic according to self-report questionnaires have stronger activations both in the mirror system for hand actions[29] and the mirror system for emotions[30] providing more direct support to the idea that the mirror system is linked to empathy.

What the hell is morality in the first place? That which is right or wrong? Okay, what is the definition for right or wrong? It appears to me that morality is meaningless because right and wrong are undefined.

Quote from: "Martian"What the hell is morality in the first place? That which is right or wrong? Okay, what is the definition for right or wrong? It appears to me that morality is meaningless because right and wrong are undefined.

That's the whole point of the article! Right and wrong are very easy to define. When you do wrong, you make someone else suffer, and you know this because of empathy. It's very simple. No wonder people hate atheists so much, atheists themselves are going around spewing this nonsense.

Quote from: "dodgecity"

Quote from: "Martian"What the hell is morality in the first place? That which is right or wrong? Okay, what is the definition for right or wrong? It appears to me that morality is meaningless because right and wrong are undefined.

That's the whole point of the article! Right and wrong are very easy to define. When you do wrong, you make someone else suffer, and you know this because of empathy. It's very simple. No wonder people hate atheists so much, atheists themselves are going around spewing this nonsense.

What's the point of saying wrong is making someone else suffer? I could just as well say that right is whatever is on my shopping list, and wrong is whatever is not on my shopping list. The tells me nothing. Morality is a weird concept that deals with "shoulds" and "oughts", which are simply propositions and not facts (cannot be true or false). But people take it to mean that "the cosmos/evolution/government/God require that you [do these actions]" or "these things have the property of not-to-be-done-ness". Why on earth is it wrong to make someone suffer? Becuase it has the property of not-to-be-done-ness said by some atheists. This is entirely different from Christians saying that not following God's law has the property of not-to-be-done-ness. If anyone can assert that something is wrong, then morality is arbitrary and meaningless.

Of course you can still do whatever you want because you want to (and of course you will), but that doesn't mean that right and wrong mean anything.

Hopefully, you're talking about a specific definition of right and wrong that none of us are discussing here.

I'm talking about suffering. It's real. It's how we know we are alive. So if you go around saying "Who decided that suffering is bad and happiness is good?", people are going to respond with animosity, and for good reason.

Quoteright and wrong are undefined.

Again, an emphatic no! When you wrong someone, you hurt them. You're using the logic of a Christian fundamentalist, and it's frustrating. You seem to be the exact kind of atheist that puts us all to shame, justifying your actions simply because there is no god.

I give up.  

Quote from: "dodgecity"Hopefully, you're talking about a specific definition of right and wrong that none of us are discussing here.

I'm talking about suffering. It's real. It's how we know we are alive. So if you go around saying "Who decided that suffering is bad and happiness is good?", people are going to respond with animosity, and for good reason.

Quoteright and wrong are undefined.

Again, an emphatic no! When you wrong someone, you hurt them. You're using the logic of a Christian fundamentalist, and it's frustrating. You seem to be the exact kind of atheist that puts us all to shame, justifying your actions simply because there is no god.

I give up.  :unsure: ... ... That make sense?  

It's starting to become more of a debate of neitchzeian philosopy which I suspect is what martian is getting at. As callous as it sounds after Iraq I lost most the little empathy I had for others. Don't get me wrong I do care for my friends and family, but if I dont know you, I could care less what happens to you, if it doesn't directly affect me. The thing that guides me is probably that I fear the repercusions, leagal and otherwise. If you were to imagine a world of total anarchy (no government, laws, or religion) and you relied on the empathy of others to protect you or help you, you would be dead within a week.

@squid - Thanks for bringing up mirror neurons.  If you check out the original post you'll see that in the comments section I brought up the subject of myelination as a response to someone who said "children can't empathize; so it must not be in our nature; so we must learn it from god / the Bible."

Here is the original post if you want to check it out:
http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/2008/09/08/secular-morality/#comment-127

Yeah, that makes sense, Asmodean. I guess I define right and wrong through the target, which is what empathy is all about.

Someone asked where morals came from.....here's what I think;

I think morals are derived from us working in a group, which has been the key to our survival as a species. Anything morally wrong originated as anything that would hurt you or alienate you from the group or society you had to function in. For example, any move or action that would threaten other people around you or possible endanger any of them...like telling a lie, which would alienate the trust you needed from other people to be accepted, or killing someone...for obvious reasons.

I think anything morally good would have arisen from any action that would have helped or protected the group and society you functioned in. Either by helping you build stronger bonds with a kinsman or actually delivering something of substance, or helping in some way, that would in turn strengthen the group.

Either way, in prehistoric times, it was necessary to be a part of a group in order to hunt and survive, so I would assume that it was the group mind set that orginally began to foster morals as a set of rules to act accordingly in society so that you could best survive to your advantage.

That's the best answer I could come up with based on what I know. Can anyone add or correct?

hey guys, just wondering if us atheists should believe in absolute morals ect or if morals are completely relative...
dawkins said in one of his books that "If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies . . . are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention . . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference"
now I take it that most atheists believe in temporary morals...however what should we base our morals on? should we write ourselves a moral code to live by? should we just follow societies moral laws? once I get a response I have a few more questions!
thanks!

Welcome to the forums!  In my opinion, morals may be widely shared but are subjective.  One man may think it's right to break up a couple by informing them that they are cheating on each other, another may find that immoral.  One person may consider assisted suicide to be morally acceptable if there's only a 5% of a person living through an illness.  Another may find that reprehensible until 1%.  But there are core morals we share by evolution (don't kill each other), and there are other morals shaped by our reasoning and ethics (consider all human beings equals, but not copies).

We should follow society's laws.
If we wish to remain social, we should should make our morals to coincide with those of the people we wish to socialize with.
But we should each decide our own morals.  It may make for disagreements and strife, but this, I think, is paramount to being a human being, much as is making your own purpose in life.  The universe being unpurposed and without concrete morals is no reason for people to be as well.

Hope this helps you out a bit, and you might introduce yourself in http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewforum.php?f=10 if you plan on staying with us for awhile.  

thanks for responding ;)
should one be blamed for deciding to live a moral life when he/she considers raping/murdering morally acceptable? what is to stop them from living lives like that?
you mentioned that we share core morals because of evolution, let me for a brief second picture myself in a rapists shoes, if I go out and decide that I need to experience raping someone, lets say I am 100% positive I can get away with it too, what is to stop me?  rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of evolution has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong,  apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with me raping someone, And since I am sure I can escape the social consequences I am free to go about and rape away...

Lets say that is my frame of mind...where did I go wrong?
 

IMV morals are subjective but social (so what Pipebox said) i.e. they are not individual but an ethical system that has no relevance except between & within groups of individuals though exactly where the cut off line is I do not know  (I suspect at any point above 1).

Kyu

so im guessing you believe in following societies standards? and accepting there morals ideals ect?
if so then if I visit a society where cannibalism is morally acceptable; should I follow what society tells me is morally right/wrong? i.e. is it morally acceptable for me to be a cannibalistic being if it is expected by society?
 would it have been a moral thing if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews and brainwashed everyone to think that what he had done was morally acceptable, or would it be wrong regardless of our opinion of it...

The universe as a whole may be indifferent to suffering, there is no capacity for this understanding at the atomic level as far as I can see scientifically.  Humanity, however, is part of the universe and we do have a consciousness and a capability for understanding the suffering of others and the realization that our actions help to create the structure of the society we live in.  

If a person believes that they might rape or murder, there is nothing preventing others from doing the same to them.  From the basics of what causes pain and suffering we can construct a basic plan of appropriate actions to make the world as fair as possible.  Some of these appropriate actions are always true, others change when the environment changes.  

It doesn't matter if the universe is indifferent or not, because I am not indifferent to the suffering of others.  Evolution has made me this way, my empathy contributes to the survival of my species.  Without this capacity for empathy and compassion and the ability to build societies, humanity would not last very long at all in nature.

Just because I am an atheist does not mean I am inhuman.  My humanity confers a great deal of empathy and responsibility by my capacity to understand the nature of suffering.

thanks for responding LARA,
you make some really good points but I don't think that the question has been answered completely.
"If a person believes that they might rape or murder, there is nothing preventing others from doing the same to them."
true but in my "scenario" I mentioned that there would be no repercussions for my actions, if I did get away with it unscathed why should I feel bad? because of empathy? well what If im misogynistic in my thinking and I decide that woman are as the animals. worth no more, no less.
can you judge my actions when in fact I am just stating that I don't have empathy for woman?

"Evolution has made me this way, my empathy contributes to the survival of my species. Without this capacity for empathy and compassion and the ability to build societies, humanity would not last very long at all in nature."
what about acts that are not beneficial to society? what about handicapped people? why should we as a US society spend all the loads and loads of money on them when they are not "Beneficial" to our society?" why should we empathize for them? I personally have no idea what it would be like to be mentally retarded ect. why should we empathize the mentally handicapped? because we evolved that way?
well...so what? if they are not beneficial why should we be taking care of them? what if I have no empathy?
(note: I am just presenting this for discussion...I do not think that handicapped people should be exterminated ect. ;)

Before I say anything, LARA captured it in ace fashion.
I normally don't dissect posts, as it seems unfair, but this is one question after another, so . . . *grabs scalpel*

Quote from: "john31"so im guessing you believe in following societies standards?

No, actually, I think society has plenty wrong with it, but I do obey society's laws (for the most part *cough*), but I cannot say I "believe" in them.  I believe in the human ability to reason and, and it's my hope society will improve as time goes on.

Quote from: "john31"and accepting there morals ideals ect?

I accept them in the sense that I respect most of them, but I don't necessarily adopt them, if that's what you were asking.  A man has his own sense of morality, and it isn't all sold as a packaged deal, though I'd say a few morals come with the body (killing is "bad", being empathetic is "good" and generally the folks that don't hold these to be true have a mental illness of some sort).

Quote from: "john31"if so then if I visit a society where cannibalism is morally acceptable; should I follow what society tells me is morally right/wrong? i.e. is it morally acceptable for me to be a cannibalistic being if it is expected by society?

If it is morally acceptable to the society, and you, then it is morally acceptable.  Otherwise it'd be a self-contradicting statement.  
Anyway, as to whether you should follow what that society tells you, well, that's up to you as person.  But I will say that it is ethically unsound to inflict unnecessary harm on other sentient beings.   And all of this aside, if you visit a canibalistic  society, you're likely to find they're very tribal (small tribes, too, as it leaves more folks on the OK-to-eat list), and instead of waiting to find out if you're willing to eat people, they'll just eat you.

Quote from: "john31"would it have been a moral thing if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews and brainwashed everyone to think that what he had done was morally acceptable, or would it be wrong regardless of our opinion of it...

Morality is subjective, but something so large a violation as genocide would clash pretty hard against ethical reasoning.  That'd be some powerful brainwashing.   You'd have to teach people not to reason ethically, lest the cognitive dissonance destroy them.  But let's say he did it, it likely wouldn't last forever, just as it was once morally acceptable to own slaves and that didn't last forever.  And then you must ask yourself if you consider the people of the time to be morally bankrupt, or just mislead and less reasoned.  But it's still up to you what you call them.  They were ethically irresponsible, but their morality was theirs and typically any morality but ours seems repulsive to us, so I'm not qualified to weigh morals directly against each other.  I can ask what that morality, achieved, though, and judge it along those lines.  Anyway, I think that covers it!

Quote from: "john31"what if I have no empathy?

Let me take this to its conclusion, please.   :D

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1361%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Fcthulhu2008-vi.jpg&hash=c8241947c0a937afb2bc7e11a4c105b96b8f8ca0)

CURIO!!  I LOVE IT!!!!  Thank you so much for posting that!!

Then you do whatever the blazes you feel like, don't you? But what's that have to do with morality or ethics, you've placed yourself outside all those values and outside repercussion.
aha! now we are getting somewhere....
If I find myself justified in crimes and my society does as well then I can not be logically judged for my actions by others. You are correct in stating that I should do whatever I feel like but It is inconsistent to then go and condemn the actions of a man like Hitler or Stalin when in fact he was doing what he was supposed to be doing...whatever the heck he wanted
note: I dont mean to anger anyone by bringing up hitler/stalin arguments. I understand many christians and other theists like to use them...I am merely presenting arguments. I am not claiming to agree or disagree with them
I do the same things on christian, muslim, agnostic ect forums as well so dont take it personally

Curio, not that you don't already know, but you're awesome.  

I don't do whatever the blazes I want to do.  I'd love to take out a few motorists occasionally because they just don't know how to drive, but I don't.  It's a fleeting flight of fancy when I'm late getting somewhere.  It's never a serious consideration.  Because it's against the law, it would make me feel very bad, and I don't like feeling guilty.

I once had an atheist tell me that he doesn't apologize because that would mean he feels guilt and guilt is a religion (specifically Christian) concept.  I was stunned.  For me, guilt is the internal mechanism that tells me I've done something wrong.  My conscience, my internal parent.  

Yes, I was raised with religion, so one could argue that I've retained what I was taught.  However, I know many families now that are headed by parents who had no religion growing up... first generation atheists who now have their own kids.  And those kids are just as well-behaved, sometimes moreso, than kids I know who are raised with religion.

Hitler and Stalin were damaged humans.  I don't think you can compare them to the average human being.  They both had psychological issues, as do MANY humans, that went unaddressed and led to self-aggrandization.  They both had reasons for what they did... they didn't just do what they wanted to do.  They were driven, just like religious folks.

I do see your point... honestly, I do.  And I don't necessarily disagree.  I just disagree with using that comparison.

It’s a little unclear who you were responding too, I assume it was me but quoting what you are responding to and making it clear who said it helps to give context to replies

Quote from: "john31"so im guessing you believe in following societies standards? and accepting there morals ideals ect?

Not necessarily, I simply recognise that it is against a given societies moral values that our behaviour is evaluated.

Quote from: "john31"so then if I visit a society where cannibalism is morally acceptable; should I follow what society tells me is morally right/wrong? i.e. is it morally acceptable for me to be a cannibalistic being if it is expected by society?

In a cannibalistic society the non-cannibal might well be judged a immoral and a social deviant ... it doesn’t make that society right but then again it doesn’t make my society’s morality right either. In essence, when it comes to evaluating social behaviour, I would argue that there is no objective right or wrong.

Quote from: "john31"would it have been a moral thing if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews and brainwashed everyone to think that what he had done was morally acceptable, or would it be wrong regardless of our opinion of it...

We have deemed it wrong but, despite the horror (despite the massive scale of what was done), it doesn’t mean there is any objective way to say that what Hitler did was wrong.

I am not supporting Hitler and his genocidal acts any more than I would support a god that carried out the atrocities claimed in the OT ... at this point I assume it goes without saying that I believe what happened to the Jews was one of the most horrific, appalling and morally reprehensible acts of all time.

Kyu

Quote from: "john31"Then you do whatever the blazes you feel like, don't you? But what's that have to do with morality or ethics, you've placed yourself outside all those values and outside repercussion.
aha! now we are getting somewhere....
If I find myself justified in crimes and my society does as well then I can not be logically judged for my actions by others. You are correct in stating that I should do whatever I feel like but It is inconsistent to then go and condemn the actions of a man like Hitler or Stalin when in fact he was doing what he was supposed to be doing...whatever the heck he wanted
note: I dont mean to anger anyone by bringing up hitler/stalin arguments. I understand many christians and other theists like to use them...I am merely presenting arguments. I am not claiming to agree or disagree with them
I do the same things on christian, muslim, agnostic ect forums as well so dont take it personally

Yes, I think it's safe to say that if you're God then you do whatever you feel like.  But the rest of us, people, want betterment, not control, and given power we seek to be fair, empathetic, and strive for betterment.  Sometimes we get greedy, sometime psychotic people surface, sometimes we use what power we have in malice.  But all the evidence is that things go better if we go with what the majority reason to be "right."  That doesn't even mean the majority will always be right.  Much of this scares religious people, the fact that we have the ability to decide for ourselves what is right and, that it is up to us how we go about it.  See, if the laws in their holy books were ever interpreted as wrong, they wouldn't be that holy.  Also, they don't want to live in a world that doesn't bring judgment to those who have committed crimes or who have wronged others or who have spoken critically of those same religious people and their religions.  It's too painful to live in a world of responsibility and to think that there isn't retribution for the wrongs of those we can't harm ourselves.  I'll stop straying on religious ground, now, as this would turn to an argument of why those religions consider themselves moral, how they can claim such authority if they're all BS, etc.

Well, there you go.  Keep asking if there's anything else.

Quote from: "rlrose328"CURIO!!  I LOVE IT!!!!  Thank you so much for posting that!!

Quote from: "PipeBox"Curio, not that you don't already know, but you're awesome.  

Aw, shucks. You guys make me want to dance.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages39.fotki.com%2Fv1224%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F53148622-vi.gif&hash=94089560415e1b2d872864c6111b26fde127afd4)

Society is what defines "right and wrong." But out of respect or love for others we should still strive to be scrupulous, however we perceive that to be. The selfish person does not love himself, so it's really a question of how you want to live your life.

I apologize for not reading all the comments in this thread. I had a few questions. If we are merely time + matter + chance why should I care for another random assembly (to a degree) of atoms in a temporal  universe? Why should you care what I feel in regards to another assembly of atoms? Hypothetically, a logical outworking of atheism (as it seems to me, I apologize if this is wrong) is complete self-centrism wherein might makes right only because might can impose its will. Those who possess such strength, while no more justified in their actions in the broad scheme of things, simply have the luxury of being able to do what they want. Am I on the wrong track here?

Quote from: "Titan"I apologize for not reading all the comments in this thread. I had a few questions. If we are merely time + matter + chance why should I care for another random assembly (to a degree) of atoms in a temporal  universe? Why should you care what I feel in regards to another assembly of atoms? Hypothetically, a logical outworking of atheism (as it seems to me, I apologize if this is wrong) is complete self-centrism wherein might makes right only because might can impose its will. Those who possess such strength, while no more justified in their actions in the broad scheme of things, simply have the luxury of being able to do what they want. Am I on the wrong track here?

Yep, you're wrong.  :D

QuoteYep, you're wrong. That position is what I like to call Assholism

I laughed, that was good.

QuoteTo answer your first question, you should care for another randomly assembled atoms because, as you are essentially the same, you would like them to care about you.

But isn't that assuming you NEED them to care for you. Hypothetically, if I could live in wealth and splendor at the cost of everyone else or live in poverty by being nice to everyone (without psychological punishments I'm going to assume are merely sociological constructs in this case) wouldn't I be inclined to do so.

QuoteIt's simple tit-for-tat. Golden rule. Do unto others, and all that. If you (a general you, not you specifically, of course) don't care what happens to others or yourself, then you are most likely a socio- or psychopath, and are deemed unfit for the society in which all the other randomly assembled atoms live.

Oh God, my reply was "assuming you need tits" which luckily I stopped myself from saying...Well, I guess, technically I didn't, but that is besides the point. What is society? Why am I more inclined to care for a person that I don't need than a rock which I find rather aesthetically pleasing?

Quote from: "Titan"I apologize for not reading all the comments in this thread. I had a few questions. If we are merely time + matter + chance why should I care for another random assembly (to a degree) of atoms in a temporal  universe? Why should you care what I feel in regards to another assembly of atoms? Hypothetically, a logical outworking of atheism (as it seems to me, I apologize if this is wrong) is complete self-centrism wherein might makes right only because might can impose its will. Those who possess such strength, while no more justified in their actions in the broad scheme of things, simply have the luxury of being able to do what they want. Am I on the wrong track here?

I think that when we take into account that humans are social animals, any logical argument for being purley self centered falls flat on its face.  It is actually a big part of human nature to seek out companionship and in doing so we also naturally want to look out for the needs of others.  It could be said that through concern for the self we develop concern for others since we want people to like us (of course, there is empathy too).  As a theist, you don't think the same bodies you talk to now will exist forever yet you still respect the body by not causing physical harm.  I think a parallel could be drawn to why an atheist would not want to cause harm to that collection of atoms just because it's not eternal.  Regardless of theological beliefs, humans are emotional beings and will have feelings towards each other.  There is of course a lot of science to be dicsussed on the chemical processes which make us feel the way we do (most of which I can only explain in general terms), but hopefully I've covered the jist of why I think you are on the wrong track...please let me know if I need to expand on parts further.

QuoteI think that when we take into account that humans are social animals, any logical argument for being purley self centered falls flat on its face. It is actually a big part of human nature to seek out companionship and in doing so we also naturally want to look out for the needs of others. It could be said that through concern for the self we develop concern for others since we want people to like us (of course, there is empathy too).

Hypothetically, if someone was to "evolve" (I'm sorry to bastardize the word) past the need for sociological companionship wouldn't this argument be a moot point?

QuoteAs a theist, you don't think the same bodies you talk to now will exist forever yet you still respect the body by not causing physical harm. I think a parallel could be drawn to why an atheist would not want to cause harm to that collection of atoms just because it's not eternal.

But the basis for that, from a theistic perspective, is that God assigns value so the body has value because it's God's. I don't see how value is assigned in an atheistic philosophy. Again, this is probably due to my lack of education on the matter.

Quote from: "Titan"I laughed, that was good.

I'm glad.   I try to keep a sense of humor... religion is something that can go from laid-back to pissed off pretty quickly.

Quote from: "Titan"But isn't that assuming you NEED them to care for you. Hypothetically, if I could live in wealth and splendor at the cost of everyone else or live in poverty by being nice to everyone (without psychological punishments I'm going to assume are merely sociological constructs in this case) wouldn't I be inclined to do so.

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with not believing in a deity. The assumption this is based on is that without God there is no morality. Atheists tend to find this rather laughable, as we are without gods and (the vast majority of us, I'm sure) are quite moral, nice, ethical people. As for the wealth and splendor, are you sure wealth and niceness are mutually exclusive?

Quote from: "Titan"Oh God, my reply was "assuming you need tits" which luckily I stopped myself from saying...Well, I guess, technically I didn't, but that is besides the point. What is society? Why am I more inclined to care for a person that I don't need than a rock which I find rather aesthetically pleasing?

Evolution, basically. That's why. Every animal has evolved to be social, as it improves the chances of their survival. It becomes hardwired into the DNA. It's also easier to survive if you divide the labor: one animal makes a nest while the other hunts for food. It's the humanity in us that leads us to help people we don't know or "need" per se. We believe it makes us good (whatever "good" is).

I suggest you pick up a copy of Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Forgotten-Ancestors-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345384725) next time you're in the library or the book store. It gives a wonderful account of how we got to where we are, both physically and ethically.

Quote. Atheists tend to find this rather laughable, as we are without gods and (the vast majority of us, I'm sure) are quite moral, nice, ethical people. As for the wealth and splendor, are you sure wealth and niceness are mutually exclusive?

But the problem I come across is that if life is time + matter + chance how can you keep morality as something solid since every single one of those factors is either temporal or changing?

QuoteEvolution, basically. That's why. Every animal has evolved to be social, as it improves the chances of their survival. It becomes hardwired into the DNA. It's also easier to survive if you divide the labor: one animal makes a nest while the other hunts for food. It's the humanity in us that leads us to help people we don't know or "need" per se. We believe it makes us good (whatever "good" is).

So if the "ubermensch" evolves past the need for social involvement what happens? Yes, it is easier to survive if everyone divides out the labor, but it is even easier if you get everyone else to do the work for you.

Out of ignorant curiosity, can you justify stopping slave trade in in African countries from an external perspective? (External in the sense that you are not part of the culture nor even have a vested interest economically speaking).

Quote from: "Titan"Hypothetically, if someone was to "evolve" (I'm sorry to bastardize the word) past the need for sociological companionship wouldn't this argument be a moot point?

Would this person also not have the ability to empathize with others?  A person like that would not care about others no matter what their personal religious beleifs are.  I think it would be easier to discuss this topic if we stuck with what normal people are like rather than going into hypotheticals...Normal people do have a need for companionship. even self described loners tend to have a friend or two.  Also, since we are on a forum I think it is safe to assume anyone posting here enjoys at least the intellectual companionship of others.

QuoteBut the basis for that, from a theistic perspective, is that God assigns value so the body has value because it's God's. I don't see how value is assigned in an atheistic philosophy. Again, this is probably due to my lack of education on the matter.

Let me ask you this before moving on...if you somehow found out tomorrow that God does not exist, would you value humans any less?  

I will go more in depth later (I'm a little distracted right now installing chat, by popular request...btw, the board will go down for a few mintues when I get to the install point)..the above is rhetorical so you don't have to answer it unless you want to.

QuoteWould this person also not have the ability to empathize with others? A person like that would not care about others no matter what their personal religious beleifs are. I think it would be easier to discuss this topic if we stuck with what normal people are like rather than going into hypotheticals...Normal people do have a need for companionship. even self described loners tend to have a friend or two. Also, since we are on a forum I think it is safe to assume anyone posting here enjoys at least the intellectual companionship of others.

You are absolutely right, but I believe if we are to form a coherent conception of morality we need to be able to apply it to the psychopaths too. Or, in this case, to the Ubermensch.

QuoteLet me ask you this before moving on...if you somehow found out tomorrow that God does not exist, would you value humans any less?

Instantly? Probably not. But the reason I'm asking this is because from my vantage point the answer would probably be "yes." Since it suddenly becomes subjective. I would be all that matters since the self is all I can be sure about.

I will log on later, I need to run some errands. Thank you for the great replies, you are answering a lot of questions and I appreciate it.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"btw, the board will go down for a few mintues when I get to the install point)

The board will be down? But.. BUT... WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?!?!?!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages36.fotki.com%2Fv1160%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Fonnoes-vi.gif&hash=34e195052549c5adbf6b44c82486485509403b6a)

Titan, I have to wonder how much your opinions of atheists and morality are affected by what you might have read of Nietzche and his philosophy of the Ubermensch, since you are using the term.  I am pretty rusty where it comes to Nietzche, it has been a while since I've read anything by him, but it doesn't follow that an atheists freedom from a belief in God means that they believe they are superior to others and should rule them.  Atheism is more of a breakdown of religious metaphors into the proven facts that we can perceive through science.

I think one of the biggest challenges facing atheism is that many religious people associate it with the past philosophies of thinkers like Nietzche that are viewed as pure egoism and immoral, authoritarian mindsets like Social Darwinism.  These movements and philosophies forgot some important realities that science does not, that humans are rather poorly adapted animals whose main strengths lie in social ties and networks rather than brute physical abilities.  The ruler at the 'top' is still subject to the reality that they can't survive without the work of those 'below' them on the social scale and true tyranny can't last forever.  There are more fair and stable systems of social order than the Master/Slave relationship of the Ubermensch.

To accept that there is an anthropomorphic, biblical God is similar to the idea of accepting an Ubermensch as an overlord.  It's the same authoritarian system, but instead of a supernatural being, we have a human that has achieved some sort of greater than human status with the power to rule over others, free from morality.  The biblical God is free from morality and punishment in this same way.  God can kill those it deems immoral without fear of punishment.  In the Old Testament this included people whose sins we wouldn't punish by death today.  Yaweh's actions in the light of today's morality are morally reprehensible.  Later the New testament tried to change this with a kinder, gentler God named Jesus, but Judeo-Christian Tradition still clings to the Old Testament mythologies and moralities even with Jesus.

An atheist can be a pacifist, be able to turn the proverbial cheek, and use the techniques of non-violent action for social change that Ghandhi and King laid out.  Denying dogma and supernatural magic isn't about destroying morality.  It's about understanding reality and rejection of non-materialistic causation for real, physical events.  In doing so, we can actually gain a better understanding of what the true nature of morality is.

QuoteTitan, I have to wonder how much your opinions of atheists and morality are affected by what you might have read of Nietzche and his philosophy of the Ubermensch, since you are using the term. I am pretty rusty where it comes to Nietzche, it has been a while since I've read anything by him, but it doesn't follow that an atheists freedom from a belief in God means that they believe they are superior to others and should rule them.

Absolutely, but it can be a logical outworking of the philosophy. Can you say that genocide is wrong with absolute certainty? If so, what do you base it on...assuming that your society already has all the pieces it needs in place and doesn't require any other workers but could use some more land without the hassle of getting permission.

QuoteI think one of the biggest challenges facing atheism is that many religious people associate it with the past philosophies of thinkers like Nietzche that are viewed as pure egoism and immoral, authoritarian mindsets like Social Darwinism. These movements and philosophies forgot some important realities that science does not, that humans are rather poorly adapted animals whose main strengths lie in social ties and networks rather than brute physical abilities.

Again, I believe you are exactly right. But the problem is by defining these things in terms of what our needs are the world view appears to run into one of two problems:
1. You are limited to the conception that as long as mankind is a social animal society will stay intact, there is no continual hope for this. One day someone could really be outside of the need for human interaction.
2. There is no necessary care for those who fall outside the bubble. If I create the master race and find midgets to bother my world view, I could kill them without having any interpersonal relational issues.

QuoteThe ruler at the 'top' is still subject to the reality that they can't survive without the work of those 'below' them on the social scale and true tyranny can't last forever.

If you consider how the pyramids were built, how long the enslaving Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans it appears that tyrannies can easily surpass a few lifetimes.

QuoteTo accept that there is an anthropomorphic, biblical God is similar to the idea of accepting an Ubermensch as an overlord. It's the same authoritarian system, but instead of a supernatural being, we have a human that has achieved some sort of greater than human status with the power to rule over others, free from morality.

The Ubermensch is, however, an incomplete source of value since he is ultimately temporal and has no true claim over that which is in existence. His power only rests in people being forced to obey it. Whereas a supernatural being's power rests in the nature of him/her/them in the singular and nature itself derives its value from the higher order. Therefore if one disobeys, while they may not be punished directly (depending on the belief system) they are ultimately accountable on a more permanent scale.

QuoteIn the Old Testament this included people whose sins we wouldn't punish by death today. Yaweh's actions in the light of today's morality are morally reprehensible. Later the New testament tried to change this with a kinder, gentler God named Jesus, but Judeo-Christian Tradition still clings to the Old Testament mythologies and moralities even with Jesus.

I disagree with this, do you mind if we open up this topic in a new thread entirely? I would love to explore the coalescence of contrariety in the Judeo-Christian deity if you would like to throw some of your objections towards me.

QuoteAn atheist can be a pacifist, be able to turn the proverbial cheek, and use the techniques of non-violent action for social change that Ghandhi and King laid out. Denying dogma and supernatural magic isn't about destroying morality. It's about understanding reality and rejection of non-materialistic causation for real, physical events. In doing so, we can actually gain a better understanding of what the true nature of morality is.

How can there be a true nature of morality if the universe is changing in every perceivable way?

Hiyas Titan!

I had a similar discussion with a John31 earlier in this thread as you are having with others now (to clarify, everyone had a similar discussion and mine wasn't even the best of it).  I request that you read those posts, as I think the "what if" line of reasoning, with a superior human being, always terminates the same way.  With them being all powerful and beyond human retribution, and with them being able to supplant the human race if they aren't also given the attribute of eternal life (which they often aren't as that would put them outside the generally accepted reach of God).  The idea is to create, taken to its extreme, is to create a new deity, which is ironically similar to a lot of older deities (though not specifically the Christian God).  This creature exhibits the power to harm anything it doesn't need, and it needs nothing, and it cannot be harmed.  That is a scary thing, and that is why humans aren't going to be looking to let it happen, even us atheists.  We atheists do not have, nor assume such power.  Heck, IF we could bring ourselves to kill another human being, other human beings would take us down.  We have a built in altruism, we protect each other, so when something comes along that can kill any of us equally we kill it instead.  Humans don't need to be on the earth, but we humans search for cures to diseases and generally try to avoid annihilating ourselves.  And us atheists aren't in a hurry to die, not because we fear what might happen, but because we generally enjoy life, and we like progress and progeny.  Well, most of us.  There's crazy folks from everywhere, but that's why there are laws, agreed upon by humans.  Our law, specifically, is in our hands as people, and is not in itself governed by religion, but by logic, empathy, and ethics.  I could write more on this point, but I just woke up and my mind is groggy.

I don't think an ubermensch is possible in our world.  Despicable morals are possible, but not a complete lack of them, lest those serving the ubermensch would be free to tear it apart (unless it was immortal or could directly influence the will of people, a deity).  If people DON'T serve it, and it harms us, we either kill it or keep it from us.  And without granting it yet more powers, we are certainly free and able to do that.  Mind, I have never read Nietzche in any detail, so maybe he has a complete list of all the powers and hypotheticals required to support such a thing, but if it isn't possible, it falls back on human morality, and what that is.  And we're all human here.  And, if you honestly think you could kill people without an absolute morality telling you not to, you scare me, but you'd be dealt with by the rest of us who rely on each other.  Our morality IS based on our position, it IS subjective, but it is also based on ethics, which are in turn based on reason, logic, and empathy.

Please, read this thread, it's roughly only a page before you show up and that certainly won't take too much of you time.  You'll also get to see me in better form.   :D

I use Ubermensch only in its most basic form. As someone just a little better. My assumption isn't so much a single man's greatness in terms of powers as it is a single man or group's ability to insert it's/their influence on others, with enough people to satisfy social needs (if that is still a necessity). This means that in this hypothetical situation the defense of morals by have it help both parties only applies to that small group. If that is the case then they can do whatever they want to others without a coherent moral argument to the counter. If you don't believe this is so, and that morals have a more absolute nature, then how does it not apply to animals...all of them?

Quote from: "Titan"I use Ubermensch only in its most basic form. As someone just a little better. My assumption isn't so much a single man's greatness in terms of powers as it is a single man or group's ability to insert it's/their influence on others, with enough people to satisfy social needs (if that is still a necessity). This means that in this hypothetical situation the defense of morals by have it help both parties only applies to that small group. If that is the case then they can do whatever they want to others without a coherent moral argument to the counter. If you don't believe this is so, and that morals have a more absolute nature, then how does it not apply to animals...all of them?

Oh, you're still around!  Ace!
I updated my post, I've had toast now and that always helps.  Anyway, there is no absolute system of morality, and I realized any ubermensch makes no difference because it still isn't you or I, and you and I would work against it if it harmed us and we had the ability.   Our ability to choose what our morals are is not compromised by someone else casting them aside.  All we have to work with as a system for right and wrong is the law, and that is controlled by the majority opinion of what right and wrong should be.  This can be manipulated, it even IS manipulated, but there are some things we all generally agree on and those things are part of this law.  Do not kill, steal, racket, print non-approved currency, inflict strange punishment, and so on.  And still, that law is only as effective as people take it seriously.  The Bible suffers the same problem, as anyone likely to commit crimes that harm others isn't likely to stop because God said so (seeing as how those people who implemented that law have been known to kill people, or send them to God faster, you might say, if enough of the more substantial laws are broken), doubly so when they can be forgiven by that God on their deathbed.

Anyway, read my update!  *nudge*  

Thanks for the great comments PipeBox.

Titan, thanks for the reply.  Now on to dissect your dissection of my commentary.

QuoteAbsolutely, but it can be a logical outworking of the philosophy. Can you say that genocide is wrong with absolute certainty? If so, what do you base it on...assuming that your society already has all the pieces it needs in place and doesn't require any other workers but could use some more land without the hassle of getting permission.

Superiority is not a logical outworking of atheism.  Superiority has to do with ego, emotion and feelings of inferiority, not logic.  And yes, I can say that genocide is absolutely wrong.  I just did.

Titan can you say that genocide is wrong with absolute certainty?  Christians have committed genocide before.  The Nazis promoted strong Christian theism.  Watch some of their propaganda films.  They put out films to encourage the belief that they were assisting God with natural selection by exterminating the 'useless eaters' in the population. Not a great advertisement for theistic thinking.  Please find me the Bible passage that explicitly names genocide as a sin.

I make my own morals based on how I want to be treated and generally they fit in with the morality and law of the society I live in.  When my morality doesn't fit in with society's morality, I try to use non-violent action and the written word to change the opinions of society through legal means because part of my core morality is not to harm others.  When I get new and better information, I adapt.

Quote1. You are limited to the conception that as long as mankind is a social animal society will stay intact, there is no continual hope for this. One day someone could really be outside of the need for human interaction.
2. There is no necessary care for those who fall outside the bubble. If I create the master race and find midgets to bother my world view, I could kill them without having any interpersonal relational issues.

I am not limited to anything.  Please give reasons for your lack of hope that human society has the potential to remain as you don't give any here.  Society might change in nature, but to say that a social creature can't have a society is simply contradictory.  I realize that there are sociopaths in this world.  There are lions and tigers and bears, too.  That doesn't make moral action invalid.
Titan As far as a "master race" goes, I don't believe in one.  A true master doesn't need mastery over others.  A true master is a master over themselves, and is intelligent and compassionate, not an immoral brutish killer.  And I've got to joke a little here, if you have a problem with midgets, Titan I'm sorry.  Personally, I kind of like midgets and but I wish they didn't suffer from so many health problems.  Hopefully science and medicine can help to solve their problems and make their lives cooler.

QuoteIf you consider how the pyramids were built, how long the enslaving Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans it appears that tyrannies can easily surpass a few lifetimes.

They didn't last forever did they?  A few lifetimes isn't forever and we now have better systems of government.

QuoteThe Ubermensch is, however, an incomplete source of value since he is ultimately temporal and has no true claim over that which is in existence. His power only rests in people being forced to obey it. Whereas a supernatural being's power rests in the nature of him/her/them in the singular and nature itself derives its value from the higher order. Therefore if one disobeys, while they may not be punished directly (depending on the belief system) they are ultimately accountable on a more permanent scale.

God's power only rests in people being forced to obey it as well.  Your supernatural being doesn't exist.  God is a character in a book of loose historical fiction and the beginnings of human law and morality.  God means nothing at all in an atheist forum.

QuoteI disagree with this, do you mind if we open up this topic in a new thread entirely? I would love to explore the coalescence of contrariety in the Judeo-Christian deity if you would like to throw some of your objections towards me.

Open away, there is a religion corral on this forum that topic would probably fit into quite nicely.

QuoteHow can there be a true nature of morality if the universe is changing in every perceivable way?

The universe is not changing in every perceivable way.  Where are you getting this?  The universe is highly stable.  Stars exists for billions of years.  Atoms are eternal.  Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.  It's a pretty static system and has little or nothing to do with human morality.

QuoteSuperiority is not a logical outworking of atheism. Superiority has to do with ego, emotion and feelings of inferiority, not logic.

But if evolution is indeed occurring, and the person is working within a network of omnivores, then he could argue that just as a person eats lesser animals so to could a better person eat lesser people. Where would he be wrong?

QuoteAnd yes, I can say that genocide is absolutely wrong. I just did.

Sorry, I meant say it and use irrefutable logic to back it up so that atheists are forced to come to the same conclusion (if the are rational).

QuoteTitan can you say that genocide is wrong with absolute certainty? Christians have committed genocide before.

St. Augustine "Never judge a philosophy by its abuses."

QuoteThe Nazis promoted strong Christian theism. Watch some of their propaganda films. They put out films to encourage the belief that they were assisting God with natural selection by exterminating the 'useless eaters' in the population. Not a great advertisement for theistic thinking. Please find me the Bible passage that explicitly names genocide as a sin.

In a speech to the Hitler youth in Nuremberg "I desire to create a generation without conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel."
How is that compatible with Biblical Christianity?
Using religion for propaganda isn't part of the religion, it is part of man's corruption of it.
As for the Biblical passage, can we open that discussion up in another thread because I would have to put a bit into it and I don't want this discussion to stretch out too long.

QuoteI make my own morals based on how I want to be treated and generally they fit in with the morality and law of the society I live in. When my morality doesn't fit in with society's morality, I try to use non-violent action and the written word to change the opinions of society through legal means because part of my core morality is not to harm others. When I get new and better information, I adapt.

What if I said: I make my own morals based on how I want to live. I only need society in as much as it fulfills my base social needs. All other aspects of it is superfluous and removable. I live to my own benefit, if I require someone I'll try to utilize them for my benefit whether it requires their will or not is irrelevant. If someone weaker than me is in my way I will cut them down or in some way remove them from the situation. Peace or no peace is irrelevant, I am all that matters because I am all I can experience.

How do you stop me?

QuoteI am not limited to anything. Please give reasons for your lack of hope that human society has the potential to remain as you don't give any here. Society might change in nature, but to say that a social creature can't have a society is simply contradictory. I realize that there are sociopaths in this world. There are lions and tigers and bears, too. That doesn't make moral action invalid.

So you are going to claim that it is absolutely impossible for a few people to have a subsistence living by themselves with one person in charge?

QuoteTitan As far as a "master race" goes, I don't believe in one. A true master doesn't need mastery over others. A true master is a master over themselves, and is intelligent and compassionate, not an immoral brutish killer.

Ultimately based on what though? "Necessity" appears to be the quintessence of this ideological vantage point.

QuoteThey didn't last forever did they? A few lifetimes isn't forever and we now have better systems of government.

Why not? I don't experience any other lifetime why should I care how someone else's great grand babies feel about their surroundings? There is no RATIONAL reason to feel for them.

QuoteGod's power only rests in people being forced to obey it as well.

Not at all, we aren't forced to obey his will but ultimately we pay for consequences. He has complete power REGARDLESS of what we feel. I like C.S. Lewis' quote (which can be extrapolated to fit the circumstance) "A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling ‘darkness’ on the wall of his cell." The point is that God is not diminished by our conception of him. Our opinions don't belittle him and he has no need for us (again, these are all part of my conception of who God is).

QuoteGod is a character in a book of loose historical fiction and the beginnings of human law and morality.

Can we not degrade the debate by simply labeling the other person's beliefs without actually discussing it. I could say that "atheists simply want to live immoral lives and are dillusional enough to ignore all the evidence for God." I don't believe that but both points are ultimately ad hominem and red herrings.

QuoteGod means nothing at all in an atheist forum.

If God means nothing what then is this forum for?
"Atheist" by definition requires God to mean something. How can you deny something that has no meaning?

QuoteThe universe is not changing in every perceivable way. Where are you getting this? The universe is highly stable. Stars exists for billions of years. Atoms are eternal. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's a pretty static system and has little or nothing to do with human morality.

But the knowledge that every single aspect of matter is being bombarded by so many particles with names I can't even spell, the constant alternation of stars in the vast span of time, the continual evolution of thought and understanding, the constant sociological impact our lives are making and our ideologies are making on humanity, all that is changing...how then can we have a coherent system of morality when we can't even base anything in true stability, for we've already ruled out anything giving matter true value.

Quote from: "Titan""Atheist" by definition requires God to mean something. How can you deny something that has no meaning?

For an atheist, God is nothing more than a fantasy figure, similar like fairies, kobolds, witches , giants or Santa Claus. I don't deny God, I just don't believe that he exists.

QuoteFor an atheist, God is nothing more than a fantasy figure, similar like fairies, kobolds, witches , giants or Santa Claus. I don't deny God, I just don't believe that he exists.

I understand that, but to say that to an atheist God doesn't mean ANYTHING is actually quite logically silly. Your position is completely rational, I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing against the atheistic student in Russia who yelled at an apologeticist "You use the term God. Sir, I don't even know what you mean by that, what is God?" To deny the existence of something you have to have a cohesive understanding of what it is or could be defined as.

Quote from: "Tom62"For an atheist, God is nothing more than a fantasy figure, similar like fairies, kobolds, witches , giants or Santa Claus. I don't deny God, I just don't believe that he exists.

:(

(Couldn't resist...)

Thanks for the comic relief Asmodean!

Back to the thread.

QuoteCan we not degrade the debate by simply labeling the other person's beliefs without actually discussing it. I could say that "atheists simply want to live immoral lives and are dillusional enough to ignore all the evidence for God." I don't believe that but both points are ultimately ad hominem and red herrings.

That's fine, Titan.  When you brought up morality based on supernatural beings I made the assumption that you meant God.  Since God generally is considered the moral supernatural being in our culture, I hope you can see where the connection lies.

As far as my saying God has no meaning in an atheist forum, I wasn't referring to meaning as a definition, but rather meaning as in giving power to an argument.  I define God specifically as a character in the Bible.

But as far as supernatural beings are concerned, if we aren't talking about God, how do you define the supernatural and how can something that doesn't even exist inside nature and can't be detected by natural means have an effect on natural processes, much less have power over morality?

QuoteWhat if I said: I make my own morals based on how I want to live. I only need society in as much as it fulfills my base social needs. All other aspects of it is superfluous and removable. I live to my own benefit, if I require someone I'll try to utilize them for my benefit whether it requires their will or not is irrelevant. If someone weaker than me is in my way I will cut them down or in some way remove them from the situation. Peace or no peace is irrelevant, I am all that matters because I am all I can experience.

How do you stop me?

As long as your actions aren't violent to me or society, I don't have to stop you.  If you want to live as a solipsist and believe that only your way is relevant because you are all that you can experience, that's fine. If you want to be cruel to those who are weaker than you, that's your choice, but i've seen from science that the environment has a way of changing so that strengths can become weaknesses and vice versa, and you may not be as strong as you think.

So maybe I can't stop you, but the endpoint of a truly superior sociopathic solipsist is always the same.  Supposing there is some kind of evil supernatural creator who always wins in the end and creates beings just to toy with them and ultimately punish them because they couldn't live up to it's standards, it will ultimately  have to face the same thing every time.  It is totally and utterly alone.  It has destroyed all that it can destroy, played with all it can play with, defeated all it's enemies and won.  And nobody is there to see it and bask in it's narcissistic glory but itself.  Sure it can create some more beings to toy with and go through the whole stupid silly mess again, but a being with ultimate power over it's creations only has imaginary creations, extensions of itself.  And truthfully a creature like that has no need for morality because life really is just a game, some sort of mental masturbation to pass the time.  But it's completely and totally irrelevant to reality.  It's just pointless and insane to go there as this thread keeps trying to do.

I don't want to waste my time on that sort of thing.  I believe in a material reality where all of us have to play by certain rules that science has elucidated and you are able to see this reality with your own eyes.  I don't believe that some sort of anthropomorphic supernatural being created it.  I choose a moral code that is fairly similar to others in society, hope for the best and try to find some enjoyment in this existence.  If some sort of superior jerk comes along and manages to cut me down because I'm weaker than it is, then oh fucking well.

QuoteWhen you brought up morality based on supernatural beings I made the assumption that you meant God. Since God generally is considered the moral supernatural being in our culture, I hope you can see where the connection lies.

I was merely providing the contrast that a religious view actually has a firm doctrine of morality as opposed to atheism. From a religious background you can say that what God says is the law and that is final since he decides your ultimate fate. In atheism there is no long term reference, nothing to keep me from not fully helping myself in this life.

QuoteAs far as my saying God has no meaning in an atheist forum, I wasn't referring to meaning as a definition, but rather meaning as in giving power to an argument. I define God specifically as a character in the Bible.

Absolutely, I actually said that in my introduction to this forum. To say that would be circular reasoning. I was simply providing the contrast, as I said.

QuoteBut as far as supernatural beings are concerned, if we aren't talking about God, how do you define the supernatural and how can something that doesn't even exist inside nature and can't be detected by natural means have an effect on natural processes, much less have power over morality?

There are several mistakes in regards to the idea of God.
1) God (I'll use the singular so I don't have to make constant distinction between God/gods, him/them, have/has, etc.) can exist in nature. In the Christian conception Christ existence demonstrates a coalescence of God in nature. The distinction is that God is not BOUND by nature.
2) As for detection, that really depends on what you mean...if you are referring to placing a box and seeing if we can get God to appear in a box like the proverbial prebiotic soup, then no, he would not be detectable. But from a standpoint of what may be considered miracles or supernatural phenomenon I would disagree. Having grown up in Indonesia I, my family and my friends have been witness to things that are considered fairy tales in America. Trust me, if you go to Indonesia and go to a witch doctor you will be struck by something far larger going on. If you want I can tell you some of the stories and you can give your naturalistic explanation for each one.
3) Just because God doesn't subject himself to man's tests doesn't mean he wouldn't have power over it. Again, you are arguing against an internal issue with Christianity so I'm going to defend it with the presupposition that there is a God (and again, this doesn't prove that God exists, merely that the perceived contradiction is fallacious). The very creation of the universe, if it had been done by God, as religion necessitates, means that God exerts a very real influence.

QuoteAs long as your actions aren't violent to me or society, I don't have to stop you.

So if I murdered everyone in Africa you would be fine?

QuoteIf you want to live as a solipsist and believe that only your way is relevant because you are all that you can experience, that's fine. If you want to be cruel to those who are weaker than you, that's your choice, but i've seen from science that the environment has a way of changing so that strengths can become weaknesses and vice versa, and you may not be as strong as you think.

Guns kind of deny the laws of naturalistic strengths and weaknesses and if perceived weaknesses could become a threat to me that makes it all the more important that I remove the threat. I have noticed that you have withdrawn from a more collective sense of morality into a personal sense of morality...am I right in this assertion.

QuoteSo maybe I can't stop you, but the endpoint of a truly superior sociopathic solipsist is always the same.

How many generations of Pharaohs and Chinese emperors (let alone the thousands of other sociopathic kings) ended their reign in slumber rather than at the hands of the brutal mobs?

QuoteSupposing there is some kind of evil supernatural creator who always wins in the end and creates beings just to toy with them and ultimately punish them because they couldn't live up to it's standards, it will ultimately have to face the same thing every time. It is totally and utterly alone. It has destroyed all that it can destroy, played with all it can play with, defeated all it's enemies and won. And nobody is there to see it and bask in it's narcissistic glory but itself. Sure it can create some more beings to toy with and go through the whole stupid silly mess again, but a being with ultimate power over it's creations only has imaginary creations, extensions of itself. And truthfully a creature like that has no need for morality because life really is just a game, some sort of mental masturbation to pass the time. But it's completely and totally irrelevant to reality. It's just pointless and insane to go there as this thread keeps trying to do.

I...agree...on both accounts but why did you bring it up since no one in the discussion believes such a deity exists?

QuoteI choose a moral code that is fairly similar to others in society, hope for the best and try to find some enjoyment in this existence. If some sort of superior jerk comes along and manages to cut me down because I'm weaker than it is, then oh fucking well. I could give a shit.

So if I robbed you you wouldn't be upset? Since that's "the way the cookie crumbles"? Your child is killed at the hands of a serial rapist and your opinion is "oh well"? I have a hard time believing that this is an actual world view.

After several rounds of this thread Titan, my worldview right now really is 'oh fucking well'.  Look I can try to make up some imaginary higher power to give me guidance in life or I could accept one of the spiffy, happy ready-made deities that humanity is so determined to thrust on me.  I can fight with an atheistic morality based on evolution and empathy.  All in all, in the end, it really doesn't matter.  Yes, of course, if there is some horrible genocide in Africa, I will care.  I would bawl my eyes out, curse the heavens and shake my fist in anger at whatever cruel son of a bitch God that I don't believe is even up there.  I could blame it on the Devil, Satan or Lucifer, I could  descend into madness from the pain of living.  If my child were to meet a fate like the one you had the nastiness to write, I would care, I would be devastated.  You know this all to be true.

But eventually as all things go to their end, my world view really would become 'oh fucking well' if this life really did just amount to some ridiculous game of survival of the fittest for the entertainment of a non-caring, neglectful deity or upper class human slimeballs.  What else could it be?  How long do you want me to fight this before I get bored, desensitized to the pain and descend into apathy?  

The atheists here have given more than enough reasoning to justify their moral standpoints and the fact that it's not set in stone is a strength, not a weakness.  We can adapt and hope one day to make a world in which we don't have to adapt to any longer.  Yet still the thread keeps going and going like some freaking delusional religious nut case energizer bunny.  And I'm getting bored.

I'm not going to believe in something that isn't real.  Sure if you were to torture me, I would recant.  If you put me in some sort of hell on earth, drugged me, beat me, took my family and killed every last beautiful thing in this world, I would not be able to stand up against you and I would do anything you asked, including singing the praises of the Almighty Lord Jesus on High AMEN, as well as sacrifice chickens to any of his Voodoo god brethren while tap dancing to the tune of Amazing Grace done double time.  With a barber shop quartet in the background.  In a Star Wars Storm Trooper get up.

But it still wouldn't make it real.

It still wouldn't change the fact that we all die.  It wouldn't make oil supplies anymore plentiful, nuclear weapons disappear from the face of the earth or make dog poo taste like chocolate cocoa.   It won't make global warming a myth.   It won't put electric cars in my driveway or solar panels on my roof.

The only thing that will do that is a lot of hard work and damn good science.

You don't have to go to Indonesia to see things that are strange, unusual or unexplainable.  You simply have to be crazy.  And once you see these things you can choose to let them rule you, or you can choose to rule them.  And then one day, you die.

QuoteAll in all, in the end, it really doesn't matter. Yes, of course, if there is some horrible genocide in Africa, I will care. I would bawl my eyes out, curse the heavens and shake my fist in anger at whatever cruel son of a bitch God that I don't believe is even up there.

Even within your rejection there is an underlining knowledge of a moral code. We cannot argue for what should be without a moral code, we can't argue for a moral code without a sufficient moral code giver and we can't argue for a sufficient moral code giver unless we have purpose that relates to him who gives us value.

QuoteHow long do you want me to fight this before I get bored, desensitized to the pain and descend into apathy?

I believe that is the lesser of the options. You can chose to become desensitized, turn your back to the Stalin's and the Mao's of the world or you can come face to face with the need in every human being for someone greater to give us purpose.

QuoteThe atheists here have given more than enough reasoning to justify their moral standpoints and the fact that it's not set in stone is a strength, not a weakness. We can adapt and hope one day to make a world in which we don't have to adapt to any longer.

But with adaptation you have to have a basis for what constitutes a change. So what is that? Majority? Might makes right? Personal preference? You still haven't come to the answer you have just pushed the question deeper.

QuoteI'm not going to believe in something that isn't real. Sure if you were to torture me, I would recant. If you put me in some sort of hell on earth, drugged me, beat me, took my family and killed every last beautiful thing in this world, I would not be able to stand up against you and I would do anything you asked, including singing the praises of the Almighty Lord Jesus on High AMEN, as well as sacrifice chickens to any of his Voodoo god brethren while tap dancing to the tune of Amazing Grace done double time. With a barber shop quartet in the background. In a Star Wars Storm Trooper get up.

But it still wouldn't make it real.

Red herring...please stay on topic.

QuoteYou don't have to go to Indonesia to see things that are strange, unusual or unexplainable. You simply have to be crazy. And once you see these things you can choose to let them rule you, or you can choose to rule them. And then one day, you die.

Ad hominem...please refrain from attacking others. You haven't even heard the story or listened to the experience and you purport to know that I and my friends and family are crazy. This is where I come to believe that you personally do not adhere to strict dogmatic science. Because science doesn't rule out something because it sounds strange or unusual.


Would someone else like to continue this debate. Lara is no longer answering the questions I am posing. I apologize if this sounds rude but I have some very serious questions regarding fundamental principles and I know some of you poses the knowledge to answer them.

Wow, this thread has taken a hard turn into the ground.  Titan, I request you go back and look at my jumbo post + edit, as it's extremely relevant.  I'm hoping you didn't let it sit unaddressed because I've made no motion for an absolute or objective morality.  The hypotheticals you're coming up with to test the limits of LARA's moral philosophy are crude.  I don't see how you could expect anything beyond an apathetic answer for anyone that wanted to carry on living in these situations.  If you had to live through the conditions you suggest I doubt you'd be very happy with your god, if you could still find reason to think it was looking out for you at all.  Wanting the people who wrong us to suffer an ill fate and being provided that desire, and having it reinforced, by the many holy books of the world doesn't make it so.  Not when there's no evidence.  I can no longer subscribe to a worldview that demands I pray or await the death of something (which conveniently rids the world of it anyway) rather than go out and try to make a difference.  At the very least I'll go on without my head bowed in prayer, because God doesn't do individual requests and he won't be touching the folks acting out these horrible injustices until they're dead anyway.  You haven't been so bold as to present us with a miracle in any of these situations, to say, "And then the Hand of God descended from the sky and ended the warlord serial rapist ubermensch for all to see," which I take is because you don't believe it would happen, or at the very least you're unwilling to make that kind of worldly retribution commitment.  Your view of how this god helps out is indistinguishable from the working of the naturalistic universe.  I see no higher or absolute morality at work here, and I see nothing but the hope that people suffer after they die for breaches of an absolute moral code, much the same as I might hope there are 4 lesbians in my closet forever making sweet love, and that when my neighbor wrongs me 4 dildos float out his closet at night and rape him but any inconsistency with reality is removed the second my neighbor wakes up, and the lesbians just disappear when I open the door.   But hey, there's still awesomeness in my closet and horrible suffering (albeit he doesn't know he's suffering) being inflicted on him whenever he does something the dildos don't like.  This childish, feeble, vulgar concept of morality and retribution is no more at odds with reality than the belief in the Christian God.  Until that changes, I don't see myself operating under the comfortable pretense of absolute morality, nor the god that comes with it.  We've been making the mistake of giving your absolute morality a free pass while you try to break our subjective one with vast and varying harm inflicted on us and our loved ones.  I'm not angry, but I do not like the fact that I'm reading your comments to have a deliberate heavy-handedness.  If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry to have written it, but I'm not sure whether you're honestly asking questions for the sake of moral expansion of LARA, or it you're asking these questions that appear to be maligned and rhetorical, questions you already know the reasonable answer to, just to watch the atheists squirm.  Now, I just woke up, and hopefully I'll be feeling better after four slices of toast, if you'll excuse me . . .

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had edited that post, I'll read it and your last message and think about them.

Quote from: "Titan"I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had edited that post, I'll read it and your last message and think about them.

No worries, at least I don't have to worry that you passed it up deliberately.  I really was wanting a response but couldn't bring myself to make a post pointing to another post.  I guess I should change that, because you'll have surpassed my post count by tomorrow.  

QuoteWhether or not there is a higher morality has no effect on you or I, neither of us, nay, none of us need it.

I vehemently disagree in as much as a higher order and a higher morality makes it legitimate to say to the genocidal maniac that he is wrong.

QuoteTry this, next time you have the chance to get away with something for sure, ask God to forgive you and then remove God from the decision. I know you can do this because your freewill is still intact. And doing this doesn't jeopardize anything for you, so let's just have a run of this experiment.

The mistake here (which a good portion of the argument is based on) is that the first clause of the hypothetical situation is an impossibility. Asking forgiveness PRIOR to committing an act isn't even an option. You aren't sorry you are doing it, in fact it is a base problem that has plagued morality for a long time. We are basically saying that we want the best of both words, the forgiveness of God and the ability to do what we want. However, that runs contrary to everything Christ stood for so the situation cannot even present itself to a rational Christian. Imagine for an instant two situations of a student asking for forgiveness, the first is that the student goes up to the teacher and tells the teacher "I'm sorry, I feel ashamed, but I cheated on the test. I realize that it was wrong and I want to change." The second situation is the student coming up to the teacher and saying "Teacher, I'm sorry, I feel so ashamed, I'm going to cheat on this upcoming test whether you want me to or not and I realize it's wrong but I want you to accept that." Okay, how vastly different are the responses going to be to the student's confessions? The second one is so laughable. You see, forgiveness requires repentance, and repentance requires someone to be remorseful for what they did and willing to change. Your situation makes the Christian God out to be a fool.

QuoteNow, see if you can do this morally reprehensible thing, this thing that would repulse you under Christianity. If you can, I'll say that maybe it's better you keep your religion.

But I know why doing something like that is wrong for me and for everybody...I'm trying to see how an atheist can see that. So far I have not received an answer. "Because it is a dick thing to do" can't be applied to society as a whole because people could rip apart that concept into a thousand different definitions of each word (that is assuming of course that you could back up why being "a dick" is bad).

QuoteThey are not carved in stone, but we would need good reason to adopt new ones. The uberthingy has nothing to do with it when it is placed outside all moral systems. It is not you, and even if you have its power, you are not universally bound to be it.

What is "we" and why are you obligated by reason?

QuoteThe uberthingy has nothing to do with it when it is placed outside all moral systems. It is not you, and even if you have its power, you are not universally bound to be it. Empathy still remains ("dick thing to do"), and as another mentioned, if you get rid of that, even religion has no bearing for you. The final thing is that us atheists have to deal with the fact that if an uberthingy were to exist, anything that cannot be done to stop or punish it in reality cannot be done.

Who cares about empathy, from what basis?

QuoteWe have come to terms with this, and we do not require a belief in a place where a guy names Satan is giving it to Hitler in the ass all night and day for all the rest of time unimaginable.

Can we please refrain from mocking one another's beliefs?

QuoteWe're trying to build a better society, where all of us are better off, where the environment it better off, because we want to be kind to each other; we're not concerned on the whole with developing a Self-Affirming Absolute Philosophy on Universal Right and Wrong.

Why do we want everyone to be better off and what makes a society a society? What makes it autonomous or tied to another society? Why are we all bound by a coherent structure of respect if one group has the ability to exert an influence in the other?

Quote. The hypotheticals you're coming up with to test the limits of LARA's moral philosophy are crude. I don't see how you could expect anything beyond an apathetic answer for anyone that wanted to carry on living in these situations. If you had to live through the conditions you suggest I doubt you'd be very happy with your god, if you could still find reason to think it was looking out for you at all.

While I do not have omniscience and have no way of knowing my reaction I know reasons why I could put even the worst travesties into perspective (on multiple fronts).

QuoteWanting the people who wrong us to suffer an ill fate and being provided that desire, and having it reinforced, by the many holy books of the world doesn't make it so. Not when there's no evidence.

This is a sidetrack, one that I disagree with but I believe this is getting long enough as it is without debating the evidence for and against various religions.

QuoteYou haven't been so bold as to present us with a miracle in any of these situations, to say, "And then the Hand of God descended from the sky and ended the warlord serial rapist ubermensch for all to see," which I take is because you don't believe it would happen, or at the very least you're unwilling to make that kind of worldly retribution commitment.

I believe that such a conception is a fervent limitation of God and his character. Therefore, yes I would be quite unwilling to make a kind of worldly retribution commitment.

QuoteI can no longer subscribe to a worldview that demands I pray or await the death of something (which conveniently rids the world of it anyway) rather than go out and try to make a difference.

I'm sorry, which worldview would that be? Please provide evidence from said worldviews of such a position.

QuoteAt the very least I'll go on without my head bowed in prayer, because God doesn't do individual requests and he won't be touching the folks acting out these horrible injustices until they're dead anyway.

Do you exercise? Running, weights, swimming, anything of that sort?

QuoteI see no higher or absolute morality at work here, and I see nothing but the hope that people suffer after they die for breaches of an absolute moral code

But the fact that you see something as blatantly evil as "suffering" implies a moral doctrine of absolutes. Namely that unjust suffering is wrong. But matter doesn't give us value.

QuoteWe've been making the mistake of giving your absolute morality a free pass while you try to break our subjective one with vast and varying harm inflicted on us and our loved ones.

This isn't my position, but: Why should I care about harming you and your feelings? Why should I care about your loved ones and your subjective approach to the concept?

QuoteIf I'm wrong, then I'm sorry to have written it, but I'm not sure whether you're honestly asking questions for the sake of moral expansion of LARA, or it you're asking these questions that appear to be maligned and rhetorical, questions you already know the reasonable answer to, just to watch the atheists squirm.

No, I am not asking these questions to simply watch you guys squirm, I truly believe they are valid considerations that have yet to be answered. I have posed questions to atheists, things I thought demonstrated a problem in the atheistic vantage point that I was corrected on, I no longer even mention these (even though some atheists wouldn't know the answer). If I am wrong I would want to be shown how I am wrong. But so far I have not seen a reason to say that Stalin was absolutely wrong in his atrocious crimes.

Hmmm, I'm not  fan of post dissection because it usually involves the person doing the dissection detaching arguments from their supporting evidence and addressing each separately, but I'll tidy up my posts a bit and see if I can make my positions more clear.

But I do contend that an infinitely compassionate, omnipotent being could not be "made the fool of" by granting pre-forgiveness.  He already has the only thing he requires of you, and any Christian will tell you that further sins, no matter how ugly, will be forgiven so long as the they prayed something in line with Apostles' Creed (and were baptized, and whatever individual stipulation you like.  I think it's safe to assume you've done everything you take relevant to being 'saved').  So you are already forgiven, even for playing the system or testing God or yourself.  This is an argument of philosophy, not of theology, and though I'm asking you to violate a fundamental tenant of your beliefs, I don't see a problem with it since you are forgiven and this little test is important to my case.  I can't change your mind if you're unwilling to imagine my point of view or run these moral experiments.  This it somewhat a strawman, but it's as if I were singing "Imagine if there was no heaven, it's really easy if you try," and you're arguing that it isn't easy when you refuse to try.  I'll be honest, the fact remains you're forgiven for whatever you do, and I was saying the pre-forgiveness bit to try to coerce you into actually giving the experiment a run, because most Christians I've proceeded along similar lines with will discount the whole thing with a rationalization such as "That would be testing God!" and they make it sound as though this is unforgivably sinful.  I owe you far more than that, because you are going to see through such feeble tricks, but surely you know that I cannot prove something to you if you're unwilling to do the analysis, even if you believe the analysis to be "wrong."  Yeah, that opens up a whole other can of worms, like "what if someone wanted you to kill someone to prove a point," but my challenge was more in the realm of a thoughtcrime than inflicting harm on another sentient beings, which courtesy of empathy, sympathy, interest of self-preservation and progeny, and reason, we don't do.  If you choose to discard these, you've already created a monster that will never care about what God has to say, so it fails to this creature as a moral system.  And if you can't prove that the Bible IS an absolute system of morals, then it too appears to be only subjective, and to likewise have no governing power over this creature.  Our difference is that I admit my morality is subjective, and you believe yours isn't, but you can't offer me any proof otherwise, beyond a lack of atheistic reasoning and a feeling you have that all morality is descended of God, which is no proof.  Us not being able to adequately explain every facet of the human mind and our foundational gut instinct is not evidence of absolute morality.  At risk of giving you something stupidly-easy to dissect, I present you with these concepts:
[li]Man evolved to have empathy, sympathy, reasoning et al.
[li]Man, and many other creatures, evolved this way because that is most beneficial to life, which has no true goal except continuing to survive.
[li]Though I state this as a goal, it is not inherent, just the only possible outcome.  Life that evolved to die most efficiently would die, and that'd be it.
[li]All living life seeks to continue living and reproducing, given it isn't damaged or shortly to go extinct.
[li]Man helps out others because he posses this empathy, sympathy, desire to be treated in kind, etc.
[li]We derive our morality from these attributes, and as such they are subjective.  We may refine these morals based on interaction with others.
[li]Man, courtesy of this evolution, desires to continue the race as a whole due to these attributes.  Also due to these attributes, the people who disagree with our most common morals, or do not posses these attributes are removed from the society and evolution cannot continue in their direction under typical circumstances.
[li]The society has no special powers to it beyond that it is backed by many.  It can be wrong, and people may choose whether or not to participate in it.  Society is merely how we get together to achieve our base goals, which are as subjective as anything else, and where we derive our power from, rightly or wrongly.  You may call it as it stands tyrrany by the majority, as the will of the majority will be imposed on those who threaten it, for better or worse.
[li]Many of the Bible's morals are derived from the people that wrote it.  This is why some of them we find morally reprehensible today, such as slavery (I know, your other thread  :D

Quote from: "john31"hey guys, just wondering if us atheists should believe in absolute morals ect or if morals are completely relative...
dawkins said in one of his books that "If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies . . . are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention . . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference"
now I take it that most atheists believe in temporary morals...however what should we base our morals on? should we write ourselves a moral code to live by? should we just follow societies moral laws? once I get a response I have a few more questions!
thanks!

Morals are inventions, not discoveries. The relativity or absolutity of morals is dependent on what you say they are. Every person (including atheists) will have their own morals based on what they like.

Also, "should" is a rhetorical word meant to pursuade people by treating commands as objective facts. "Should" is just code word for "I would want you to".

Quote from: "Martian"Morals are inventions, not discoveries. The relativity or absolutity of morals is dependent on what you say they are. Every person (including atheists) will have their own morals based on what they like.

I disagree ... I think morality has evolved in a cultural sense and is not an "invention" per se (to my mind that implies purpose). I also do not agree that morality is personal, I think morality is societal and we use our conscience to act against or within a given societies morals code.

It's a view

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I disagree ... I think morality has evolved in a cultural sense and is not an "invention" per se (to my mind that implies purpose). I also do not agree that morality is personal, I think morality is societal and we use our conscience to act against or within a given societies morals code.

It's a view

Kyu

Agreed. It's my contention that morality has evolved as a combination of herd-protection, guilt and the ability to comprehend causation.

QuoteHmmm, I'm not fan of post dissection because it usually involves the person doing the dissection detaching arguments from their supporting evidence and addressing each separately, but I'll tidy up my posts a bit and see if I can make my positions more clear.

Sorry, it just helps me address every aspect of the post.

QuoteBut I do contend that an infinitely compassionate, omnipotent being could not be "made the fool of" by granting pre-forgiveness. He already has the only thing he requires of you

1. A perfect God, by definition, would not require anything of us.
2. As I previously stated, forgiveness actually requires you to be sorry, planning on doing the act or planning on saying your sorry after doing an act is more akin to treacherous manipulation than solemn religiosity.

Quoteand any Christian will tell you that further sins, no matter how ugly, will be forgiven so long as the they prayed something in line with Apostles' Creed (and were baptized, and whatever individual stipulation you like. I think it's safe to assume you've done everything you take relevant to being 'saved'). So you are already forgiven, even for playing the system or testing God or yourself.

Again, that is not the case. You are only forgiven if you TRULY repent. Asking for forgiveness prior to committing the act is akin to the illustration I provided earlier.

QuoteThis is an argument of philosophy, not of theology, and though I'm asking you to violate a fundamental tenant of your beliefs, I don't see a problem with it since you are forgiven and this little test is important to my case. I can't change your mind if you're unwilling to imagine my point of view or run these moral experiments.

But the hypothetical situation demands a bastardization of Christianity. It would be like someone saying "I will prove to you that apple pie is disgusting" and then proceeding to dumb sewage water into the pie. Of course the pie is going to taste disgusting...it is not longer true pie (I love pie, you will learn this throughout our dialogues). To imagine the situation itself is to alter Christianity. I realize you would be annoyed with the prospect of me not letting this argument continue but it is simply not a valid interpretation of scripture.

QuoteI owe you far more than that, because you are going to see through such feeble tricks, but surely you know that I cannot prove something to you if you're unwilling to do the analysis, even if you believe the analysis to be "wrong." Yeah, that opens up a whole other can of worms, like "what if someone wanted you to kill someone to prove a point," but my challenge was more in the realm of a thoughtcrime than inflicting harm on another sentient beings, which courtesy of empathy, sympathy, interest of self-preservation and progeny, and reason, we don't do. If you choose to discard these, you've already created a monster that will never care about what God has to say, so it fails to this creature as a moral system.

Pipebox, your hypothetical situation is a clever one. Indeed, I can see exactly what would happen at the end, but to accept the situation would be to alter my conception of God, thus I would not provide a valid answer. I was in a debate with an atheist who demanded that I tell him whether the Bible should be taken literally or figuratively. When I  said that parts are taken literally and other parts are taken figuratively he grew annoyed, arguing that I had to make a distinction between the two. The truth is, the Bible has to be taken both otherwise we would either be literal sheep (fluffy and everything) according to the Bible, or bound by something that could be interpreted in infinite amount of directions. I knew he had a trap set, he was probably sitting there with two verses, one proving that the Bible could not be taken literally and one proving that the Bible could not be taken figuratively. But to accept his argument as a challenge, would be to alter the parameters of my faith, thus invalidating the discussion because I would no longer be defending what I believed.

QuoteOur difference is that I admit my morality is subjective, and you believe yours isn't, but you can't offer me any proof otherwise, beyond a lack of atheistic reasoning and a feeling you have that all morality is descended of God, which is no proof.

I am willing to argue that I cannot prove that my morality is absolute. I, however, am currently arguing against the inherent problem of moral subjectivity. We can begin a discussion that truly delves into the principle of a comparison of theistic morality and how they stack up but that would be another long winded exercise, one which would require another thread.

Quote[li]Man evolved to have empathy, sympathy, reasoning et al.
[li]Man, and many other creatures, evolved this way because that is most beneficial to life, which has no true goal except continuing to survive.
[li]Though I state this as a goal, it is not inherent, just the only possible outcome. Life that evolved to die most efficiently would die, and that'd be it.
[li]All living life seeks to continue living and reproducing, given it isn't damaged or shortly to go extinct.
[li]Man helps out others because he posses this empathy, sympathy, desire to be treated in kind, etc.
[li]We derive our morality from these attributes, and as such they are subjective. We may refine these morals based on interaction with others.
[li]Man, courtesy of this evolution, desires to continue the race as a whole due to these attributes. Also due to these attributes, the people who disagree with our most common morals, or do not posses these attributes are removed from the society and evolution cannot continue in their direction under typical circumstances.
[li]The society has no special powers to it beyond that it is backed by many. It can be wrong, and people may choose whether or not to participate in it. Society is merely how we get together to achieve our base goals, which are as subjective as anything else, and where we derive our power from, rightly or wrongly. You may call it as it stands tyrrany by the majority, as the will of the majority will be imposed on those who threaten it, for better or worse.
[li]Many of the Bible's morals are derived from the people that wrote it. This is why some of them we find morally reprehensible today, such as slavery (I know, your other thread :D

Pipebox, you are extremely intelligent, and I believe you are getting close to the answer atheism offers. I am fervent in my desire to continue this debate because I believe that I can actually get an answer to my question from you. You seem to even be nudging me towards the answer and in my own blindness I'm having a hard time comprehending it. I merely ask that you answer some of my pitiful questions, I'm slow, I know, but some of these are plaguing me and have always kept me from an ideological switch towards atheism.

Martian

QuoteMorals are inventions, not discoveries. The relativity or absolutity of morals is dependent on what you say they are. Every person (including atheists) will have their own morals based on what they like.

So, as the rational person you are, understanding the completeness of your theory as it applies to the external subjectivity and internal objectivity of each person's moral stance, you would be forced to recognize that your stance on morality is no more valid than the next persons. Is that not true?

Kyuuketsuki

QuoteI disagree ... I think morality has evolved in a cultural sense and is not an "invention" per se (to my mind that implies purpose). I also do not agree that morality is personal, I think morality is societal and we use our conscience to act against or within a given societies morals code.

So there is nothing wrong with one society wanted to rip apart another society? Since morality has been limited to the beliefs of the organized few?

Quote from: "Titan"So there is nothing wrong with one society wanted to rip apart another society? Since morality has been limited to the beliefs of the organized few?

By whose morals?

Kyu

OK, I've been busy, and my mind is functioning in scattershot fashion at the moment.  Still, I'm in a good mood and I'll try elaborating.   :P   But you get the gist of it.

The whole of morality a feedback loop, which makes it very hard to change.  The system determines what people may achieve power, those people have the ability to modify the system, evolution has effect on what those people are like, and the system has power over evolution (to the extent that it dictates who is more likely to reproduce, how they go about it, and perhaps even direct genetic engineering someday).  I'm sure I'm missing few more environmental effects, but morality extrapolated from these.  I'm not sure how I've gone back on my definition of morality, because I've stated it's a product of reasoning, empathy, etc, and that those are products of evolution, and that our evolution flows in the direction people let it.  This way of doing things still exists in nature because we haven't all killed ourselves yet.  I can't say that it's bloody brilliant, but evolved up to this point so it isn't circular reasoning.  It may not be the best way of doing things, but how should we know what's best.  Evolution only cares about what works.

I want to elaborate on the above more, but I feel fogged now.  There's more to be said on it, I just think I'm at the limits of my ability to explain it.  Not understand it, but explain how everything ties together without having to go through each individual concept.  But to give you your sensational answer, I can find no evidence that Stalin, or Hitler, or anyone else was ever wrong in any objective sense.  But they repulse me to the core by being so at odds with my morality.
 
I hope the answers suffice, I think I'm near or at my limits of my ability to explain this.  My brain functions a great deal on a parity level, where I don't memorize each and every underlying concept, and instead I'm left with "Does this interfere with underlying concept C?  No," where I once knew what C was, but after checking if the upper concept checked with the lower one, I let my knowledge of C slip except for the parity check.  So, much to my disadvantage, I do not have easy mental access to all the underlying concepts for my argument, where my knowledge turns into a very shaky "this works because I know it does."  Naturally, if you or anyone can demonstrate something to be at odds with my more detailed knowledge, a more base principle that clashes with my reasoning, I'll adopt that, because I know my reasoning can't be perfect.  Anyway, this is why I'm I going to start struggling to answer further questions along the lines of "where do we derive subjective morality from and why does it appear so universal?" so it is my hope I have explained the topic well.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I disagree ... I think morality has evolved in a cultural sense and is not an "invention" per se (to my mind that implies purpose). I also do not agree that morality is personal, I think morality is societal and we use our conscience to act against or within a given societies morals code.

It's a view

Kyu

Agreed. It's my contention that morality has evolved as a combination of herd-protection, guilt and the ability to comprehend causation.

People accept the rules that they like or the rules they are conditioned to like. But because those rules stem from what people like, that means that those rules are man-made/artificial. There are an infinite amount of possible rules for human action, but humans select the ones they like and call them morality, often disagreeing with each other. That is what I meant by "invention". An invention doesn't neccessarily have to be something new, but it has to be artificial: a creation by human choice. Sure, some rules are popular and have been around for a while, but describing what other people do is just descriptive ethics. It merely describes what's going on. Really what's going on is at the personal level of choice based on preferences.

It was moral to kill the jews in Nazi Germany, but people in other societies would contend that that wasn't moral. Slavery in the USA was moral by popularity, but similarily it is called immoral by other societies. The label "moral" is something that is independent of what is popular, or else it's pretty meaningless.

Saying that popular rules are what is moral doesn't neccessarily tell me what moral is. If everyone did that (try to discover morality by what was popular), then there would be no morality because people are the creators. Rules about human action are decided based on what people's preferences are, and in aggregation, some become popular. Those preferences can be natural or conditioned (most likely different degrees of both), but they still are human creations.

Also, because what humans make is always for some purpose coupled with the fact that morality is a human creation, morality is made with purpose.

QuoteThe hypotheticals you're coming up with to test the limits of LARA's moral philosophy are crude. I don't see how you could expect anything beyond an apathetic answer for anyone that wanted to carry on living in these situations. If you had to live through the conditions you suggest I doubt you'd be very happy with your god, if you could still find reason to think it was looking out for you at all.

Thank you, Pipebox.

Titan, let me try to create a realistic situation to test morality, one that humanity faces time and time again.  I'm going to make a supposition for this argument, that morality is based on survival.  What keeps the most members of a population alive for the longest time is the most moral action.  Now, since the subject of genocide keeps rearing it's ugly head, let's take the hypothetical situation that a superior human leader convinces a population that in order to continue living a certain race of people has to be exterminated because resources are becoming scarce.  

Here is the problem with this in an evolutionary, atheist perspective.  One human determining what type of person should live and die based on human opinions about superior genetics through violence creates an ever dwindling human population because of the following reasons:

Genocide eliminates certain people from the population that humans see as unfit.  It is done violently and therefore ultimately eliminates not only the humans the genocidal maniac sees as unfit, but any compassionate members who try to oppose this leader.

Now purged of these members of society we can see a simple result.   Resources are again plentiful.  But genetic diversity, the crux of the survival of a species has been reduced.  Additionally, the number of compassionate members in society have been reduced.

The population goes on living, but, as is the way of nature, resources once again become scarce.

A new genocidal maniac comes along and the process is repeated.  There are less people and the resource problem has been solved.  Unfortunately, genetic diversity is reduced and compassion is reduced.

If this process continues on, the population of humans will become genetically constrained.  Without genetic diversity in the population, disease becomes harder to fight.  Without compassion in the population, violence becomes more and more of a problem.

This violent, diseased, genetically narrow population eventually exterminates itself.

Now let's take a situation in which resources are scarce, but instead of turning to the genocidal maniac, the population holds fast together, and extends compassion to other members regardless of their differences.  Resources are allocated as best as possible to get as many through the resource shortage as possible. Some even choose to give their rations to others, such as an ill mother to her child, an elderly man to his son, a sister to her sister.  This is a very compassionate population mind you, a population we as humans would claim aren't acting like the humans we know.

A good number of people starve to death and die on these short rations, but only nature is allowed to take life, not other humans.  The population is smaller, but genetic diversity is retained by natural forces, only those who are infirm, elderly or have an illness succumb to the environment.  It isn't pretty, but in the end this type of population that tries to preserve as many members of it's population and it's genetic diversity comes out stronger than the population that tries to take matters into it's own hands, appoints itself God and has the hubris to declare itself above the processes of natural selection.

This is why genocide is wrong from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective.

Now realistically, I do think that the violent population is more similar to us.   But from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective I can see that there are other populations on earth that are like this in the animal world.  We tend to regard animals as stupid and violent while forgetting our own stupidity and violence.  We place ourselves at the pinnacle of creation and forget that other populations are still developing, and under the forces of evolution they will be selected for their intelligence and compassion because it's these qualities that allow life to continue.

And supposing that we genocidal, hubristic creatures who have given ourselves dominion over the earth through a man-made supernatural creator manage to destroy every last living thing on the planet, life will evolve on worlds orbiting stars too far away for us to destroy.

Life will continue.  It will develop intelligence and compassion.  It just might not end up being human.

Now please, Titan if you really do have further questions you think we can answer, can we all stop dissecting posts and just ask them?

Quote from: "Martian"People accept the rules that they like or the rules they are conditioned to like. But because those rules stem from what people like, that means that those rules are man-made/artificial. There are an infinite amount of possible rules for human action, but humans select the ones they like and call them morality, often disagreeing with each other. That is what I meant by "invention". An invention doesn't neccessarily have to be something new, but it has to be artificial: a creation by human choice. Sure, some rules are popular and have been around for a while, but describing what other people do is just descriptive ethics. It merely describes what's going on. Really what's going on is at the personal level of choice based on preferences.

I wouldn't say that we have a choice in what morality to adopt, that's why I think it's cultural evolution, slow and below the level of what I see as active choice.

Quote from: "Martian"It was moral to kill the jews in Nazi Germany, but people in other societies would contend that that wasn't moral. Slavery in the USA was moral by popularity, but similarily it is called immoral by other societies. The label "moral" is something that is independent of what is popular, or else it's pretty meaningless

Probably true about the Nazi's but I'm not so sure on the slavery one inasmuch as I am not sure that many other societies opposed US slavery at the time ... sure Britain did but historians seem to be saying that they took their anti-slavery position as much for convenience reasons as anything and human rights had little to do with it (IOW not a moral position).

Quote from: "Martian"Also, because what humans make is always for some purpose coupled with the fact that morality is a human creation, morality is made with purpose.

Yes there's an element of human influence but I just wouldn't go as far as saying it's an active choice or that a given society's morality is in some way purposefully designed.

Kyu

Hi Martian  from your posts I'm getting the impression that your position is that all morality is absolutely relative and defined by the society the individual lives in.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My questions to you are :  Are there any moral values that are concrete and do not change?  I can see situations in which there are conflicting values that make moral relativity necessary, but I am curious if you ever allow any absolutes into your moral viewpoint.

What base supposition do you lay down as the beginning point of your moral code?  Is this base supposition the same as what you see in society?

For me my basic premise for my morality is that human life is good and should continue for as long as possible.  I am assuming this position and trying to build a fundamental moral code from this.  Now there may be events that occur in life that make me question this basic premise, but for the purposes of survival, I have to assume it to be true.

My 2cts. I believe that morals are not absolute. Many people think that there is a clear distinction between good and right, but most of the time it is not black or white but a gray zone. Also every action causes a reaction, particularly so with morals. Many times a moral deed could result in an immoral effect. For example, people donate money to feed the Third World countries in Africa. Might sound morally correct, but it creates a long dependency of those countries on foreign aid. You have now farmers in Ethiopia who don't care whether their crops fail (due to bad and outdated agricultural knowledge), because the white man will help him out anyway. Not to mention of course that a lot of the money that we give find their way in the pockets of the corrupt officials of that country. So basically people are dying in those countries, because we give them food. Another effect is that people in the West get used to all this graven images of children dying from hunger in Africa. After seeing the same thing year in year out their morals shift from "We've got to help these poor bastards" to "Why can't they just get their act together".

Quote from: "Tom62"My 2cts. I believe that morals are not absolute.

Agreed ... one man's ceiling is another man's floor

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I disagree ... I think morality has evolved in a cultural sense and is not an "invention" per se (to my mind that implies purpose). I also do not agree that morality is personal, I think morality is societal and we use our conscience to act against or within a given societies morals code.

It's a view

Kyu

Agreed.  You are a direct result, morally speaking, of the environment in which you were raised.  Similar to the fact that you are likely to be the same religion as your parents or culture in which you were born.  Morals are constantly evolving throughout the world.  For most they are directly linked to their religious belief of the time.  There are many factors manipulating morals and imposition is probably the main sculptor.  "What I know to be right and wrong is what everyone should believe".  

Using Christianity's views of morality (I was formerly a catholic), the OT morals were drastically different to the values in the NT.  Now look at how the morals have changed in the last 2000 years, or the last 100 years.  To be a 'moral' Christian in this day and age you must discard much of the teachings of the bible.  The same can be said for other religions.  In the OT era, you were doing your moral duty by killing infidels, blasphemers, adulterers, sodomites, etc.  It's hard for most of us to imagine this was not only tolerated, but encouraged.  You are considered fundamentalist and immoral if you follow the OT or Qoran verbatim.

Someone define morality.

Quote from: "Martian"Someone define morality.

Ask, and ye shall receive. From the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard against which all other English dictionaries are set:

1. Ethical wisdom, knowledge of moral science. Obs.

 2. In pl. Moral qualities or endowments. Obs.

 3. a. Moral virtue; behaviour conforming to moral law or accepted moral standards, esp. in relation to sexual matters; personal qualities judged to be good.
  Occas. used in Theol. with reference to natural moral virtues as distinguished from the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Cf. MORAL VIRTUE n.

    b. humorous or ironic. A person who habitually assumes an air of virtue. Also used as a mock title with possessive adjective. Obs.

 4. a. Moral discourse or instruction; a moral lesson or exhortation. Also: the action or an act of moralizing.

     b. A moral of a fable, event, etc.; the moral interpretation or sense of a text or passage. Obs.

     c. Moral truth or significance. Obs. rare.

 5. a. A literary or artistic work expounding or inculcating a moral lesson; {dag}a moralizing commentary, a moral allegory (obs.). Now rare.

    b. = morality play n. at Compounds 1.

 6. a. Conformity of an idea, practice, etc., to moral law; moral goodness or rightness.

     b. Theol. The property of certain enactments of the Mosaic Law by which they belong to the moral (as opposed to ceremonial, etc.) law and therefore retain their validity under the Christian dispensation. Cf. MORAL adj. 5a. Obs.

    c. The quality or fact of being morally right or wrong; the goodness or badness of an action. Cf. MORAL adj. 1b.

  7. a. The branch of knowledge concerned with right and wrong conduct, duty, responsibility, etc.; moral philosophy, ethics.

    b. In pl. Points of ethics; moral principles or rules.

    c. A particular moral system or outlook; moral thought or conduct in relation to a particular form of activity.

    d. The ethical aspect of a question. rare.
Oh, and as it's improper to define a word using a variation of the word itself, here's the definition of the adjective moral:

[spoiler:23k3nvxb]    1. a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.
  Recorded earliest in MORAL VIRTUE n.

    b. Of an action: having the property of being right or wrong, or good or evil; voluntary or deliberate and therefore open to ethical appraisal. Of a person, etc.: capable of moral action; able to choose between right and wrong, or good and evil.

    c. Of knowledge, an opinion, etc.: relating to the nature and application of the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil. Cf. sense 2c.

    d. Of an idea, speech, etc.: involving ethical praise or blame.

    e. Of a feeling: arising from an apprehension or sense of the goodness or badness of an action, character, etc.

    2. a. Of a literary work, an artistic or dramatic representation, etc.: dealing with the rightness and wrongness of conduct; intended to teach morality or convey a moral; (hence also) having a beneficial moral effect, edifying. In early use also: {dag}allegorical, emblematical (obs.).

    {dag}b. Of a person, esp. a writer: expounding moral precepts (in early use applied to allegorists). Also in extended use. Obs.

    c. Treating of or concerned with the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, or the rules of right conduct, as a subject of study.

    d. Designating or relating to an interpretation of a biblical passage which treats the events described as typifying something in the life of the reader; = TROPOLOGICAL adj. 2. Later also in extended use.
  In quot. 1529 used adverbially.

    3. a. Of, relating to, or concerned with the morals or morality of a person or group of people.

    b. Relating to, affecting, or having influence on a person's character or conduct, as distinguished from his or her intellectual or physical nature.

    c. Modifying a noun: having those qualities (i.e. those of the noun) metaphorically in respect of moral character or condition.

    d. Designating the incidental effect of an action or event (e.g. a victory or defeat) in producing confidence or discouragement, sympathy or hostility, etc. Cf. sense 8.

    4. a. Of a person, a person's conduct, etc.: morally good, virtuous; conforming to standards of morality.

    {dag}b. spec. Characterized by virtues other than specifically religious ones. See MORAL VIRTUE n. Obs.

    c. Virtuous with regard to sexual conduct; showing sexual morality. Freq. in moral restraint.

    5. a. Designating the body of requirements to which an action must conform in order to be right or virtuous; (also) designating a particular requirement of this kind. Freq. in moral law.
  When applied to laws often contrasted with ‘positive’ or ‘instituted’ laws, the obligation of which depends solely on the fact that they have been imposed by a rightful authority (cf. NATURAL LAW n.). In early use chiefly applied to those parts of the Mosaic Law which enunciate moral rather than ceremonial or juridical precepts and principles.

    b. Of a right, obligation, responsibility, etc.: founded on moral law; valid according to the principles of morality. Freq. contrasted with legal.

    {dag}6. Of or relating to manners and customs. Obs.

    7. Of evidence, argument, etc.: based on a knowledge of the general tendencies of human nature, or of a particular person's character; probable rather than demonstrative, sufficient to justify practical certainty. Of a belief: held as practically certain. Freq. in moral certainty n. a degree of probability so great as to admit of no reasonable doubt; a practical certainty on the basis of moral evidence.
  The distinction between different degrees of certainty is made by Aristotle, who points out that moral philosophy cannot be discussed with the same insistence on proof as mathematics (Nicomachaean Ethics 1094 b13), and is taken up in scholastic thought, e.g. by St Thomas Aquinas, who argues that a degree of certainty less than the highest is adequate for the conduct of human affairs (Summa Theologica 1a 2ae. 96, 1). Although post-classical Latin moralis, moraliter have the sense ‘in or according to common usage’ as early as the 11th cent., they do not usually seem to be used of certainty in medieval authors. However, by the end of the 16th cent., if not earlier, the bases for assent to a truth could be classified as metaphysica, physica, or moralia, as they are by Francisco Suárez SJ (Metaphysicae Disputationes 29, 3, 34-6), and post-classical Latin certitudo moralis is opposed to certitudo absoluta a1626 (A. Gazet, in Cassian's Collations xx. vii, in Cassian's Opera Omnia). Descartes uses Fr. moralement impossible to refer to a morally certain but not strictly demonstrable impossibility in the Discours de la Methode (1637), and refers to the arguments of the Principia as moraliter certa in the Latin text of 1644 (iv. §205), using French certitude morale at the corresponding point in the French text of 1647. From the mid 17th cent. onwards, the concept of moral certainty was applied to evidence in law and natural science as well as religion, and was defined with various degrees of precision, e.g. as a probability of at least 0.999 in Jakob Bernouilli's Ars Conjectandi (1713).

    {dag}8. Of or relating to morale. Obs. rare.[/spoiler:23k3nvxb]

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Martian"Someone define morality.

Ask, and ye shall receive. From the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard against which all other English dictionaries are set:

Code Select Expand

1. Ethical wisdom, knowledge of moral science. Obs.

 2. In pl. Moral qualities or endowments. Obs.

 3. a. Moral virtue; behaviour conforming to moral law or accepted moral standards, esp. in relation to sexual matters; personal qualities judged to be good.
  Occas. used in Theol. with reference to natural moral virtues as distinguished from the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Cf. MORAL VIRTUE n.

    b. humorous or ironic. A person who habitually assumes an air of virtue. Also used as a mock title with possessive adjective. Obs.

 4. a. Moral discourse or instruction; a moral lesson or exhortation. Also: the action or an act of moralizing.

     b. A moral of a fable, event, etc.; the moral interpretation or sense of a text or passage. Obs.

     c. Moral truth or significance. Obs. rare.

 5. a. A literary or artistic work expounding or inculcating a moral lesson; {dag}a moralizing commentary, a moral allegory (obs.). Now rare.

    b. = morality play n. at Compounds 1.

 6. a. Conformity of an idea, practice, etc., to moral law; moral goodness or rightness.

     b. Theol. The property of certain enactments of the Mosaic Law by which they belong to the moral (as opposed to ceremonial, etc.) law and therefore retain their validity under the Christian dispensation. Cf. MORAL adj. 5a. Obs.

    c. The quality or fact of being morally right or wrong; the goodness or badness of an action. Cf. MORAL adj. 1b.

  7. a. The branch of knowledge concerned with right and wrong conduct, duty, responsibility, etc.; moral philosophy, ethics.

    b. In pl. Points of ethics; moral principles or rules.

    c. A particular moral system or outlook; moral thought or conduct in relation to a particular form of activity.

    d. The ethical aspect of a question. rare.
Oh, and as it's improper to define a word using a variation of the word itself, here's the definition of the adjective moral:

[spoiler:16d63gvo]

Code Select Expand

   1. a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.
  Recorded earliest in MORAL VIRTUE n.

    b. Of an action: having the property of being right or wrong, or good or evil; voluntary or deliberate and therefore open to ethical appraisal. Of a person, etc.: capable of moral action; able to choose between right and wrong, or good and evil.

    c. Of knowledge, an opinion, etc.: relating to the nature and application of the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil. Cf. sense 2c.

    d. Of an idea, speech, etc.: involving ethical praise or blame.

    e. Of a feeling: arising from an apprehension or sense of the goodness or badness of an action, character, etc.

    2. a. Of a literary work, an artistic or dramatic representation, etc.: dealing with the rightness and wrongness of conduct; intended to teach morality or convey a moral; (hence also) having a beneficial moral effect, edifying. In early use also: {dag}allegorical, emblematical (obs.).

    {dag}b. Of a person, esp. a writer: expounding moral precepts (in early use applied to allegorists). Also in extended use. Obs.

    c. Treating of or concerned with the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, or the rules of right conduct, as a subject of study.

    d. Designating or relating to an interpretation of a biblical passage which treats the events described as typifying something in the life of the reader; = TROPOLOGICAL adj. 2. Later also in extended use.
  In quot. 1529 used adverbially.

    3. a. Of, relating to, or concerned with the morals or morality of a person or group of people.

    b. Relating to, affecting, or having influence on a person's character or conduct, as distinguished from his or her intellectual or physical nature.

    c. Modifying a noun: having those qualities (i.e. those of the noun) metaphorically in respect of moral character or condition.

    d. Designating the incidental effect of an action or event (e.g. a victory or defeat) in producing confidence or discouragement, sympathy or hostility, etc. Cf. sense 8.

    4. a. Of a person, a person's conduct, etc.: morally good, virtuous; conforming to standards of morality.

    {dag}b. spec. Characterized by virtues other than specifically religious ones. See MORAL VIRTUE n. Obs.

    c. Virtuous with regard to sexual conduct; showing sexual morality. Freq. in moral restraint.

    5. a. Designating the body of requirements to which an action must conform in order to be right or virtuous; (also) designating a particular requirement of this kind. Freq. in moral law.
  When applied to laws often contrasted with ‘positive’ or ‘instituted’ laws, the obligation of which depends solely on the fact that they have been imposed by a rightful authority (cf. NATURAL LAW n.). In early use chiefly applied to those parts of the Mosaic Law which enunciate moral rather than ceremonial or juridical precepts and principles.

    b. Of a right, obligation, responsibility, etc.: founded on moral law; valid according to the principles of morality. Freq. contrasted with legal.

    {dag}6. Of or relating to manners and customs. Obs.

    7. Of evidence, argument, etc.: based on a knowledge of the general tendencies of human nature, or of a particular person's character; probable rather than demonstrative, sufficient to justify practical certainty. Of a belief: held as practically certain. Freq. in moral certainty n. a degree of probability so great as to admit of no reasonable doubt; a practical certainty on the basis of moral evidence.
  The distinction between different degrees of certainty is made by Aristotle, who points out that moral philosophy cannot be discussed with the same insistence on proof as mathematics (Nicomachaean Ethics 1094 b13), and is taken up in scholastic thought, e.g. by St Thomas Aquinas, who argues that a degree of certainty less than the highest is adequate for the conduct of human affairs (Summa Theologica 1a 2ae. 96, 1). Although post-classical Latin moralis, moraliter have the sense ‘in or according to common usage’ as early as the 11th cent., they do not usually seem to be used of certainty in medieval authors. However, by the end of the 16th cent., if not earlier, the bases for assent to a truth could be classified as metaphysica, physica, or moralia, as they are by Francisco Suárez SJ (Metaphysicae Disputationes 29, 3, 34-6), and post-classical Latin certitudo moralis is opposed to certitudo absoluta a1626 (A. Gazet, in Cassian's Collations xx. vii, in Cassian's Opera Omnia). Descartes uses Fr. moralement impossible to refer to a morally certain but not strictly demonstrable impossibility in the Discours de la Methode (1637), and refers to the arguments of the Principia as moraliter certa in the Latin text of 1644 (iv. §205), using French certitude morale at the corresponding point in the French text of 1647. From the mid 17th cent. onwards, the concept of moral certainty was applied to evidence in law and natural science as well as religion, and was defined with various degrees of precision, e.g. as a probability of at least 0.999 in Jakob Bernouilli's Ars Conjectandi (1713).

    {dag}8. Of or relating to morale. Obs. rare.[/spoiler:16d63gvo]

   So, do you mind summarizing all that into a one or two sentence definition? Or is that not possible?

Quote from: "Martian"  So, do you mind summarizing all that into a one or two sentence definition? Or is that not possible?

The connotation of the word morality is different for different people. Sure, there's the dictionary definition, but the definitions I gave are cold and clinical. When most people think of the word morality, I think, they're referring to what makes us human, what separates us from the animals, or even from one another. For some, morality is just treating others with respect; for others, it's part-and-parcel with their religion and cannot be separated from it. That is where you get those who believe that atheists cannot be ethical, as to be without God is to be without a reason to be "good." As Katharena Eiermann writes in her analysis of Dostoevsky, "...if there is no God, everything is permitted."

Imagine that. I can scarcely do it. I find it next to impossible to place myself in that mentality, whereby the removal of one aspect of my life would bring the rest of society crashing down around me (at least, to me). It's a frightening prospect, hence why I can understand why religious folk can be so mistrusting and wary of atheists: we represent their greatest fear.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Martian"  So, do you mind summarizing all that into a one or two sentence definition? Or is that not possible?

The connotation of the word morality is different for different people. Sure, there's the dictionary definition, but the definitions I gave are cold and clinical. When most people think of the word morality, I think, they're referring to what makes us human, what separates us from the animals, or even from one another. For some, morality is just treating others with respect; for others, it's part-and-parcel with their religion and cannot be separated from it. That is where you get those who believe that atheists cannot be ethical, as to be without God is to be without a reason to be "good."

I find it very unproductive to discuss symbols based on the way they make you feel. Where can you get by the emotional reaction you get when observing it? This is made even more strange by the fact that the words we're talking about have no meaning to attribute feelings to (since it's not defined). If I asked you, "Do you want a lsjkdfjkd?" what would you feel? I would expect you to feel nothing towards that symbol, because it represents nothing. If I showed you a few 'lsjkdfjkd', then you could formulate your feelings relative to the definition (the actual objects). But as I said before, having an emotional response will not get us anywhere.

If a word doesn't have an actual "cold and clinical" definition, then it's not concept and can't be up for discussion as far as I can tell.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"]As Katharena Eiermann writes in her analysis of Dostoevsky, "...if there is no God, everything is permitted."

I've always found that quote quite silly. Even if we assume God exists, things are still "permitted". Those things which are supposedly "not permitted" by God are happening in real life all the time, regardless.

Quote from: "DennisK"Agreed.  You are a direct result, morally speaking, of the environment in which you were raised.  Similar to the fact that you are likely to be the same religion as your parents or culture in which you were born.  Morals are constantly evolving throughout the world.  For most they are directly linked to their religious belief of the time.  There are many factors manipulating morals and imposition is probably the main sculptor.  "What I know to be right and wrong is what everyone should believe".

Indeed so everything we "know" to be right or wrong is based on a (potentially) arbitrary set of circumstances within which we were brought up.

Quote from: "DennisK"Using Christianity's views of morality (I was formerly a catholic), the OT morals were drastically different to the values in the NT.  Now look at how the morals have changed in the last 2000 years, or the last 100 years.  To be a 'moral' Christian in this day and age you must discard much of the teachings of the bible.  The same can be said for other religions.  In the OT era, you were doing your moral duty by killing infidels, blasphemers, adulterers, sodomites, etc.  It's hard for most of us to imagine this was not only tolerated, but encouraged.  You are considered fundamentalist and immoral if you follow the OT or Qoran verbatim.

LOL ... some would think it's immoral to be a Catholic (I was brought up RC too).

Did you read that report about the Somalian woman stoned to death because she was pregnant outside of wedlock? Not only was she not 23 as the reports first said (she apparently was 13) but she had been raped and handed herself in to the authorities for what (I presume) she hope was some form of help.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"LOL ... some would think it's immoral to be a Catholic (I was brought up RC too).

Did you read that report about the Somalian woman stoned to death because she was pregnant outside of wedlock? Not only was she not 23 as the reports first said (she apparently was 13) but she had been raped and handed herself in to the authorities for what (I presume) she hope was some form of help.

Kyu

I didn't hear of this, no.  Every time I find out what atrocities religion has done in the past and still continues to do, I have a new wave of nausea fall over me.  Thank god I'm an atheist.

Are there atheist organization who are actively fighting religious rhetoric and assemble for causes in the U.S.?  Every day I am becoming more and more angry (do I need to find a less 'happy' site?) at religion and their stranglehold on my country.  Without the power of guilt, how do we get atheists to congregate?

Okay, I'm back, this is going to be a LOOOONNGGGGG post. Please forgive me.

PipeBox

QuoteNow, you say you can't run the experiment because you would not truly be forgiven, that repentance is required, am I to take it that you need to be forgiven for individual transgressions and be self redeemed by your repentance? I'm having trouble wording this, but I was always told once you were saved, that was it, not that if you were in the act of sinning when you died that you weren't forgiven because you were neither sorry nor did you repent of it. In any case, you can still run the experiment courtesy of MetaForgiveness (TM). Here, I'll show you the steps:
[li]Know that you're going to ask for forgiveness after you commit the transgression.
[li]Run the experiment as stated.
[li]Pray for not only forgiveness of the transgression, but for forgiveness for knowing you were going to ask for forgiveness.
[li]Add another layer as required, until you are truly sorry for the whole thing.

Actually, Paul talks about this in Romans. Again, I'm using the Bible to prove internal doctrinal truth, not external realities.

Quote from: "Paul in Romans 6"1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sinâ€" 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

 11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obeyâ€"whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

 19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hopefully that answers you fully.

QuoteIs it nice? No. Does it work? I sure hope so, or we've found ourselves an unforgivable sin.

Not quite, let's pull out the good old dictionary.

reâ‹...pentâ‹...ance
â€, â€,/rɪˈpÉ›ntns, -ˈpÉ›ntÉ™ns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-pen-tns, -pen-tuhns] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    deep sorrow, compunction, or contrition for a past sin, wrongdoing, or the like.
2.    regret for any past action.

Acts 3:19 states: "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"

No, how can you be actually repentant when you are planning on asking for forgiveness but still desire to live in sin? There are two choices from a Christian perspective: sin or Christ. There isn't a best of both worlds where you can choose both as I hope I've demonstrated.

QuoteAs to altering your belief so you can't defend it, I wasn't attempting to be so crafty. In fact, I'm not sure where I'm asking you to make a fundamental claim about your beliefs which is irrevocable and greatly oversimplifies the situation (ALL literal or ALL figurative). If I've asked you to do the equivalent, I'm unable to see it. I'm trying to avoid logical fallacies here, not present them, so if you see any I wasn't clever enough to catch them.

Sorry, what I had said was confusing, I was merely retelling a previous discussion I had. I couldn't accept the terms of the hypothetical situation because in order to do so I would have to recant BASIC doctrinal philosophy. I want to be fair to you. This debate won't lead anywhere noble if we corrupt our own beliefs in order to take on small challenges.

QuoteNow the big question, the one that's meant to give pause. I'm going to state, point blank, that I see no evidence that Stalin was wrong in any universal, absolute, immutable moral sense. Heck, folks like him may be on to something, but I haven't seen evidence of that either, and I have this powerful desire not to die for a cause I don't believe in, so I stand up for myself and others like me who don't want to be discarded for these causes. Society, as I define it for this discussion, is merely the loose affiliation people belong to by sharing similar basic morals. The beliefs namely that you should work for equitable pay (or not work and receive no pay, which is equitable), should not inflict harm for its own sake, and that if society is threatened the threat must be removed. I'm sure there's more, but when one of these concepts is seen by society as breached, we tend to rectify it. That is to say, even when a person has control over a chuck of society, if they don't hold sway over the majority or the power to overwhelm it, when they attack the other side one will overwhelm the other, normalizing or eliminating it. Let's take President Cthulu of the country of Outer. He convinces the public there that they are a master race, and that they will be able to take over the world for his purpose of Totalitarian Indifference. If we look at this separate chuck of society we see differences from the greater world. If we find Cthulu's actions a threat, we will remove him from power or isolate him to prevent the destruction of our society. But, if Cthulu takes over the world and standardizes it to his liking, then his system becomes subjectively right. Also, before you can ask how someone with a platform of indifference can be ambitious enough to take over the world, I don't know. But you get the gist of it.

Very well thought out and honest, thank you. So, hypothetically, since morality is individual and actualized through society, will you stop the Hutu from killing the Tutsi in Africa? You said you don't want to die for a cause you don't believe in. Well, if there is no universal, absolute and morality is based on individuals as they live life through a society and further more you don't want to lose your own life for a purpose not all together real to you, then is it even logical for you to stop the violence or foreign genocide that in NO way threatens your societies livelihood?

QuoteI'm sure I'm missing few more environmental effects, but morality extrapolated from these. I'm not sure how I've gone back on my definition of morality, because I've stated it's a product of reasoning, empathy, etc, and that those are products of evolution, and that our evolution flows in the direction people let it. This way of doing things still exists in nature because we haven't all killed ourselves yet. I can't say that it's bloody brilliant, but evolved up to this point so it isn't circular reasoning

But in order to make the statement "I can't say that it's bloody brilliant" you have to have a moral standpoint to point to. What would be "bloody brilliant?" Why? Even within your claims for no absolute morality in the universal sense you STILL point to an absolute morality.

QuoteI want to elaborate on the above more, but I feel fogged now. There's more to be said on it, I just think I'm at the limits of my ability to explain it. Not understand it, but explain how everything ties together without having to go through each individual concept. But to give you your sensational answer, I can find no evidence that Stalin, or Hitler, or anyone else was ever wrong in any objective sense. But they repulse me to the core by being so at odds with my morality.

You've proven yourself well up to the challenges of my questions...I won't hold anything like that against you. Whenever you feel the need to clarify something please tell me and I'll gladly take that into account.

QuoteIt was moral to kill the jews in Nazi Germany, but people in other societies would contend that that wasn't moral. Slavery in the USA was moral by popularity, but similarily it is called immoral by other societies. The label "moral" is something that is independent of what is popular, or else it's pretty meaningless.

Many atheists (I don't believe most) will actually argue that morality is meaningless. Since the logical atheist realizes that he doesn't have value then he must realize that he has no way of valuing his own opinion on a constructed subject such as morality.

LARA

I dissect posts because I am pretty fervent about addressing everything you guys bring up. The dissection allows us to look at arguments more specifically rather than blindly argue against a whole larger conception. I apologize if this upsets you, but I do it simply to be fair to everyone I debate with.

QuoteI'm going to make a supposition for this argument, that morality is based on survival. What keeps the most members of a population alive for the longest time is the most moral action.

You took a big step there. You said morality is based on survival, which is fine, but then, out of nowhere, you turned it into "what keeps the most members of a population alive for the longest time" which I have not seen justified. Why isn't it "what keeps the strongest and smartest members of the population alive for the longest time"? I put that in bold because I need the answer to that question.

QuoteGenocide eliminates certain people from the population that humans see as unfit. It is done violently and therefore ultimately eliminates not only the humans the genocidal maniac sees as unfit, but any compassionate members who try to oppose this leader.

Why is compassion good? Why should he even care? In fact Machiavelli would argue that the ruler should come in and completely wipe ALL opposition with brute force right from the start.

QuoteNow purged of these members of society we can see a simple result. Resources are again plentiful. But genetic diversity, the crux of the survival of a species has been reduced. Additionally, the number of compassionate members in society have been reduced.

Genetic diversity is only necessary within a small scale. A master race is well equipped to create the next generation without any inbreeding problems.

QuoteA new genocidal maniac comes along and the process is repeated. There are less people and the resource problem has been solved. Unfortunately, genetic diversity is reduced and compassion is reduced.

I'm pretty sure humans are capable of procreating rather quickly. Given that the "master race" succeeded, people would have the same beliefs and opinions for a while. Which will help alleviate the problems posed by such a possibility. Remember, much of the Nazi population were committed to Hitler as their leader.

QuoteIf this process continues on, the population of humans will become genetically constrained. Without genetic diversity in the population, disease becomes harder to fight. Without compassion in the population, violence becomes more and more of a problem.

The problem you are running into is that you aren't establishing an absolute causal link to such a case. You aren't stating it as a possibility but it is. There isn't a way to know that such a problem will occur, if it doesn't occur anything you say after believing that you have established such a statement is built on a nonexistent foundation and will ultimately implode under its own assumptions.

QuoteThis is why genocide is wrong from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective.

Again, you have created a hypothetical situation that has MANY different outcomes, chosen the worst one and stated that you can argue exclusively against that proposition based on the worst outcome being the inevitable outcome. You will forgive me if I'm not convinced. However, if what you are saying IS true, then shouldn't abortion be morally wrong from an atheistic perspective? I'm not sure you are reading what I"m writing, so if you are please say the words happy camper at the top of your next post. Thanks, I just want to know I"m being listened to.

QuoteBut from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective I can see that there are other populations on earth that are like this in the animal world. We tend to regard animals as stupid and violent while forgetting our own stupidity and violence. We place ourselves at the pinnacle of creation and forget that other populations are still developing, and under the forces of evolution they will be selected for their intelligence and compassion because it's these qualities that allow life to continue.

Please provide the evidence that compassion leads to the species' selection. ACTUAL evidence.

Tom62

QuoteMy 2cts. I believe that morals are not absolute. Many people think that there is a clear distinction between good and right, but most of the time it is not black or white but a gray zone.

If you state "most of the time it is not" that automatically implies that there are cases the demonstrate the opposite. Therefore, according to your own statement, there are moral black and whites.

QuoteYou have now farmers in Ethiopia who don't care whether their crops fail (due to bad and outdated agricultural knowledge), because the white man will help him out anyway.

Actually, it's even worse than that. From an economic perspective, sending food aid is like undercutting all agriculture in the third world since they can't compete against free food.

DennisK

QuoteUsing Christianity's views of morality (I was formerly a catholic), the OT morals were drastically different to the values in the NT. Now look at how the morals have changed in the last 2000 years, or the last 100 years. To be a 'moral' Christian in this day and age you must discard much of the teachings of the bible.

I disagree in that I believe Christ's resurrection and his teachings demonstrate that much of the OT laws are no longer relevant.

QuoteIn the OT era, you were doing your moral duty by killing infidels, blasphemers, adulterers, sodomites, etc. It's hard for most of us to imagine this was not only tolerated, but encouraged. You are considered fundamentalist and immoral if you follow the OT or Qoran verbatim.

This actually has a quite simple solution. Who assigns value to human life?

Quote from: "Titan"I disagree in that I believe Christ's resurrection and his teachings demonstrate that much of the OT laws are no longer relevant.

Wouldn't it be understandable, then, to say that modernity and post-modernity, the realm of science, logic and reason have made the NT laws no longer relevant, as well? If it's possible for time, progression and specific events (in this case, Christ's supposed resurrection and teachings; why not the discovery of carbon dating or the construction of the fossil record or the constantly evolving theory of ... well, evolution) to make those in the past less important or even obsolete, could we not extend that to its logical conclusion and suppose that, just as the NT events outshined OT laws, new scientific discoveries outshine and, indeed lay to rest, NT events?

QuoteWouldn't it be understandable, then, to say that modernity and post-modernity, the realm of science, logic and reason have made the NT laws no longer relevant, as well? If it's possible for time, progression and specific events (in this case, Christ's supposed resurrection and teachings; why not the discovery of carbon dating or the construction of the fossil record or the constantly evolving theory of ... well, evolution) to make those in the past less important or even obsolete, could we not extend that to its logical conclusion and suppose that, just as the NT events outshined OT laws, new scientific discoveries outshine and, indeed lay to rest, NT events?

A nice catch but, no. You are trying to look at internal Christian doctrine from an atheistic perspective, still assuming that it is man that gives value to things. If God created the universe than God is the one who places value on things and God is the one who decides what is right. It is as simple as that. This isn't a difficult conclusion to come to. Value is the most important thing when discussing morality, since mankind is created by God (from a Christian perspective) then they answer to him. Now, if God alters the laws himself, that is another thing.

Quote from: "Titan"No, how can you be actually repentant when you are planning on asking for forgiveness but still desire to live in sin? There are two choices from a Christian perspective: sin or Christ. There isn't a best of both worlds where you can choose both as I hope I've demonstrated.

One comment (one I've made before somewhere) ... sin is an inherently religious concept, I have no religious belief therefore I cannot sin.

Kyu

p.s. I pretty much believe your Christ never existed.

QuoteOne comment (one I've made before somewhere) ... sin is an inherently religious concept, I have no religious belief therefore I cannot sin.

Death is inherently a concept of the weak, I'm not weak therefore I cannot die.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteOne comment (one I've made before somewhere) ... sin is an inherently religious concept, I have no religious belief therefore I cannot sin.

Death is inherently a concept of the weak, I'm not weak therefore I cannot die.

Why is death inherently a concept of the weak? Are you weak if you get run over by a 20 ton juggernaut?

Kyu

Quote from: "Titan"A nice catch but, no. You are trying to look at internal Christian doctrine from an atheistic perspective, still assuming that it is man that gives value to things. If God created the universe than God is the one who places value on things and God is the one who decides what is right. It is as simple as that. This isn't a difficult conclusion to come to. Value is the most important thing when discussing morality, since mankind is created by God (from a Christian perspective) then they answer to him. Now, if God alters the laws himself, that is another thing.

I suppose you're right. I have this nasty habit of looking for multiple sources of evidence, not sticking to one doctrinal book.  

Quote from: "Titan"A nice catch but, no. You are trying to look at internal Christian doctrine from an atheistic perspective, still assuming that it is man that gives value to things. If God created the universe than God is the one who places value on things and God is the one who decides what is right. It is as simple as that. This isn't a difficult conclusion to come to. Value is the most important thing when discussing morality, since mankind is created by God (from a Christian perspective) then they answer to him. Now, if God alters the laws himself, that is another thing.

And it is all based on the assumption that your god create everything ... so, your validatable proof for god would be?

Kyu

QuoteWhy is death inherently a concept of the weak? Are you weak if you get run over by a 20 ton juggernaut?

It's not, I was pointing out that your logic was flawed from it's original presupposition. If God is true then morality isn't a religious concept but a concept that applies to everyone, all together, regardless of whether you think you adhere to it or not. If Christianity is a reality then your statement is like you standing right next to the ocean as a tsunami is coming in and saying "I don't believe there is water there so I'm not going to be knocked over." Reality still applies to you. Belief doesn't diminish truth.

QuoteAnd it is all based on the assumption that your god create everything ... so, your validatable proof for god would be?

I haven't gotten there, I was just pointing out that the problem wasn't a problem if Christianity is true. AGAIN, I haven't PROVEN Christianity, in fact that wouldn't even qualify as evidence. It merely shows that Christianity is not NOT true, if you understand what I"m saying.

Quote from: "Titan"It's not, I was pointing out that your logic was flawed from it's original presupposition. If God is true then morality isn't a religious concept but a concept that applies to everyone, all together, regardless of whether you think you adhere to it or not. If Christianity is a reality then your statement is like you standing right next to the ocean as a tsunami is coming in and saying "I don't believe there is water there so I'm not going to be knocked over." Reality still applies to you. Belief doesn't diminish truth.

In that case, since morality is quite evidently variable by culture, history and other factors your god can't exist

Quote from: "Titan"I haven't gotten there, I was just pointing out that the problem wasn't a problem if Christianity is true. AGAIN, I haven't PROVEN Christianity, in fact that wouldn't even qualify as evidence. It merely shows that Christianity is not NOT true, if you understand what I"m saying.

If, if , if ... I don't hold out much hope for whatever point you appear to be trying to make.

Kyu

QuoteIn that case, since morality is quite evidently variable by culture, history and other factors your god can't exist  

The certainty atheists use when stating this makes atheism seem like a faith... I'm not trying to be mean but morality can be far more closely tied to religion with a few deviations than to culture.

QuoteIf, if , if ... I don't hold out much hope for whatever point you appear to be trying to make.

In order to answer any accusations concerning the Christian faith I HAVE to do that. It would be like me saying that atheism doesn't provide a system of morality, you replying that "it does because in atheism..." and then I interrupt you with "You haven't proven atheism yet so your answer is irrelevant." Don't you see, if you want to ask questions about Christianity, for instance, internal contradictions, you have to suppose that the Bible is true merely so that the person can ATTEMPT to answer the questions. You will never get anywhere if you don't allow a person to make an assumption to answer deeper issues. The assumptions aren't going to be proven in the course of the argument, they will merely help the person show you that you are mistaken.

Quote from: "Titan"Don't you see, if you want to ask questions about Christianity, for instance, internal contradictions, you have to suppose that the Bible is true merely so that the person can ATTEMPT to answer the questions.

In all fairness, do I have to suppose that Great Expectations is true to ask questions about Miss Havisham?

You would have to accept that Great Expectations EXISTS in order to ask a question about Miss Havisham otherwise you are speaking in nonsensical terms. I'm going to post a detailed description of what I mean by this in another forum so I don't have to defend this concept everywhere.

Quote from: "Titan"In order to answer any accusations concerning the Christian faith I HAVE to do that. It would be like me saying that atheism doesn't provide a system of morality, you replying that "it does because in atheism..." and then I interrupt you with "You haven't proven atheism yet so your answer is irrelevant." Don't you see, if you want to ask questions about Christianity, for instance, internal contradictions, you have to suppose that the Bible is true merely so that the person can ATTEMPT to answer the questions. You will never get anywhere if you don't allow a person to make an assumption to answer deeper issues. The assumptions aren't going to be proven in the course of the argument, they will merely help the person show you that you are mistaken.

I don't believe atheism carries any philosophy at all but then neither (IMO) does basic theism ... you have to choose a religion (an actual ideology) to claim a philosophy

OK, if you want me to accept your assumption as valid I will but understand that it is purely for the purpose of debate, any time you base something on that assumption I will (in any response I make) point out that it invalidates the argument except from a totally hypothetical POV.

Kyu

QuoteOK, if you want me to accept your assumption as valid I will but understand that it is purely for the purpose of debate, any time you base something on that assumption I will (in any response I make) point out that it invalidates the argument except from a totally hypothetical POV.

Yes, but please realize that I already hold that to be true when dealing with arguments past A and B. They don't become valid when we are arguing for N, it is just a necessity for logical inquiry. You don't have to point it out everytime it happens because it is going to happen whenever I'm answer questions like "how can a loving God kill innocent children" or "how is verse 1 and verse 2 not a contradiction?" Those kinds of things will require that alphabet argument and I know that it won't prove that God exists or that Christianity is true, only that it isn't not true.

Quote from: "Titan"Tom62

QuoteMy 2cts. I believe that morals are not absolute. Many people think that there is a clear distinction between good and right, but most of the time it is not black or white but a gray zone.

If you state "most of the time it is not" that automatically implies that there are cases the demonstrate the opposite. Therefore, according to your own statement, there are moral black and whites.

Yes,  have to agree with you. There are some morals which I think are pure black or white. At least they are to me, others may have a different opinion, like this Nazi wannabee that we saw earlier on this forum. On the black side I put things like, the cruelty towards animals and fellow human beings, greed, ruining the environment for economical gains (another form of greed) and electing George W. Bush for the 2nd time in office . On the 100% white site, I place things like the love between humans; people helping other people for no personal gain, etc. BTW that reminds me of a famous quote of the German author and poet Ricarda Huch: "Love is the only thing that increases when shared with others".

I want to debate this point but we seem to have 3 topics all running about this.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteOK, if you want me to accept your assumption as valid I will but understand that it is purely for the purpose of debate, any time you base something on that assumption I will (in any response I make) point out that it invalidates the argument except from a totally hypothetical POV.

Yes, but please realize that I already hold that to be true when dealing with arguments past A and B. They don't become valid when we are arguing for N, it is just a necessity for logical inquiry. You don't have to point it out everytime it happens because it is going to happen whenever I'm answer questions like "how can a loving God kill innocent children" or "how is verse 1 and verse 2 not a contradiction?" Those kinds of things will require that alphabet argument and I know that it won't prove that God exists or that Christianity is true, only that it isn't not true.

Titan,

If something is built with no foundations then it's built with no foundation s and it doesn't matter how much you build on that argument UNLESS some future argument is able to support the assumptive foundation.

Kyu

I know Kyu, the point that is being made via this form of logic does not rest on itself. It MERELY shows that the position isn't self-defeating at that particular point...that is ALL that it shows, nothing more. You may then go back to discussing A or B or C or whichever one you are on.

Quote from: "Titan"I know Kyu, the point that is being made via this form of logic does not rest on itself. It MERELY shows that the position isn't self-defeating at that particular point...that is ALL that it shows, nothing more. You may then go back to discussing A or B or C or whichever one you are on.

Coming from a rationalist bent it makes no sense to me at all, the logic an argument is built on is key to an argument's validity.

Kyu

Okay, so you will never bring up a contradiction within the Bible as evidence against the Bible and Christianity as a whole? Can you tell me you've never used the argument of genocide against the conception of a just and kind God?

Quote from: "Titan"Okay, so you will never bring up a contradiction within the Bible as evidence against the Bible and Christianity as a whole? Can you tell me you've never used the argument of genocide against the conception of a just and kind God?

Nope! I said I didn't agree with his argument ... that doesn't mean I wont use your bible against you.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Titan"Okay, so you will never bring up a contradiction within the Bible as evidence against the Bible and Christianity as a whole? Can you tell me you've never used the argument of genocide against the conception of a just and kind God?

Nope! I said I didn't agree with his argument ... that doesn't mean I wont use your bible against you.

Kyu

Using the Bible to confront Biblical claims is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. Neither the Bible nor any other religious text should be exempt from the same scrutiny as any other text people consider to be full of truths or (more dangerously) Truths. Ever seen a bad textbook? One that, by using a number of editors and contributors, is completely self-contradictory, while all on the same topic? I have. I've seen many. And, in critiquing that text (or, even the people who base their facts off that text), I am perfectly within my right to use that text to belittle itself.

Just sayin'.  

QuoteNope! I said I didn't agree with his argument ... that doesn't mean I wont use your bible against you.

QuoteUsing the Bible to confront Biblical claims is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. Neither the Bible nor any other religious text should be exempt from the same scrutiny as any other text people consider to be full of truths or (more dangerously) Truths. Ever seen a bad textbook? One that, by using a number of editors and contributors, is completely self-contradictory, while all on the same topic? I have. I've seen many. And, in critiquing that text (or, even the people who base their facts off that text), I am perfectly within my right to use that text to belittle itself.

Exactly! So when you say: "What about this in the Bible?" Do you expect me to reply "Well, I believe that the evidence for God is thus" and then provide evidence that the God is the God of the Bible then provide evidence that the Bible is complete then provide evidence that the Bible is trust worthy then provide evidence for the inclusion of the manuscript or book of the Bible being addressed and THEN address your point?

Of course not! Which is why I would need to assume that all those other ones are true for an instant just to be able to address your point. That is all I'm saying...please pause and think about that for just a second because otherwise the ONLY thing we will be able to debate in this forum is the existence of God, you won't be able to attack the Bible because there will be no room for it.

Holy cow (is this a hindu saying?), you two!  I think your posts put me in a hypnotic state because I don't remember anything from earlier today.  I suggest calling each other to argue semantics and then write a 3 page summary each of your conclusions.  It would save a lot of time for the rest of us.  What was the subject of this thread anyway?

We just did that Kyu will admit I won handily...let's move on  

Quote from: "Titan"Exactly! So when you say: "What about this in the Bible?" Do you expect me to reply "Well, I believe that the evidence for God is thus" and then provide evidence that the God is the God of the Bible then provide evidence that the Bible is complete then provide evidence that the Bible is trust worthy then provide evidence for the inclusion of the manuscript or book of the Bible being addressed and THEN address your point?

If you expect to use the bible as evidence for your god or anything else then you must accept that it is valid to put that bible under the same kind of scrutiny any other rational explanation would be subject to ... it really isn't rocket science you know! NOTHING gets a free pass and religious claims and so-called evidence do not possess a get-out-of-jail-free pass.

Quote from: "Titan"Of course not! Which is why I would need to assume that all those other ones are true for an instant just to be able to address your point. That is all I'm saying...please pause and think about that for just a second because otherwise the ONLY thing we will be able to debate in this forum is the existence of God, you won't be able to attack the Bible because there will be no room for it.

As I said earlier, "if you want me to accept your assumption as valid I will but understand that it is purely for the purpose of debate, any time you base something on that assumption I will (in any response I make) point out that it invalidates the argument except from a totally hypothetical POV."

Kyu

QuoteIf you expect to use the bible as evidence for your god or anything else then you must accept that it is valid to put that bible under the same kind of scrutiny any other rational explanation would be subject to ... it really isn't rocket science you know! NOTHING gets a free pass and religious claims and so-called evidence do not possess a get-out-of-jail-free pass.

No, no and a thousand times no! I do not expect to ever use the Bible as evidence for God...that's circular reasoning: The Bible is true because God wrote it, God exists because the Bible says he does. I KNOW THAT! Please listen to me, I only want to use the Bible to address questions and problems you guys have with it. That is all. I'm not going to prove that Jesus existed with the Bible, I'm not going to prove that there is a benevolent God with the Bible. I'm ONLY going to show you how certain instances that you guys point out are not problems from an internal perspective. I'm simply trying to answer all your questions.

QuoteAs I said earlier, "if you want me to accept your assumption as valid I will but understand that it is purely for the purpose of debate, any time you base something on that assumption I will (in any response I make) point out that it invalidates the argument except from a totally hypothetical POV."

I know, and I'm just saying that you don't need to do that every time. I've debated enough to know that if I tried to validate assumptions via the argument I just made I would be using circular reasoning, I know that. If you want to point it out that is fine, but it will generally put a wrench in the works of the discussion as we will have to stop and have the same debate every time.

Quote from: "Titan"I'm not going to prove that Jesus existed with the Bible, I'm not going to prove that there is a benevolent God with the Bible.

I appreciate you being such a good debater (that sounds really awkward, doesn't it?), Titan. In all sincerity, I do have a question, though: if the Bible isn't going to be used to prove a benevolent God, what is?

Quote from: "Titan"Okay, I'm back, this is going to be a LOOOONNGGGGG post. Please forgive me.

Quote from: "Paul in Romans 6"1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sinâ€" 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

 11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obeyâ€"whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

 19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hopefully that answers you fully.

QuoteIs it nice? No. Does it work? I sure hope so, or we've found ourselves an unforgivable sin.

Not quite, let's pull out the good old dictionary.

reâ‹...pentâ‹...ance
â€, â€,/rɪˈpÉ›ntns, -ˈpÉ›ntÉ™ns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-pen-tns, -pen-tuhns] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    deep sorrow, compunction, or contrition for a past sin, wrongdoing, or the like.
2.    regret for any past action.

Acts 3:19 states: "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"

No, how can you be actually repentant when you are planning on asking for forgiveness but still desire to live in sin? There are two choices from a Christian perspective: sin or Christ. There isn't a best of both worlds where you can choose both as I hope I've demonstrated.

Sorry, but you appear to be answering that this would be unforgivable, otherwise it still works.  It doesn't matter how underhanded or pathetic it is, nor how much time it takes for you to actually be sincere, it either works or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways.   But if you're really so adverse to it, I'll stop pushing.

QuoteSorry, what I had said was confusing, I was merely retelling a previous discussion I had. I couldn't accept the terms of the hypothetical situation because in order to do so I would have to recant BASIC doctrinal philosophy. I want to be fair to you. This debate won't lead anywhere noble if we corrupt our own beliefs in order to take on small challenges.

[strike:1yrucry1]I contend that you would't have to recant anything beyond taking whatever side is favorable in a biblical/logical contradiction.  I say that harshly, but it either works or it doesn't, and either way I'm going to give you a hard time about it (if it isn't forgivable based soley on your belief that you can't repent, you wouldn't be redeemed by Grace, would ya?).[/strike:1yrucry1] I'm not at the top of my game, too tired.

QuoteVery well thought out and honest, thank you. So, hypothetically, since morality is individual and actualized through society, will you stop the Hutu from killing the Tutsi in Africa? You said you don't want to die for a cause you don't believe in. Well, if there is no universal, absolute and morality is based on individuals as they live life through a society and further more you don't want to lose your own life for a purpose not all together real to you, then is it even logical for you to stop the violence or foreign genocide that in NO way threatens your societies livelihood?

My empathy, that my morals are based on, demands that I despise that they kill each other.  It doesn't demand I intercede, though, or I'd make more of an effort to stop them.  So I hate that they kill each other, AND my life is too valuable to me (and unthreatened) for me to bother taking a more active role.  I suspect this is true of you as well.  If not for this specific incident, then for another.  At some point you have to concede that there are more problems in the world than you can fix and you must prioritize for your lifetime.

QuoteBut in order to make the statement "I can't say that it's bloody brilliant" you have to have a moral standpoint to point to. What would be "bloody brilliant?" Why? Even within your claims for no absolute morality in the universal sense you STILL point to an absolute morality.

Err, no.  I point to the facts that I cannot claim it is the best (which does not rule out it being equal to all others), and that I, personally, might consider another morality superior.  And that morality is neither that of society at large nor that of the Bible.  My personal bias, though, doesn't mean I consider any morality absolute.

QuoteYou've proven yourself well up to the challenges of my questions...I won't hold anything like that against you. Whenever you feel the need to clarify something please tell me and I'll gladly take that into account.

Sure.   :eek:
I also would be unable to justify it.  But I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

Quote from: "Titan"No, no and a thousand times no! I do not expect to ever use the Bible as evidence for God...that's circular reasoning: The Bible is true because God wrote it, God exists because the Bible says he does. I KNOW THAT! Please listen to me, I only want to use the Bible to address questions and problems you guys have with it. That is all. I'm not going to prove that Jesus existed with the Bible, I'm not going to prove that there is a benevolent God with the Bible. I'm ONLY going to show you how certain instances that you guys point out are not problems from an internal perspective. I'm simply trying to answer all your questions.

Fair enough ...

Quote from: "Titan"I know, and I'm just saying that you don't need to do that every time. I've debated enough to know that if I tried to validate assumptions via the argument I just made I would be using circular reasoning, I know that. If you want to point it out that is fine, but it will generally put a wrench in the works of the discussion as we will have to stop and have the same debate every time.

... and again.

Kyu

Quote from: "Titan"if there is no universal, absolute and morality is based on individuals as they live life through a society and further more you don't want to lose your own life for a purpose not all together real to you, then is it even logical for you to stop the violence or foreign genocide that in NO way threatens your societies livelihood?

Why? Morality isn't (BTW) individual it is societal; it is a systems ethics that have socially evolved to allow humans to deal with each other. If that is so (and I think it is hard to convincingly argue it is anything else) then it is reasonably clear that morality can vary by culture and over time. That means that if I declare someone else's actions (another society or a person from another society) immoral I am clearly evaluating their actions against my own society's morality. In Kosovo for instance it seems clear to me that NATO stepped in for humanitarian reasons based on European/US morality; that those carrying out the ethnic cleansing had no particular moral issues with what they were doing. Likewise, in the Second World War, we have deemed the holocaust and the extermination of others to be morally wrong yet quite clearly at that time many individuals had no moral issues killing such people and the Germans considered Jews/Poles/Slavs/Russians etc. to be sub-human and treated them as such.

Quote from: "Titan"But in order to make the statement "I can't say that it's bloody brilliant" you have to have a moral standpoint to point to. What would be "bloody brilliant?" Why? Even within your claims for no absolute morality in the universal sense you STILL point to an absolute morality.

You don't need an absolute morality to act as if the moral code of your own culture is absolute and it seems to me many act that way.

Quote from: "Titan"Many atheists (I don't believe most) will actually argue that morality is meaningless. Since the logical atheist realizes that he doesn't have value then he must realize that he has no way of valuing his own opinion on a constructed subject such as morality.

I haven't heard any atheists do that ... I argue that morality is inherently flexible, inherently non-absolute but it certainly isn't meaningless to those who adopt a given mortality.

Kyu

Kyuuketsuki

QuoteWhy? Morality isn't (BTW) individual it is societal

From the discussion it appears that the consensus is that it is individual but that societies are conglomerations of those with like minded morals.

QuoteIf that is so (and I think it is hard to convincingly argue it is anything else)

I think you guys are right, you have provided evidence that this is the best theory from an atheistic perspective.

QuoteThat means that if I declare someone else's actions (another society or a person from another society) immoral I am clearly evaluating their actions against my own society's morality.

I disagree from a rationalistic perspective.
1. Societies create morals in order to function and continue existence.
2. External knowledge of this via atheism helps us lead to an understanding that morality is constructed and transitive.
3. If ethics are constructed and transitive can I rationally apply mine to other people; knowing as they do that mine is simply "a different perspective" on value, as it were?
As I see it, and I may be wrong, my vantage point is limited and I want to be corrected if it is mistaken, but if you truly understand the transitivity of morality then how can you justify action against someone else when what they are doing may be the future of ethics, perhaps they have a better grasp of the best method for a culture to survive.

QuoteYou don't need an absolute morality to act as if the moral code of your own culture is absolute and it seems to me many act that way.

I'm sorry for being repetitive here, but if you understand that morality is a social construct and will simply follow societies path in the future how can you rule out their morality? They may be right on the money. Shouldn't you consider their genocidal ideologies as perhaps holding the key to the betterment of the human race?

QuoteI haven't heard any atheists do that ... I argue that morality is inherently flexible, inherently non-absolute but it certainly isn't meaningless to those who adopt a given mortality.

I think we are using a different definition of meaningless (my fault, not yours). I was talking about meaningless in the scope of all existence as defined by space and time from the universes inception to it's ultimate demise. It seems that you are using meaningless as it applies to people today, which I would be inclined to agree with you on.

Pipebox

QuoteSorry, but you appear to be answering that this would be unforgivable, otherwise it still works. It doesn't matter how underhanded or pathetic it is, nor how much time it takes for you to actually be sincere, it either works or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways. But if you're really so adverse to it, I'll stop pushing.

It is only unforgivable in that you cannot be forgiven unless you are truly repentant. Forgiveness is a simple formula in Christianity:
1. Existence of a sinful person (check, your hypothetical situation possesses that)
2. Belief in a God who forgives (check, your hypothetical situation possesses that)
3. True regret for committing an act (no, this is where it falls apart, planning on asking for forgiveness isn't being repentant)
4. God forgiving your transgressions (check, your hypothetical situation possesses that)
I'm only adverse to it in that it will ultimately not answer anything because it doesn't have the right criteria to be from a Christian ideological standpoint.

QuoteI'm not at the top of my game, too tired.

Don't worry about it, I can tell you have a valid objection. I'm patient enough to wait and hear it. Take your time.

QuoteMy empathy, that my morals are based on, demands that I despise that they kill each other. It doesn't demand I intercede, though, or I'd make more of an effort to stop them. So I hate that they kill each other, AND my life is too valuable to me (and unthreatened) for me to bother taking a more active role. I suspect this is true of you as well. If not for this specific incident, then for another. At some point you have to concede that there are more problems in the world than you can fix and you must prioritize for your lifetime.

True, but I'm not really scared about dying. I don't want to experience a ton of pain at my death (who does) but if that was my calling (sorry for using Christianity here) I would face it with boldness (or at least I believe I would). I actually want to go to the middle east in the future on a permanent basis. People ask me where I want to go and I'm always tempted to point to the one with the most hardship and bloodshed because I believe I could do the most good. But the truth is that Christians who don't fear death are the ones who are changing the world the most, for the better (that is when they don't take over the government  :eek:
I also would be unable to justify it. But I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.[/quote]
I think I ended up quoting four different people in that post. I may have accidentally jumbled their beliefs into yours. If that was the case, I'm sorry.

curiosityandthecat

QuoteI appreciate you being such a good debater (that sounds really awkward, doesn't it?), Titan. In all sincerity, I do have a question, though: if the Bible isn't going to be used to prove a benevolent God, what is?

Wow, that was a good question. Caught me off guard for a second. Give me a second to formulate my answer. I don't know why I'm typing that, since in a forum setting the time it takes to make a post isn't taken into account.
I believe that it will not PROVE a benevolent God but what happens (hypothetically take a big leap you can imagine and say that I had somehow brought us all to the point of a debate over which version of theism was correct) is that the religions ultimately hold up their conception of God as EXPRESSED through the sacred texts and compare them as they account for modern man, ancient man, evil, good, life, experiences, etc. and find which one has the best, most complete and flawless conception and see what kind of deity comes out. I know that sounds confusing, I'll try to word it better  

...I'm staying back and watching this but lemme crawl out and commend Titan for the way his replies are organised. Very easy to read. Look nohing like the usual mile long theist lump of text.  :)

I'm not smart enough to have long winded rants  

Quote from: "Titan"From the discussion it appears that the consensus is that it is individual but that societies are conglomerations of those with like minded morals.

If that is what they said then, at the risk of upsetting my compatriots, they are wrong ... morality is an ethical system, ethics are social and it is our individual consciences that we use to weigh up issues against the morality of a given society. There's more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) if you are interested.

Quote from: "Titan"I think you guys are right, you have provided evidence that this is the best theory from an atheistic perspective.

The best explanation period :evil: ).[/quote]

Agreed on the last bit (religion and government shouldn't mix) but you're going to have to justify your first assertion.

Quote from: "Titan"Pipebox, you're rational, that being so, how can you rationally say someone else's morals are wrong when you know that you both are ultimately just matter. You know that they have the same vantage point as you, how can you argue that your morals are even applicable to a situation knowing, as you do, that their opinions are JUST as true (or just as false) as yours are?

Because we are evaluate others actions against our morality which we tend to treat as absolute even though it isn't.

Quote from: "Titan"I believe that it will not PROVE a benevolent God but what happens (hypothetically take a big leap you can imagine and say that I had somehow brought us all to the point of a debate over which version of theism was correct) is that the religions ultimately hold up their conception of God as EXPRESSED through the sacred texts and compare them as they account for modern man, ancient man, evil, good, life, experiences, etc. and find which one has the best, most complete and flawless conception and see what kind of deity comes out. I know that sounds confusing, I'll try to word it better  :)

Kyu

QuoteWe should follow society's laws.

Bullocks... Don't follow society. Follow yourself; what you know to be right. Depending on the location society is gonna be screwed up in at lest one way or another.

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteWe should follow society's laws.

Bullocks... Don't follow society. Follow yourself; what you know to be right. Depending on the location society is gonna be screwed up in at lest one way or another.

No ... well kinda ... my view is that we follow the laws but as intelligent (presumably socially aware) citizens of a given society we validate them and struggle against them if they are inherently unfair.

Kyu

Just because its a law or a societal norm doesn't mean that it should be set in stone for eternity.  Things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

Its like democracy, just because we can choose doesn't meant that we will always choose to do the right thing.

I was watching "Nature: Clever Monkeys" on PBS last night.  It was a wonderful insight into the world of monkeys.  Here are a few examples I thought were appropriate for this thread:

The show followed a troop of monkeys in SE Asia (I believe) whose main predator was a monitor lizard.  There was a specific warning the monkeys would use when a monitor lizard was seen by the troop.  I found it interesting that a subordinate from the group used this warning call on occasion to scare its troop into the trees for safety.  While the others were playing it safe, the one who sounded the alarm pulled out an egg it had hidden and quickly lapped it up.  It was basically 'lying' rather than share their findings with the more dominant in the group.  It was implied there stiff penalties for being caught and that this was a regular occurrence.

In Ethiopia, the gelada male monkeys have smaller harems that they travel with in groups of as many as 800.  Rival males will often try to test another male's authority by enticing a female from his group.  When confrontation occurs, sometimes an offspring of one of the males about to fight will abandon its mother for its father in an attempt to prevent the other from attacking.  Could this suggest there could be monkey morals?  It's something to think about.  Why would god give monkeys morals and no book for remembering?

Hey.. I caught a few minutes of that last might myself.

QuoteIf that is what they said then, at the risk of upsetting my compatriots, they are wrong ... morality is an ethical system, ethics are social and it is our individual consciences that we use to weigh up issues against the morality of a given society. There's more here if you are interested.

Yes, I am interested. I'm still a little confused as to how your distinction works exactly, and I would love to figure that out.

QuoteThe best explanation period ... what atheistic perspective? I though we had agreed that atheism carries no philosophy?

It is forced to because philosophy concerns what has value and atheism has to figure out a system of how value is assigned in order to maintain life, or else it is completely meaningless.

QuoteAgain I was under the impression we had agreed atheism carried no philosophy ... if so how is point 2 relevant at all?

phiâ‹...losâ‹...oâ‹...phy
â€, â€,/fɪˈlÉ'sÉ™fi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fi-los-uh-fee] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun, plural -phies.
1.    the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Unless atheism does not concern a rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct then I guess not. But you guys seem pretty emphatic that atheism is simply complete rationalism with the fewest assumptions tacked on. Atheism ultimately has to come up with an understanding of how morality is assigned and its significance and how far it is applied in regards to the human race and animals as well. That is why it is ultimately a philosophy. Because it HAS to have philosophical implications.

QuoteWe justify it because we are small minded cultures with small minded selfish points of view. I'm not claiming any particular moral POV is correct and I'm certainly not claiming the system is perfect ... we're animals, we think and act like animals, we're territorial, resource driven, violent, aggressive, competitive creatures. On the plus side there is no hard rule that says we have to adhere to our animal natures and in my view we frequently rise above our nature and create things that are much, much better ... IMO the scientific struggle to explain the universe is one example.

So, knowing this, how can you rationally extend your philosophy to the world. Everyone else thinks that they have an objective reason for their morals, atheists don't believe so. If atheists are correct then how can they dissuade others to agree with them. Addressing your point more closely, you know you are small-minded...so where does that leave you?

QuoteUniversal morality (one that transcends time and space as you appear to be arguing for) is a meaningless concept IMO.

If morality is carried into eternity I don't see how you can argue that. But a universal morality as applied from an atheistic perspective, then yes. Now knowing that, what is wrong with killing everyone and getting away with it?

QuoteAgreed on the last bit (religion and government shouldn't mix) but you're going to have to justify your first assertion.

Feminism, anti-slavery, rights of children, love of all people equally, an extension of that being that all men are intrinsically equal. This are only a few of the results of Christian doctrine over the years. This doesn't include a multitude of others. To contrast this, what has atheism brought about that the world has previously been working for?

QuoteBecause we are evaluate others actions against our morality which we tend to treat as absolute even though it isn't.

But you KNOW this. So you know your morality isn't absolute, so my question still stands in regards to you personally.

QuoteWhat makes you think the god of your bible will reign supreme given that the god of your Old Testament (validated by the New) to use Dawkins description from "The God Delusion") is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

You realize that you hold Dawkins in the same regard as I hold C.S. Lewis...but I would answer him on all accounts and challenge his view that any of those are truly wrong from an atheistic perspective.

Quote from: "Titan"Feminism, anti-slavery, rights of children, love of all people equally, an extension of that being that all men are intrinsically equal. This are only a few of the results of Christian doctrine over the years. This doesn't include a multitude of others. To contrast this, what has atheism brought about that the world has previously been working for?

Feminism?  Anti-slavery? Rights of children? Love of all people equally?  These are all attributed to the christian doctrine?

You can find more detailed information of the following at this address: http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm#menu

NEW TESTAMENT
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - (Luke 19:27)
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak” - (1 Corinthians 14:34)
“...that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire”  - (l Timothy 2:9 RSV)


OLD TESTAMENT

Genocide:
Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 6:21, Joshua 10:40-41:
Genesis 19: - Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for being:
•   Uncharitable to their widows, children and poor
•   Abusive to strangers.
Exodus 34:11-14, Leviticus, 26:7-9

Murdering a person because she looked the wrong way:
Genesis 19:12-26

Mass murder of fighters for democracy:
Numbers 16:2-3, Numbers 16:31-33

Murdering a person for practicing birth control:
Genesis 38:6-10

Murdering people for taking a census ordered by God:
2 Samuel 24:1-15:

Punishing the children, grandchildren, etc. of a sinner:
Exodus 20:5-6

Using torture against captives:
2 Samuel 12:26-31

Legal rape of females:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Passages relating to female slaves:
Exodus 21:4

Raping female prisoners of war:
Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 21:11-14


BIBLICAL MURDER OF CHILDREN

Mass murder of Babylonian babies:
In Psalms 137:8-9

The near ritual murder involving Isaac:
In Genesis 22:1-18

Mass murder of the Midianite children:
Numbers 31:1-18

Executing a whole family for the sins of the father:
Joshua 7:20-25

Mass murder of the first-born of Egypt:
Exodus 7:3, Exodus 7:13-14, Exodus 12:29-30

Genocide of the Geshurites, Gezirites, and Amalekites:
1 Samuel 27:8-9

MORE FUN MORALS IN THE BIBLE
Eating pork is forbidden in Deuteronomy 14:8
A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother’s wife (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)
A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Exodus 22:16-17)
A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
 Beards can’t be rounded (Leviticus 19:27)
A garment composed of wool and linen can’t be worn (Deuteronomy 22:11)
Bastards can’t enter the Lord’s congregation.  (Deuteronomy 23:2)

Forgive me if I may have mislabeled some of them (a lot of copy and pasting).  Even if only a few of these verses are true, how can they be considered moral by today's standards?

Dennis do you mind opening a new discussion up with these things, and starting off with a few at a time so I don't have to spend 3 hours per post? I'm sorry to be so picky but there is no way I'm going to be able to answer all of these in one sitting.

Quote from: "Titan"Yes, I am interested. I'm still a little confused as to how your distinction works exactly, and I would love to figure that out.

What I actually did there was provide a link for more information if you cared to follow it ... it wasn't part of my argument. Check the post.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThe best explanation period ... what atheistic perspective? I though we had agreed that atheism carries no philosophy?

It is forced to because philosophy concerns what has value and atheism has to figure out a system of how value is assigned in order to maintain life, or else it is completely meaningless.

No, whether you would like it to be otherwise or not, atheism carries no philosophy ... it is simply a label. Now the how you become atheist ... that's an entirely different matter (and way more complicated).

Quote from: "Titan"Unless atheism does not concern a rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct then I guess not. But you guys seem pretty emphatic that atheism is simply complete rationalism with the fewest assumptions tacked on. Atheism ultimately has to come up with an understanding of how morality is assigned and its significance and how far it is applied in regards to the human race and animals as well. That is why it is ultimately a philosophy. Because it HAS to have philosophical implications.

Atheism is not a science or an investigative discipline or even a moral stance it is a label. I am an atheist primarily because of science.

Atheism says one (and only one) thing about an individual ... it says he or she is not a believer in a god or gods. That's it. No more. Nothing, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

Quote from: "Titan"So, knowing this, how can you rationally extend your philosophy to the world. Everyone else thinks that they have an objective reason for their morals, atheists don't believe so. If atheists are correct then how can they dissuade others to agree with them. Addressing your point more closely, you know you are small-minded...so where does that leave you?

Which philosophy would that be? I may be inherently small-minded but I am capable of seeing the big picture and I am nowhere near as small minded as the majority of theists.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteUniversal morality (one that transcends time and space as you appear to be arguing for) is a meaningless concept IMO.

If morality is carried into eternity I don't see how you can argue that. But a universal morality as applied from an atheistic perspective, then yes. Now knowing that, what is wrong with killing everyone and getting away with it?

We've been over this repeatedly ... an objective (fixed) morality does not exist, atheism carries no morality and nothing is inherently wrong with killing everyone except that my societal morality has taught me it is wrong and my conscience has validated that as being a better way to behave.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAgreed on the last bit (religion and government shouldn't mix) but you're going to have to justify your first assertion.

Feminism, anti-slavery, rights of children, love of all people equally, an extension of that being that all men are intrinsically equal. This are only a few of the results of Christian doctrine over the years. This doesn't include a multitude of others. To contrast this, what has atheism brought about that the world has previously been working for?

You see ... you're doing it again! Would you please include enough of the former conversation to provide context because it is exceptionally frustrating to have to go back to the forum and find out what it was you said that led to what I said that led to what you said.

Sigh, you said:
But the truth is that Christians who don't fear death are the ones who are changing the world the most

Actually in the UK the Magna Carta provided the basis for English rights and I'd be willing to bet it is your constitution (written by the non-Christian founding fathers) that provides the basis for the US. I'd also argue that it is forward thinking people that believed in education (primarily labour unions and the like) that has pushed back the boundaries of ignorance and eventually led to the kinds of free-thinking, rights based societies we have today ... I'm not saying the Christian church hasn't had an impact but it's impact has been variable as a whole, largely negative IMO being more interested in persevering the status quo and its own power though some people within it have had a significant impact. What's interesting is that some speculate that it wasn't so much Christianity that advanced civil freedoms (when it did) but people who have recognised what the church was at root (a powerful organisation with powerful mechanisms and a great deal of influence) and have worked within it to forward their liberalistic goals ... many of those people may well have been atheists.

Suffice it to say that I would want an awful lot more supporting evidence before I would accept such an assertion.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteBecause we are evaluate others actions against our morality which we tend to treat as absolute even though it isn't.

But you KNOW this. So you know your morality isn't absolute, so my question still stands in regards to you personally.

I'm just as susceptible to it as anyone else and ultimately I still have to exist within a society which has a given moral stance (one that I largely mandate).

Quote from: "Titan"You realize that you hold Dawkins in the same regard as I hold C.S. Lewis...but I would answer him on all accounts and challenge his view that any of those are truly wrong from an atheistic perspective.

Perhaps and I'd like to see you try ... not only is Dawkins an exceptionally clever man, an excellent orator and so on but he knows how to research things and he will have thoroughly researched that statement before he made it.

Kyu

QuoteBut the truth is that Christians who don't fear death are the ones who are changing the world the most

Haven't all Christians tricked themselves into the illusion that they don't fear death? At least not as muc has before they became religious. I mean, that was one of the major purposes for creating religion in the first place. Find God and you live forever. But until then life is meaningless.

QuoteNo, whether you would like it to be otherwise or not, atheism carries no philosophy ... it is simply a label. Now the how you become atheist ... that's an entirely different matter (and way more complicated).

My point is that it forces a philosophy since nothing has value except the self.

QuoteAtheism is not a science or an investigative discipline or even a moral stance it is a label. I am an atheist primarily because of science.

Atheism says one (and only one) thing about an individual ... it says he or she is not a believer in a god or gods. That's it. No more. Nothing, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

Makes sense.

QuoteWhich philosophy would that be? I may be inherently small-minded but I am capable of seeing the big picture and I am nowhere near as small minded as the majority of theists.

I'm not accusing you of being more small-minded or anything, I'm just addressing what you said in your post. As a rational atheist you know that you are ultimately the one who creates value for your world, right?

QuoteWe've been over this repeatedly ... an objective (fixed) morality does not exist, atheism carries no morality and nothing is inherently wrong with killing everyone except that my societal morality has taught me it is wrong and my conscience has validated that as being a better way to behave.

But there are so many extensions on this that we haven't gotten to. Why is slavery wrong? If subjugation of a race is better than allowing them to propagate at will, then shouldn't slavery be utilized?

QuoteActually in the UK the Magna Carta provided the basis for English rights and I'd be willing to bet it is your constitution (written by the non-Christian founding fathers) that provides the basis for the US. I'd also argue that it is forward thinking people that believed in education (primarily labour unions and the like) that has pushed back the boundaries of ignorance and eventually led to the kinds of free-thinking, rights based societies we have today ... I'm not saying the Christian church hasn't had an impact but it's impact has been variable as a whole, largely negative IMO being more interested in persevering the status quo and its own power though some people within it have had a significant impact.

I absolutely agree that much of Christianity has been corrupted by people who are after their own desires. I would like to reference the massive quantity of Christian scientists though and I'd also like to point out that many of our classic Universities (American, I don't know about British) were created with Christianity as a focal point.

Quote

Quote

QuoteBecause we are evaluate others actions against our morality which we tend to treat as absolute even though it isn't.

But you KNOW this. So you know your morality isn't absolute, so my question still stands in regards to you personally.

I'm just as susceptible to it as anyone else and ultimately I still have to exist within a society which has a given moral stance (one that I largely mandate).

Wait, you are still susceptible to it even though you know that morality is a fabrication of society? How can you still be susceptible to ignorance when you have the knowledge of your ignorance AND the truth of the situation?

QuotePerhaps and I'd like to see you try ... not only is Dawkins an exceptionally clever man, an excellent orator and so on but he knows how to research things and he will have thoroughly researched that statement before he made it.

Dawkins read all of the Bible AND read through works by Christian apologeticists? I ask because some of the stuff he is saying is EASILY refuted by C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Augustine (going classic right there) and the like.

Sophus

QuoteHaven't all Christians tricked themselves into the illusion that they don't fear death? At least not as much has before they became religious. I mean, that was one of the major purposes for creating religion in the first place. Find God and you live forever. But until then life is meaningless.

Are you actually asking a question or making a claim based on pure speculation and presenting it as fact?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo, whether you would like it to be otherwise or not, atheism carries no philosophy ... it is simply a label. Now the how you become atheist ... that's an entirely different matter (and way more complicated).

My point is that it forces a philosophy since nothing has value except the self.

And you'd be wrong ... atheism is THE RESULT of other things that have philosophical value and it is those things that will change how I think about things and indeed whether or not I remain an atheist.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAtheism is not a science or an investigative discipline or even a moral stance it is a label. I am an atheist primarily because of science.

Atheism says one (and only one) thing about an individual ... it says he or she is not a believer in a god or gods. That's it. No more. Nothing, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

Makes sense.

So why are you disagreeing with me on the philosophical value of atheism?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteWhich philosophy would that be? I may be inherently small-minded but I am capable of seeing the big picture and I am nowhere near as small minded as the majority of theists.

I'm not accusing you of being more small-minded or anything, I'm just addressing what you said in your post. As a rational atheist you know that you are ultimately the one who creates value for your world, right?

No, I am the product of my society, my education, my upbringing and my associations but as an intelligent individual I validate the views I am taught.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteWe've been over this repeatedly ... an objective (fixed) morality does not exist, atheism carries no morality and nothing is inherently wrong with killing everyone except that my societal morality has taught me it is wrong and my conscience has validated that as being a better way to behave.

But there are so many extensions on this that we haven't gotten to. Why is slavery wrong? If subjugation of a race is better than allowing them to propagate at will, then shouldn't slavery be utilized?

Slavery ISN'T inherently wrong, it just happens to be so according to the moral code I have adopted. I dunno ... seems to me the Christian Church has utilised slavery fairly well.

Quote from: "Titan"I absolutely agree that much of Christianity has been corrupted by people who are after their own desires. I would like to reference the massive quantity of Christian scientists though and I'd also like to point out that many of our classic Universities (American, I don't know about British) were created with Christianity as a focal point.

Assuming that by "Christian scientists" you're not referring to the fundamentalist groups (these are not scientists of any sort IMO) apparently the vast major of scientists today tend towards an atheistic or agnostic view on life. It's harder to justify religious believing scientist in the past because so many more people believed without serious question ... my best guess is that Newton and Mendel (and similar), were they alive today, would almost certainly have been an atheists. I would argue much the same about your classic universities were they built today.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI'm just as susceptible to it as anyone else and ultimately I still have to exist within a society which has a given moral stance (one that I largely mandate).

Wait, you are still susceptible to it even though you know that morality is a fabrication of society? How can you still be susceptible to ignorance when you have the knowledge of your ignorance AND the truth of the situation?

Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the social morality of my society is based on ignorance and secondly you'll have to demonstrate that I actually believe and act that the given piece of social morality in question is one I personally validate.

Quote from: "Titan"Dawkins read all of the Bible AND read through works by Christian apologeticists? I ask because some of the stuff he is saying is EASILY refuted by C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Augustine (going classic right there) and the like.

Personally I do not know but I would good money on him having done just that (I would in his position) ... indeed (whether you agree with his conclusions or not) "The God Delusion" marvellously demonstrates just how widely read in religion and of religious philosophers Dawkins is.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Sophus"Haven't all Christians tricked themselves into the illusion that they don't fear death? At least not as much has before they became religious. I mean, that was one of the major purposes for creating religion in the first place. Find God and you live forever. But until then life is meaningless.

Are you actually asking a question or making a claim based on pure speculation and presenting it as fact?

I'd say he was being cynical.

Kyu

Quote

Quote

QuoteNo, whether you would like it to be otherwise or not, atheism carries no philosophy ... it is simply a label. Now the how you become atheist ... that's an entirely different matter (and way more complicated).

My point is that it forces a philosophy since nothing has value except the self.

And you'd be wrong ... atheism is THE RESULT of other things that have philosophical value and it is those things that will change how I think about things and indeed whether or not I remain an atheist.

Are you saying that there is no concept of a value system that is related to atheism? Mankind isn't just matter + time + chance and the implications therein? If you reject the notion then realize too that Christianity wouldn't have a single philosophy because Christians disagree on many things. Christianity would simply be for a generic belief system.

Quote

Quote

QuoteAtheism is not a science or an investigative discipline or even a moral stance it is a label. I am an atheist primarily because of science.
Atheism says one (and only one) thing about an individual ... it says he or she is not a believer in a god or gods. That's it. No more. Nothing, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

Makes sense.

So why are you disagreeing with me on the philosophical value of atheism?

Because while it is just a label the concept of there not being a God or gods has real implications. That is the point. Implications that can be reached via a rational path of argumentation of discussion.

Quote

Quote

QuoteWhich philosophy would that be? I may be inherently small-minded but I am capable of seeing the big picture and I am nowhere near as small minded as the majority of theists.

I'm not accusing you of being more small-minded or anything, I'm just addressing what you said in your post. As a rational atheist you know that you are ultimately the one who creates value for your world, right?

No, I am the product of my society, my education, my upbringing and my associations but as an intelligent individual I validate the views I am taught.

You are telling me that you have never come to the realization that the views you are adhering to are nothing more than "views" and therefore constantly changing social constructs? Knowing that doesn't liberate you at all from the "chains" (if you will) of socially created boundaries? Regardless of whether you accept them or not, that isn't the point, the point is that you are forced to come to the realization that they mean absolutely nothing in the "scheme of things."

Quote

Quote

QuoteWe've been over this repeatedly ... an objective (fixed) morality does not exist, atheism carries no morality and nothing is inherently wrong with killing everyone except that my societal morality has taught me it is wrong and my conscience has validated that as being a better way to behave.

But there are so many extensions on this that we haven't gotten to. Why is slavery wrong? If subjugation of a race is better than allowing them to propagate at will, then shouldn't slavery be utilized?

Slavery ISN'T inherently wrong, it just happens to be so according to the moral code I have adopted. I dunno ... seems to me the Christian Church has utilised slavery fairly well.

1. If slavery isn't inherently wrong at is merely due to your own moral code then please defend such a moral code. You know that you are simply getting force-fed your vantage point by your ancestors so what is keeping you from breaking out of that, subjugating the "lesser" man and benefiting yourself in the process?
2. I'm not going to defend the Christian church. "Never judge a philosophy by its abuses."

QuoteAssuming that by "Christian scientists" you're not referring to the fundamentalist groups (these are not scientists of any sort IMO) apparently the vast major of scientists today tend towards an atheistic or agnostic view on life. It's harder to justify religious believing scientist in the past because so many more people believed without serious question ... my best guess is that Newton and Mendel (and similar), were they alive today, would almost certainly have been an atheists. I would argue much the same about your classic universities were they built today.

1. I'm not talking about modern day fundamentalist "Christian scientists" I've told you before that I disagree with their theories.
2. For someone who claims to be rational you sure make a lot of unprovable stipulations to justify your perspective.
3. Newton, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, do these scientists ring any bells?

QuoteFirstly, you will have to demonstrate that the social morality of my society is based on ignorance and secondly you'll have to demonstrate that I actually believe and act that the given piece of social morality in question is one I personally validate.

1. Society doesn't recognize the sheer futility of life. Slavery isn't wrong and actually beneficial to the people who hold the power.
2. Since we are discussing slavery I'll use that one and assume that you believe slavery is wrong, we can also go with murder, genocide, rape, any of those if you would prefer.

QuotePersonally I do not know but I would good money on him having done just that (I would in his position) ... indeed (whether you agree with his conclusions or not) "The God Delusion" marvellously demonstrates just how widely read in religion and of religious philosophers Dawkins is.

Does he quote the responses to his arguments at all?

Quote from: "Titan"Are you saying that there is no concept of a value system that is related to atheism?

Yes.

Quote from: "Titan"Mankind isn't just matter + time + chance and the implications therein?

Why? Justify that assertion.

Quote from: "Titan"If you reject the notion then realize too that Christianity wouldn't have a single philosophy because Christians disagree on many things. Christianity would simply be for a generic belief system.

Christianity is just another belief system with nothing specific to recommend it or make its essential claims more worthwhile than those of any other.

Quote from: "Titan"Because while it is just a label the concept of there not being a God or gods has real implications. That is the point. Implications that can be reached via a rational path of argumentation of discussion.

Only in the mind of a theist! The concept of there being a god on the hand does have real implications. Try to step out of your limited theistic world for one moment and imagine what it would do to science if the explanation "God dun it" were accepted as valid for 1 or more questions currently under investigation by the scientific community. Given the former point can you name 1 event that is specifically worthy of such an explanation? That we should stop investigating because that explanation is entirely adequate for the question it supposedly answers?

Quote from: "Titan"You are telling me that you have never come to the realization that the views you are adhering to are nothing more than "views" and therefore constantly changing social constructs? Knowing that doesn't liberate you at all from the "chains" (if you will) of socially created boundaries? Regardless of whether you accept them or not, that isn't the point, the point is that you are forced to come to the realization that they mean absolutely nothing in the "scheme of things."

Constantly changing? Yes but mainly in fine, the majority of my views stay pretty much the same for long periods of time. Society's views, based as they are on the collective thought of many, changes much more slowly.

To give an example ... at one point in my life (and let me stress I was still at school) I would have given no thought to telling racist jokes, nowadays I still will tell jokes that have an element of race in them but the humour must be genuinely based on clever and funny circumstance and usually such jokes will be implicitly anti-racist ... I find racism utterly distasteful. Likewise, when younger I would have had few problems telling jokes that were sexist or at the expense of gays but nowadays I don't... I'm an intelligent man, I hate political correctness with a passion but my outlook on the world tells me it simply isn't morally supportable to stereotype people for things like race, sex & sexual orientation.

OTOH jokes about theists and the inherent stupidity of religion can be exceptionally funny.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSlavery ISN'T inherently wrong, it just happens to be so according to the moral code I have adopted. I dunno ... seems to me the Christian Church has utilised slavery fairly well.

1. If slavery isn't inherently wrong at is merely due to your own moral code then please defend such a moral code. You know that you are simply getting force-fed your vantage point by your ancestors so what is keeping you from breaking out of that, subjugating the "lesser" man and benefiting yourself in the process?

Outside of my basic personal philosophy that it benefits all of us (including me) to be tolerant, free-thinking, not to treat someone else in a fashion I would not wish to be treated and that slavery is incredibly inefficient use of "resources" ... I fail to see why I should support slavery. If, however, I lived in biblical times I imagine I would either own several slaves or be one.

Quote from: "Titan"I'm not going to defend the Christian church. "Never judge a philosophy by its abuses."

That's OK ... I'll do it for you

Quote from: "Titan"1. I'm not talking about modern day fundamentalist "Christian scientists" I've told you before that I disagree with their theories.

I thought you had but there are people who call themselves that so I was simply making the distinction.

Quote from: "Titan"2. For someone who claims to be rational you sure make a lot of unprovable stipulations to justify your perspective.

And in what I said I CLEARLY stated it as a GUESS ...live with it!

Quote from: "Titan"3. Newton, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, do these scientists ring any bells?

You mean like I already mentioned Newton? And yes, I still reckon these would be secular individuals if they were modern thinkers.

Quote from: "Titan"1. Society doesn't recognize the sheer futility of life. Slavery isn't wrong and actually beneficial to the people who hold the power.

Nothing I've ever claimed.

Quote from: "Titan"2. Since we are discussing slavery I'll use that one and assume that you believe slavery is wrong, we can also go with murder, genocide, rape, any of those if you would prefer.

And my answer would be the same.

Quote from: "Titan"Does he quote the responses to his arguments at all?

The book discusses these issues so yes.

Kyu

Quote from: "Titan"Dennis do you mind opening a new discussion up with these things, and starting off with a few at a time so I don't have to spend 3 hours per post? I'm sorry to be so picky but there is no way I'm going to be able to answer all of these in one sitting.

No, please don't answer every one of the points I have made.  This thread is long enough and probably too long for some to bother trudging through all the back and forth commentary.  My intention was to show a number of atrocities written in the bible.

Do you believe the new testament trumps the old?  If so, how can you justify this if the OT was 'god's word'?  Was god wrong?  If not, how can you discount all the atrocities by today's ethical standards?  How are followers of JC supposed to not question but have faith when it's not plain what to have faith in?  We're supposed to get our morals from someone who may or may not have existed, who never wrote anything down, whose followers had conflicting stories that were copied and translated umpteen thousand times and who never spoke out against slavery or for women's rights?

Not only do theists not want you to put merit in science, they really don't want you to study the bible.  The bible is fundamentally immoral and should be 'translated' again into another language so as to filter out more of the crap that was missed in all the previous revisions and translations.

If you look at the bible much like Homer's Iliad, you will see that both were used to teach what the morals were in their time.  Both books of fiction were widely thought of as true accounts of the gods.  Most everyone on this planet now recognizes the works of Homer to be fantasy and do not worship the gods he created.  It will be the same for Christianity... in time.

Quote

QuoteAre you saying that there is no concept of a value system that is related to atheism?

Yes.

Excellent, we have made progress, I'll end up coming back to this periodically to make some points about humanity not having any value.

Quote

QuoteMankind isn't just matter + time + chance and the implications therein?

Why? Justify that assertion.

If mankind is just matter + time + chance then we are ultimately meaningless because nothing has value in the universe. The implications of this are astronomical as personal well-being, happiness, megalomania and eroto-mania are all that matters which means that genocide isn't wrong as much as it is "someone else's perspective." You don't take comfort or displeasure in knowing that if you were alive 200 years ago you would be arguing for slavery without the slightest qualm, because it was what your portion of society believed in. Knowing that time is all that separates the you now from the genocidal, baby-sacrificing you that would have been alive and happy in an Assyrian society 3500 or so years ago makes the whole proposition of arguing for ethics rather odd. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "progressive" because a progressive implies a progression TO something, but from an atheistic perspective there is nothing that is better or worse than anything else (in the grand scheme of things) so it isn't a progression (nothing you should argue for) but simply a movement along a linear playing field.

QuoteChristianity is just another belief system with nothing specific to recommend it or make its essential claims more worthwhile than those of any other.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. From a perspective of prophecies, answers, influential power, etc.

QuoteOnly in the mind of a theist! The concept of there being a god on the hand does have real implications. Try to step out of your limited theistic world for one moment and imagine what it would do to science if the explanation "God dun it" were accepted as valid for 1 or more questions currently under investigation by the scientific community. Given the former point can you name 1 event that is specifically worthy of such an explanation? That we should stop investigating because that explanation is entirely adequate for the question it supposedly answers?

Step out of your limited atheistic framework here... Evangelical Christians (as portrayed in the book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) are encouraged to study science and broaden our understanding of the world. Some questions seriously have a much bigger point coming across: what began it all and which huge assumption for the beginning fits better with our observations of existence. I think we should ALWAYS investigate every aspect of existence, study science fervently and keep an open-mind. But that ever present question of "where did "stuff" come from?" is always there and has not even gotten close to becoming solved.

QuoteConstantly changing? Yes but mainly in fine, the majority of my views stay pretty much the same for long periods of time. Society's views, based as they are on the collective thought of many, changes much more slowly.

To give an example ... at one point in my life (and let me stress I was still at school) I would have given no thought to telling racist jokes, nowadays I still will tell jokes that have an element of race in them but the humour must be genuinely based on clever and funny circumstance and usually such jokes will be implicitly anti-racist ... I find racism utterly distasteful. Likewise, when younger I would have had few problems telling jokes that were sexist or at the expense of gays but nowadays I don't... I'm an intelligent man, I hate political correctness with a passion but my outlook on the world tells me it simply isn't morally supportable to stereotype people for things like race, sex & sexual orientation.

Why not? Explain the rationality of your logic.

QuoteOutside of my basic personal philosophy that it benefits all of us (including me) to be tolerant, free-thinking, not to treat someone else in a fashion I would not wish to be treated and that slavery is incredibly inefficient use of "resources" ... I fail to see why I should support slavery. If, however, I lived in biblical times I imagine I would either own several slaves or be one.

Don't dodge the subject at hand...I've already asked people to open a thread specifically about things like slavery in the Bible and well deal with that there. Slavery essentially means you don't have to work. If you are able to subjugate others then you can gain at others expense and never get hurt by it. Slavery stopped, not because people said "Wow, these blacks are more useful to us free" but as people saying "It is WRONG to enslave others."

Quote

QuoteI'm not going to defend the Christian church. "Never judge a philosophy by its abuses."

That's OK ... I'll do it for you

Have fun wasting your time. It doesn't accomplish anything.

Quote

Quote2. For someone who claims to be rational you sure make a lot of unprovable stipulations to justify your perspective.

And in what I said I CLEARLY stated it as a GUESS ...live with it!

But you use a guess to justify your claims...Circular reasoning.

Quote

Quote3. Newton, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, do these scientists ring any bells?

You mean like I already mentioned Newton? And yes, I still reckon these would be secular individuals if they were modern thinkers.

Based on what? Do you realize how much of Newtonian theory was based on Christian influences...such as the number 7.

Quote

Quote1. Society doesn't recognize the sheer futility of life. Slavery isn't wrong and actually beneficial to the people who hold the power.

Nothing I've ever claimed.

Argue against it then. What if the majority of society suddenly turned and decided slavery was alright...what would you do?

DennisK

QuoteNo, please don't answer every one of the points I have made. This thread is long enough and probably too long for some to bother trudging through all the back and forth commentary. My intention was to show a number of atrocities written in the bible.

Do you believe the new testament trumps the old? If so, how can you justify this if the OT was 'god's word'? Was god wrong? If not, how can you discount all the atrocities by today's ethical standards? How are followers of JC supposed to not question but have faith when it's not plain what to have faith in? We're supposed to get our morals from someone who may or may not have existed, who never wrote anything down, whose followers had conflicting stories that were copied and translated umpteen thousand times and who never spoke out against slavery or for women's rights?

Wait, if you don't want this topic to get long why are you asking all these questions? If you want to discuss this please send me a PM or open a thread devoted to it and I'd happily answer any and all of these.

QuoteNot only do theists not want you to put merit in science, they really don't want you to study the bible. The bible is fundamentally immoral and should be 'translated' again into another language so as to filter out more of the crap that was missed in all the previous revisions and translations.

How can the Bible be immoral if society creates morality? I think we have run up against a flaw in your reasoning.

QuoteIf you look at the bible much like Homer's Iliad, you will see that both were used to teach what the morals were in their time. Both books of fiction were widely thought of as true accounts of the gods. Most everyone on this planet now recognizes the works of Homer to be fantasy and do not worship the gods he created. It will be the same for Christianity... in time.

Chilling prophecy...I don't buy it. There are MASSIVE differences between the contents of the Bible and the contents of Homer's Iliad...read some Augustine for an excellent critique of the ancient pagan philosophies.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

QuoteAre you saying that there is no concept of a value system that is related to atheism?

Yes.

Excellent, we have made progress, I'll end up coming back to this periodically to make some points about humanity not having any value.

Yet curiously it is what I have said to you all along ... I suppose it is progress though that you may have finally got it.

Quote from: "Titan"If mankind is just matter + time + chance then we are ultimately meaningless because nothing has value in the universe. The implications of this are astronomical as personal well-being, happiness, megalomania and eroto-mania are all that matters which means that genocide isn't wrong as much as it is "someone else's perspective." You don't take comfort or displeasure in knowing that if you were alive 200 years ago you would be arguing for slavery without the slightest qualm, because it was what your portion of society believed in. Knowing that time is all that separates the you now from the genocidal, baby-sacrificing you that would have been alive and happy in an Assyrian society 3500 or so years ago makes the whole proposition of arguing for ethics rather odd. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "progressive" because a progressive implies a progression TO something, but from an atheistic perspective there is nothing that is better or worse than anything else (in the grand scheme of things) so it isn't a progression (nothing you should argue for) but simply a movement along a linear playing field.

Mankind, life, whatever you want to call it is meaningless except within context of the meaning we give ourselves. I take no POV on what I might have thought I was doing x years ago except that in some respects I consider myself lucky to be alive today, in others I don't (would have preferred to live then). In cultural terms no, there is no such thing as progressive ...,w e are merely different and from our POV better or more civilised. I've grown up in this culture which is inherently rights based and I consider that a good thing for me, for my family, for most people ... why would I not want to argue for such a system? For the record I believe a benevolent dictatorship would be a better system of government.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteChristianity is just another belief system with nothing specific to recommend it or make its essential claims more worthwhile than those of any other.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. From a perspective of prophecies, answers, influential power, etc.

Of course you do or you wouldn't be able to set yourself on an intellectual pedestal and believe that you are right and others are wrong. What prophecies? You mean the self-fulfilling ones within your bible? Colour me unimpressed.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteOnly in the mind of a theist! The concept of there being a god on the hand does have real implications. Try to step out of your limited theistic world for one moment and imagine what it would do to science if the explanation "God dun it" were accepted as valid for 1 or more questions currently under investigation by the scientific community. Given the former point can you name 1 event that is specifically worthy of such an explanation? That we should stop investigating because that explanation is entirely adequate for the question it supposedly answers?

Step out of your limited atheistic framework here... Evangelical Christians (as portrayed in the book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) are encouraged to study science and broaden our understanding of the world. Some questions seriously have a much bigger point coming across: what began it all and which huge assumption for the beginning fits better with our observations of existence. I think we should ALWAYS investigate every aspect of existence, study science fervently and keep an open-mind. But that ever present question of "where did "stuff" come from?" is always there and has not even gotten close to becoming solved.

I note with interest that you didn't answer the question :)[/quote]
Have fun wasting your time. It doesn't accomplish anything.[/quote]

Oh it surely does :)

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

Quote3. Newton, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, do these scientists ring any bells?

You mean like I already mentioned Newton? And yes, I still reckon these would be secular individuals if they were modern thinkers.

Based on what? Do you realize how much of Newtonian theory was based on Christian influences...such as the number 7

Which has precisely what to with Newtonian physics (which is pretty much all Newton is remembered for)?

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote

Quote1. Society doesn't recognize the sheer futility of life. Slavery isn't wrong and actually beneficial to the people who hold the power.

Nothing I've ever claimed.

Argue against it then. What if the majority of society suddenly turned and decided slavery was alright...what would you do?

Why should I argue against something I don't claim, don't believe in? Get real man.

Kyu

Titan,

In listing the barbarous acts in the bible, I was just trying to show that there were many.  I don't wish to bring these up in another thread or here because I can't stand reading dissected responses.  If you view that as a cop out on my part, I'm sorry.  If you could lump them together and defend them, it would be great.  I'm not a skilled forum reader and it is very difficult to read your fragmented comments.  Not to mention, they usually require that you read the entire thread in one sitting.  I'm an ADD boy.  Can't do it.

In regards to the Iliad, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as I only know a bit of the mythology and only ASSuMEd how it was used.  What I was trying to touch on was that both books were highly regarded as the truth in their time.  Would you not agree?  The Iliad and Odyssey have been discredited by almost all (except the nut jobs).  The bible will follow suit not because there is a better book of religion out there, but because free thought is less and less persecuted.

I would like you to respond to my previous post, specifically:

QuoteDo you believe the new testament trumps the old? If so, how can you justify this if the OT was 'god's word'? Was god wrong? If not, how can you discount all the atrocities by today's ethical standards?

Great question choice. I have been pondering the same question and have come up with a few ideas that make sense. Our morals were decided for us we are taught what is right and what is wrong. But what if one family excludes one of those things like murder. If they do not instill murder being wrong, and instead instill it to be right, the reverse situation comes out. As vicious as it sounds, that would be a form of freewill. Freedom in its literal meaning would mean that we are free to do as we please without all the social boundaries. Thus meaning there is no difference between right and wrong, leaving he person to decide that for themselves.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteYes.

Excellent, we have made progress, I'll end up coming back to this periodically to make some points about humanity not having any value.

Yet curiously it is what I have said to you all along ... I suppose it is progress though that you may have finally got it.

I wanted you to use certain words...although technically it was me saying them for you. I wanted you to say that there was no value system in that there are incredible implications we can draw from that.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"If mankind is just matter + time + chance then we are ultimately meaningless because nothing has value in the universe. The implications of this are astronomical as personal well-being, happiness, megalomania and eroto-mania are all that matters which means that genocide isn't wrong as much as it is "someone else's perspective." You don't take comfort or displeasure in knowing that if you were alive 200 years ago you would be arguing for slavery without the slightest qualm, because it was what your portion of society believed in. Knowing that time is all that separates the you now from the genocidal, baby-sacrificing you that would have been alive and happy in an Assyrian society 3500 or so years ago makes the whole proposition of arguing for ethics rather odd. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "progressive" because a progressive implies a progression TO something, but from an atheistic perspective there is nothing that is better or worse than anything else (in the grand scheme of things) so it isn't a progression (nothing you should argue for) but simply a movement along a linear playing field.

Mankind, life, whatever you want to call it is meaningless except within context of the meaning we give ourselves. I take no POV on what I might have thought I was doing x years ago except that in some respects I consider myself lucky to be alive today, in others I don't (would have preferred to live then). In cultural terms no, there is no such thing as progressive ...,w e are merely different and from our POV better or more civilised. I've grown up in this culture which is inherently rights based and I consider that a good thing for me, for my family, for most people ... why would I not want to argue for such a system? For the record I believe a benevolent dictatorship would be a better system of government.

But understanding that we are ultimately meaningless should tell us that the meaning we give ourselves is also meaningless. Unless you want to cut off rationalism at a certain point, you have to come to such conclusions. Furthermore, since you recognize that there is no such thing as progression and that your views are simply the result of the current civilization then how do you justify it from a logical standpoint? Knowing where we came from helps us know who we are. But you know that who we are is just a fabrication. You know that "what works for you" is not important in the grand scheme of things. So why WOULD you argue for your system of ethics? Why not just adopt someone elses, ally yourself with them and produce kids in a more unified world?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteChristianity is just another belief system with nothing specific to recommend it or make its essential claims more worthwhile than those of any other.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. From a perspective of prophecies, answers, influential power, etc.

Of course you do or you wouldn't be able to set yourself on an intellectual pedestal and believe that you are right and others are wrong. What prophecies? You mean the self-fulfilling ones within your bible? Colour me unimpressed.

How about the ones concerning say:
Egypt never ruling over another nation
Daniel predicted four great kingdoms prior to Christ
The prophecies concerning the fall of Tyre
Etc

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteOnly in the mind of a theist! The concept of there being a god on the hand does have real implications. Try to step out of your limited theistic world for one moment and imagine what it would do to science if the explanation "God dun it" were accepted as valid for 1 or more questions currently under investigation by the scientific community. Given the former point can you name 1 event that is specifically worthy of such an explanation? That we should stop investigating because that explanation is entirely adequate for the question it supposedly answers?

Step out of your limited atheistic framework here... Evangelical Christians (as portrayed in the book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) are encouraged to study science and broaden our understanding of the world. Some questions seriously have a much bigger point coming across: what began it all and which huge assumption for the beginning fits better with our observations of existence. I think we should ALWAYS investigate every aspect of existence, study science fervently and keep an open-mind. But that ever present question of "where did "stuff" come from?" is always there and has not even gotten close to becoming solved.

I note with interest that you didn't answer the question :)

So your point was?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteYou mean like I already mentioned Newton? And yes, I still reckon these would be secular individuals if they were modern thinkers.

Based on what? Do you realize how much of Newtonian theory was based on Christian influences...such as the number 7

Which has precisely what to with Newtonian physics (which is pretty much all Newton is remembered for)?

It made an indelible impact on his scientific ventures. Unless you are saying that the physicist part of Newton would become an atheist but the other parts of him would remain a theist.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNothing I've ever claimed.

Argue against it then. What if the majority of society suddenly turned and decided slavery was alright...what would you do?

Why should I argue against something I don't claim, don't believe in? Get real man.

Because it is more rational to be a slave owner than not (if there is no system of value behind everything). Justify why you are not actively trying to turn society towards being more beneficial for your children in that form.

DennisK

QuoteIn listing the barbarous acts in the bible, I was just trying to show that there were many. I don't wish to bring these up in another thread or here because I can't stand reading dissected responses. If you view that as a cop out on my part, I'm sorry. If you could lump them together and defend them, it would be great. I'm not a skilled forum reader and it is very difficult to read your fragmented comments. Not to mention, they usually require that you read the entire thread in one sitting. I'm an ADD boy. Can't do it.

I am confident I can answer all of them. But I would welcome a more ADD oriented discussion on MSN, Google Chat, AIM or Skype.

QuoteIn regards to the Iliad, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as I only know a bit of the mythology and only ASSuMEd how it was used. What I was trying to touch on was that both books were highly regarded as the truth in their time. Would you not agree? The Iliad and Odyssey have been discredited by almost all (except the nut jobs). The bible will follow suit not because there is a better book of religion out there, but because free thought is less and less persecuted.

Plato and Aristotle both present evidence that the Greeks were not that confident in their gods...that it was more of a necessary spirituality then a mental spirituality. I believe the Bible is VERY different from all the other religions and I would be happy to prove it to you.

QuoteDo you believe the new testament trumps the old? If so, how can you justify this if the OT was 'god's word'? Was god wrong? If not, how can you discount all the atrocities by today's ethical standards?

The New Testament does not trump the old in the way the Quran's newer passages nullify and override the old ones. The issue is that Christ sets up a kingdom based on grace and the natural implications alter the relationship God and man can have. It is complex and I can go through a TON of specific examples and say "this is why the resurrection of Christ alters the way mankind must obey this law in particular" if you want.

Quote from: "Titan"I wanted you to use certain words...although technically it was me saying them for you. I wanted you to say that there was no value system in that there are incredible implications we can draw from that.

I have repeatedly and CLEARLY said atheism carries no philosophy, no value ... what do you want? Blood?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteMankind, life, whatever you want to call it is meaningless except within context of the meaning we give ourselves. I take no POV on what I might have thought I was doing x years ago except that in some respects I consider myself lucky to be alive today, in others I don't (would have preferred to live then). In cultural terms no, there is no such thing as progressive ...,w e are merely different and from our POV better or more civilised. I've grown up in this culture which is inherently rights based and I consider that a good thing for me, for my family, for most people ... why would I not want to argue for such a system? For the record I believe a benevolent dictatorship would be a better system of government.

But understanding that we are ultimately meaningless should tell us that the meaning we give ourselves is also meaningless. Unless you want to cut off rationalism at a certain point, you have to come to such conclusions. Furthermore, since you recognize that there is no such thing as progression and that your views are simply the result of the current civilization then how do you justify it from a logical standpoint? Knowing where we came from helps us know who we are. But you know that who we are is just a fabrication. You know that "what works for you" is not important in the grand scheme of things. So why WOULD you argue for your system of ethics? Why not just adopt someone elses, ally yourself with them and produce kids in a more unified world?

Why is any meaning we give to ourselves meaningless? Does not survival carry meaning? Does not the wish to see your children survive to adulthood and become useful to your society carry meaning? Does not art (literature, TV, movies, music) carry meaning? Does not wanting to be the best you can and wanting the best for others carry meaning? And if you say no I think Buddhist's might have something to say about that as well as the millions of atheists living meaningful and purposeful lives in the world today. I DO adopt someone else system of ethics (my social and cultural group and essentially my morality, my ethical system is unashamedly Judeo/Christian but without the god bit) I simply do not always agree with it and will oppose it if it makes no sense to me.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteOf course you do or you wouldn't be able to set yourself on an intellectual pedestal and believe that you are right and others are wrong. What prophecies? You mean the self-fulfilling ones within your bible? Colour me unimpressed.

How about the ones concerning say:
Egypt never ruling over another nation
Daniel predicted four great kingdoms prior to Christ
The prophecies concerning the fall of Tyre

In the 1820-'s Egypt conquered and ruled Sudan, Tyre still exists and Daniel also said "The stone became 'a great mountain' that 'filled the whole earth.' which could only be possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth. Indeed the truest thing Daniel ever said about his visions was that "no one could ever understand them" ... these kind of visions need radical interpretation so, unless you're going to come up with specifics, gimme a break with this prophecy garbage!

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI've never denied the act that there are scientists who are Christian and who do some bloody good scientific work and no I have to disagree that Christian investigate all aspects of their existence, by virtue of their belief in their god they do not do so.

Yes, the miracle I referenced for Dennis, or was it Sophus. Where our family friend learned English in one night while sleeping...a fact which is attested to by people who know her. Or one that occurred near where I was, one of the students at the international school was speaking English to a Javanese man and the man heard Javanese, as if it was being spoken fluently. I can go into greater depth on either one of these. You can investigate, I don't want to dissuade you from that, but I believe that the Christian answer is far more plausible.

And I am going to accept that someone learned English in one night without the aid of technology or hypnosis or whatever and with no proper testing conditions based on exactly what evidence? Your word? Yeah right.

Quote from: "Titan"Because I believe it is what the Creator of the universe desires and therefore I should follow. My value system isn't based on my desires, as you want to push me towards. Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you is flawed from an atheistic perspective because you aren't sure that they will do onto you as you would do onto them. Lying isn't that difficult. You could harm two people and get them to turn on each other rather than you. If you could do that would that be okay in your mind?

So why don't you (presumably) believe that genocide, slavery, rape and many other things beside are correct? They're all fine in the bible.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI haven't dodged the issue, I gave you a brief overview of why I consider it wrong ... in simple terms it is wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me, my family, my friends or my nation. In essence it's a rights based argument ... rights are not automatic and in order to "possess" certain rights one must grant those same rights to others, indeed I consider it my responsibility to do so.

Why is not wanting it done to you make it wrong? It is actually irrelevant, all that matters is whether it is actually taking place. If you can do onto someone else and benefit without drawback and they will never do the same to you it would seem that the thing should be good in your mind.

I've just explained that and constantly asking, quite frankly, stupid picky little questions is neither big nor clever.

Quote from: "Titan"So your point was?

As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

Quote from: "Titan"It made an indelible impact on his scientific ventures. Unless you are saying that the physicist part of Newton would become an atheist but the other parts of him would remain a theist.

No, I'm saying quite clearly, that I believe that someone as clever as Newton, were he alive today, would probably be non religious. You still haven't explained the relevance of this 7 thing.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteWhy should I argue against something I don't claim, don't believe in? Get real man.

Because it is more rational to be a slave owner than not (if there is no system of value behind everything). Justify why you are not actively trying to turn society towards being more beneficial for your children in that form.

Because I don't think it is more rational to enslave others for reason repeatedly stated ... IOW I don't accept your logic that it is more rational to be a slave owner.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I DO adopt someone else system of ethics (my social and cultural group and essentially my morality, my ethical system is unashamedly Judeo/Christian but without the god bit)

Good for you!! If it is without the god bit, your ethical system is unashamedly Greek! Judeo/Christian ethics are non existant, besides giving "faith" intrinsic moral value.
As examplified here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2174.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Good for you!! If it is without the god bit, your ethical system is unashamedly Greek! Judeo/Christian ethics are non existant, besides giving "faith" intrinsic moral value.
As examplified here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2174.

Oh!

Kyu

QuoteAs I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

Ha ha. Love how you say "As I recall." I suffer the same frustrations with Titan. I agree with what you have to say Kyuuketsuki. Brilliant theists and deists of the past, such as Voltaire, would most likely be atheists in todays world where there is so much more evidence and explanations in psychology and sciences for why God doesn't exist.

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteAs I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

Ha ha. Love how you say "As I recall." I suffer the same frustrations with Titan. I agree with what you have to say Kyuuketsuki. Brilliant theists and deists of the past, such as Voltaire, would most likely be atheists in todays world where there is so much more evidence and explanations in psychology and sciences for why God doesn't exist.

:hail:  :eek:

Psychology and sociology does however provide evidence why gods are merely cultural constructs. And philosophy and history clearly provides evidence that no religion qualifies as an explanatory system.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Titan"I wanted you to use certain words...although technically it was me saying them for you. I wanted you to say that there was no value system in that there are incredible implications we can draw from that.

I have repeatedly and CLEARLY said atheism carries no philosophy, no value ... what do you want? Blood?

I wanted those words because you will inevitably say that the Bible is immoral (which you already have) a proposition that even an atheist cannot hold on to.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteMankind, life, whatever you want to call it is meaningless except within context of the meaning we give ourselves. I take no POV on what I might have thought I was doing x years ago except that in some respects I consider myself lucky to be alive today, in others I don't (would have preferred to live then). In cultural terms no, there is no such thing as progressive ...,w e are merely different and from our POV better or more civilised. I've grown up in this culture which is inherently rights based and I consider that a good thing for me, for my family, for most people ... why would I not want to argue for such a system? For the record I believe a benevolent dictatorship would be a better system of government.

But understanding that we are ultimately meaningless should tell us that the meaning we give ourselves is also meaningless. Unless you want to cut off rationalism at a certain point, you have to come to such conclusions. Furthermore, since you recognize that there is no such thing as progression and that your views are simply the result of the current civilization then how do you justify it from a logical standpoint? Knowing where we came from helps us know who we are. But you know that who we are is just a fabrication. You know that "what works for you" is not important in the grand scheme of things. So why WOULD you argue for your system of ethics? Why not just adopt someone elses, ally yourself with them and produce kids in a more unified world?

Why is any meaning we give to ourselves meaningless? Does not survival carry meaning? Does not the wish to see your children survive to adulthood and become useful to your society carry meaning? Does not art (literature, TV, movies, music) carry meaning? Does not wanting to be the best you can and wanting the best for others carry meaning? And if you say no I think Buddhist's might have something to say about that as well as the millions of atheists living meaningful and purposeful lives in the world today. I DO adopt someone else system of ethics (my social and cultural group and essentially my morality, my ethical system is unashamedly Judeo/Christian but without the god bit) I simply do not always agree with it and will oppose it if it makes no sense to me.

1. Why does survival carry meaning? You breath to keep on breathing and you call that meaningful?
2. Why does wishing to see your child survive to adulthood carry meaning? It doesn't benefit you in the slightest.
3. Why do the arts carry meaning? They are only transitory representations of a transitory society which is part of a transitory race in a transitory universe.
4. I do not doubt that there are many atheists who firmly believe that they have meaning. I am saying that they have no rational reason to believe that.
5. The problem you refuse to address with your own morality is that you recognize that they are societal. If they are societal then they will not last, if they will not last then why do you not desire to influence society to create a set of morals and ethics that benefit you more than anyone else?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteOf course you do or you wouldn't be able to set yourself on an intellectual pedestal and believe that you are right and others are wrong. What prophecies? You mean the self-fulfilling ones within your bible? Colour me unimpressed.

How about the ones concerning say:
Egypt never ruling over another nation
Daniel predicted four great kingdoms prior to Christ
The prophecies concerning the fall of Tyre

In the 1820-'s Egypt conquered and ruled Sudan, Tyre still exists and Daniel also said "The stone became 'a great mountain' that 'filled the whole earth.' which could only be possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth. Indeed the truest thing Daniel ever said about his visions was that "no one could ever understand them" ... these kind of visions need radical interpretation so, unless you're going to come up with specifics, gimme a break with this prophecy garbage!

I completely disagree, let's look at a specific one concerning any of those three.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI've never denied the act that there are scientists who are Christian and who do some bloody good scientific work and no I have to disagree that Christian investigate all aspects of their existence, by virtue of their belief in their god they do not do so.

Yes, the miracle I referenced for Dennis, or was it Sophus. Where our family friend learned English in one night while sleeping...a fact which is attested to by people who know her. Or one that occurred near where I was, one of the students at the international school was speaking English to a Javanese man and the man heard Javanese, as if it was being spoken fluently. I can go into greater depth on either one of these. You can investigate, I don't want to dissuade you from that, but I believe that the Christian answer is far more plausible.

And I am going to accept that someone learned English in one night without the aid of technology or hypnosis or whatever and with no proper testing conditions based on exactly what evidence? Your word? Yeah right.

So the woman was supposed to go to sleep not knowing the language with a person standing there measuring her brain (even though she had no idea this was supposed to occur) and go to sleep? Again, this isn't just my word, that is why I requested that you come to Indonesia, to meet these people. I don't think you should believe me, I want you to go to a country that has things like this occurring far more often then you realize. Can you arguably say, side track, that you hold no assumptions?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Because I believe it is what the Creator of the universe desires and therefore I should follow. My value system isn't based on my desires, as you want to push me towards. Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you is flawed from an atheistic perspective because you aren't sure that they will do onto you as you would do onto them. Lying isn't that difficult. You could harm two people and get them to turn on each other rather than you. If you could do that would that be okay in your mind?

So why don't you (presumably) believe that genocide, slavery, rape and many other things beside are correct? They're all fine in the bible.

Again, I said please open this up in another forum because I can answer them. Essentially, rape is NEVER right. All life belongs to God, not to us, therefore he isn't committing an injustice by taking back what is his, he doesn't owe us anything. Slavery in the Bible was used as a form of debt repayment. If a family could not repay a loan they owed then they would become a slave for a temporary period in order to work off the debt. These things are quite easy to answer if you are willing to actually listen.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI haven't dodged the issue, I gave you a brief overview of why I consider it wrong ... in simple terms it is wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me, my family, my friends or my nation. In essence it's a rights based argument ... rights are not automatic and in order to "possess" certain rights one must grant those same rights to others, indeed I consider it my responsibility to do so.

Why is not wanting it done to you make it wrong? It is actually irrelevant, all that matters is whether it is actually taking place. If you can do onto someone else and benefit without drawback and they will never do the same to you it would seem that the thing should be good in your mind.

I've just explained that and constantly asking, quite frankly, stupid picky little questions is neither big nor clever.

You have not answered that question. Your views are strictly Judeo-Christian but you try to back it up with a utilitarianism that you deny. The problem is that your utilitarian dogma falls flat on its face when faced with real moral choices. Again I ask you, why is something wrong if you know you can get away with it for your entire life?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"So your point was?

As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

But it is irrelevant because there is no evidence for such a position. It just puts a halt to debate because you want to claim a fantastical scenario to support your opinions. Utterly pointless really.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"It made an indelible impact on his scientific ventures. Unless you are saying that the physicist part of Newton would become an atheist but the other parts of him would remain a theist.

No, I'm saying quite clearly, that I believe that someone as clever as Newton, were he alive today, would probably be non religious. You still haven't explained the relevance of this 7 thing.

Atheism is still getting destroyed in the philosophical community. It cannot answer so many things. It has been having trouble since Chesterton took on Clarence Darrow in a debate and annihilated him. Have you ever wondered why there are seven notes? A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Not more nor less?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteWhy should I argue against something I don't claim, don't believe in? Get real man.

Because it is more rational to be a slave owner than not (if there is no system of value behind everything). Justify why you are not actively trying to turn society towards being more beneficial for your children in that form.

Because I don't think it is more rational to enslave others for reason repeatedly stated ... IOW I don't accept your logic that it is more rational to be a slave owner.

Less work with no real tax on your book. How about we do this, let us assume you are a slave owner and that society supports that. I will give reasons why you should continue to enslave them you try to give reasons why it is morally repulsive, based on atheism. Then we will do the same thing with Christianity and see which philosophy gives us the better answer.

Quote from: "Titan"Less work with no real tax on your book. How about we do this, let us assume you are a slave owner and that society supports that. I will give reasons why you should continue to enslave them you try to give reasons why it is morally repulsive, based on atheism. Then we will do the same thing with Christianity and see which philosophy gives us the better answer.

Not my argument, but that is loaded.   ;)

Titan, please stop! You are continously claiming formal knowledge about a subject, that you obviously know very little about!
You are going nowhere with your mindless jibberish:

Quote from: "Titan"Your views are strictly Judeo-Christian but you try to back it up with a utilitarianism that you deny. The problem is that your utilitarian dogma falls flat on its face when faced with real moral choices.

As I showed you and others in this thread, his views are strictly greek! This is a fact! Well established in the philosophical community, which you claim to know so well!

Quote from: "Titan"Again I ask you, why is something wrong if you know you can get away with it for your entire life?

What the f#$k are you babbling about??? I must ask again: Have you EVER read any atheist philosophers' workings on ethics?
Why are you stating this to be someone else's viewpoint, when it's really just your own?

Quote from: "Titan"As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.
But it is irrelevant because there is no evidence for such a position.

Actually, while researching for something else, I found out there is: In his early years Voltaire vrote a number of "fan" letters to Newton and Hume expressing great admiration in their work, and stating clearly that he felt sorry that he wouldn't be able to say such things in France, since he would most certainly be persecuted by the church for it! Furthermore when he got old, he explicitly vrote in a number of letters, that he was adamant that christian dogma should be replaced by philosophical enlightenment in schools. He also fought with the problem of evil all his life, without ever finding a solution he could agree with!

Again you're acting like you know, Titan...

Quote from: "Titan"Atheism is still getting destroyed in the philosophical community. It cannot answer so many things. It has been having trouble since Chesterton took on Clarence Darrow in a debate and annihilated him. Have you ever wondered why there are seven notes? A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Not more nor less?

STOP!!! You are claiming to know stuff that you don't!!! I'm not even gonna comment on this absurd idiocy except explain to you that there are actually 13 intervals on the note.scale - not 7.

Why can't you just stop making strawmen, and argue with something you actually know? Please... It's so much more interesting that way  

Believe it or not, I've actually read this entire thread over the last couple of days (I've been gone for awhile so this was quite interesting to come back to).

Titan, at first I was quite interested in what you had to say.  It seemed to me that you were intelligent and genuinely wanted to know about the different viewpoints of atheists.  Unfortunately, as this thread (and others) has continued ON and ON and ON, it has become quite apparent to me that what you are really trying to do is just another version of the same old theistic arguing that atheists have no morals or decency because we don't allow ourselves to be taken in by a larger-than-life supernatural being that only exists in the minds of you and others like you.  The fact that we actually think for ourselves seems to be the thing that most theists have the hardest time accepting.

Kyu and PipeBox (you guys are awesome!) and others have done what I consider to be an exemplary and extremely patient job of trying to explain to you the very things you continue to ask.  But you don't want to listen.  What you want to do is parse out little tiny irrelevant statements from entire paragraphs eloquently expounding on the views of atheists, and then nitpick them to death over and over and over again.  Then, after the seventh or eighth time of not getting the answer that you want, you just restate it in terms that you like.  Alternatively, you just ignore what you don't like.  This is especially noticeable regarding specific questions asked of you that you conveniently never answer.  Your tactic of asking other people to make many other threads about many other topics, however, is a new one that I haven't seen before, so I do commend you on that.

In an effort to finally give you a statement that you can take to the bank, let me state flatly and unequivocally that There is no such thing as a general, commonly held atheistic philosophy.  Period.  Please stop trying to shove a philosophy down our throats because WE DON'T HAVE ONE.

I have two final pieces of advice:  

1.  If you are truly interested in getting into the mind of an atheist to find out what makes us tick, just read the many wonderful and illuminating threads on this forum.  You can get quite an insight into the basics of atheism and freethought by just reading and absorbing what we have to say, and the kinds of things we talk about.

2.  Before you come back here to try to nitpick us to death, READ THE FRIKKIN BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER.  Believe it or not, most of us here have actually read the entire Bible, and know whereof we speak.  I don't think you do.  

And just for the record, yes, Richard Dawkins most decidedly has read every word of the Bible, and he definitely knows his Biblical history.  I would also suggest that you actually read The God Delusion.  That way you would know exactly what he said, and how he backed it up.  Then you could try to find your own arguments against him.  After all, didn't you say that Christians and Christian scientists are always questioning everything?  Here's a good place to start.

Lastly, I will not be drawn further into this discussion with you.  I am not one of the "nice" atheists around here.  I do not have the patience that some others have.  I find your arguments to be the basic standard fare we've all come to expect from theists.  That is to say, unintelligent, poorly researched, circular, and disingenuous.  You do dress them up a bit better than some, but you are unfortunately no different.

Carry on.

Faithless, you are like a breath of fresh air.  This is what I've felt about Titan from the very beginning:

Quote from: "Faithless"What you want to do is parse out little tiny irrelevant statements from entire paragraphs eloquently expounding on the views of atheists, and then nitpick them to death over and over and over again. Then, after the seventh or eighth time of not getting the answer that you want, you just restate it in terms that you like. Alternatively, you just ignore what you don't like. This is especially noticeable regarding specific questions asked of you that you conveniently never answer. Your tactic of asking other people to make many other threads about many other topics, however, is a new one that I haven't seen before, so I do commend you on that.

I fought that on another thread and finally gave up because no matter how many times I said the same thing, Titan would turn it all around so that my words no longer had any meaning.

Thank you for posting.  

Quote from: "Titan"I wanted those words because you will inevitably say that the Bible is immoral (which you already have) a proposition that even an atheist cannot hold on to.

The bible is a work of fiction as far as I'm concerned BUT it IS held up by some as a moral guide so therefore, in that context, it is entirely fair to state that it is immoral.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Why is any meaning we give to ourselves meaningless? Does not survival carry meaning? Does not the wish to see your children survive to adulthood and become useful to your society carry meaning? Does not art (literature, TV, movies, music) carry meaning? Does not wanting to be the best you can and wanting the best for others carry meaning? And if you say no I think Buddhist's might have something to say about that as well as the millions of atheists living meaningful and purposeful lives in the world today. I DO adopt someone else system of ethics (my social and cultural group and essentially my morality, my ethical system is unashamedly Judeo/Christian but without the god bit) I simply do not always agree with it and will oppose it if it makes no sense to me.

1. Why does survival carry meaning? You breath to keep on breathing and you call that meaningful?
2. Why does wishing to see your child survive to adulthood carry meaning? It doesn't benefit you in the slightest.

I hope you're not a parent, I really do. You genuinely can't understand why the wish to survive, to have your children survive you, might be meaningful?

Quote from: "Titan"3. Why do the arts carry meaning? They are only transitory representations of a transitory society which is part of a transitory race in a transitory universe.

Because they attempt to explain the world we live in through a lens filtered by poetry, beauty, fear, joy, love, hate, war, peace and more besides.

Quote from: "Titan"4. I do not doubt that there are many atheists who firmly believe that they have meaning. I am saying that they have no rational reason to believe that.

In which case I am going to ask you to prove why your cartoon caricature god gives your life meaning.
 

Quote from: "Titan"5. The problem you refuse to address with your own morality is that you recognize that they are societal. If they are societal then they will not last, if they will not last then why do you not desire to influence society to create a set of morals and ethics that benefit you more than anyone else?

And as I have repeatedly explained to you IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THEY HAVE PERMANENCY, WE TREAT THEM AS IF THEY DO!

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"In the 1820-'s Egypt conquered and ruled Sudan, Tyre still exists and Daniel also said "The stone became 'a great mountain' that 'filled the whole earth.' which could only be possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth. Indeed the truest thing Daniel ever said about his visions was that "no one could ever understand them" ... these kind of visions need radical interpretation so, unless you're going to come up with specifics, gimme a break with this prophecy garbage!

I completely disagree, let's look at a specific one concerning any of those three.

Of course you would since you refuse to acknowledge any problems with your bible ... fine pick one.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"And I am going to accept that someone learned English in one night without the aid of technology or hypnosis or whatever and with no proper testing conditions based on exactly what evidence? Your word? Yeah right.

So the woman was supposed to go to sleep not knowing the language with a person standing there measuring her brain (even though she had no idea this was supposed to occur) and go to sleep? Again, this isn't just my word, that is why I requested that you come to Indonesia, to meet these people. I don't think you should believe me, I want you to go to a country that has things like this occurring far more often then you realize. Can you arguably say, side track, that you hold no assumptions?

Meeting them would do no good, how would I tell if they were telling the truth? No, I would need a reference to a report in a reputable journal of science where it has the opportunity to be peer-reviewed but let's start with basics, how about an internet page to this whacky claim?

Of course I assume things, what I don't do is claim an assumption to be fact or base my philosophy on it.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Because I believe it is what the Creator of the universe desires and therefore I should follow. My value system isn't based on my desires, as you want to push me towards. Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you is flawed from an atheistic perspective because you aren't sure that they will do onto you as you would do onto them. Lying isn't that difficult. You could harm two people and get them to turn on each other rather than you. If you could do that would that be okay in your mind?

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"So why don't you (presumably) believe that genocide, slavery, rape and many other things beside are correct? They're all fine in the bible.

Again, I said please open this up in another forum because I can answer them. Essentially, rape is NEVER right. All life belongs to God, not to us, therefore he isn't committing an injustice by taking back what is his, he doesn't owe us anything. Slavery in the Bible was used as a form of debt repayment. If a family could not repay a loan they owed then they would become a slave for a temporary period in order to work off the debt. These things are quite easy to answer if you are willing to actually listen.

If you want to open this up elsewhere please do so ... I am not interested in taking this discussion elsewhere as it is entirely on topic IMO.

If rape is never right then your bible which portrays it as acceptable behaviour is CLEARLY wrong!

If slavery is wrong now and your bible portrays it as debt repayment then it is CLEARLY wrong now!

I am listening but all I am hearing is naïve and unsupportable rubbish coming back at me.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I've just explained that and constantly asking, quite frankly, stupid picky little questions is neither big nor clever.

You have not answered that question. Your views are strictly Judeo-Christian but you try to back it up with a utilitarianism that you deny. The problem is that your utilitarian dogma falls flat on its face when faced with real moral choices. Again I ask you, why is something wrong if you know you can get away with it for your entire life?

YES I HAVE!!!!!!!

I repeat, it is wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me, my family, my friends or my nation. In essence it's a rights based argument ... rights are not automatic and in order to "possess" certain rights one must grant those same rights to others, indeed I consider it my responsibility to do so.

If you can get away with it for your entire life then good luck to you but just because we can behave like animals DOES NOT mean we have to, DOES NOT mean we cannot aspire to being better and DOES NOT mean we cannot stop others from behaving in a fashion we consider to be unacceptable.

It DOES NOT require an ultimate moral arbiter to adopt that stance and it is not only not unreasonable to do so, morals (being a system of ethics that have evolved culturally to help societies function better) are efficient, they work.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

But it is irrelevant because there is no evidence for such a position. It just puts a halt to debate because you want to claim a fantastical scenario to support your opinions. Utterly pointless really.

I'm not claiming I have evidence, I made it absolutely clear it was my opinion.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"No, I'm saying quite clearly, that I believe that someone as clever as Newton, were he alive today, would probably be non religious. You still haven't explained the relevance of this 7 thing.

Atheism is still getting destroyed in the philosophical community. It cannot answer so many things. It has been having trouble since Chesterton took on Clarence Darrow in a debate and annihilated him. Have you ever wondered why there are seven notes? A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Not more nor less?

I sincerely doubt that atheism is being destroyed in the philosophical community and not only because it carries no philosophical implications but also because there are several well known atheist philosophers who are quite obviously not aware that there is such a problem for their views.  ... I would want far more evidence that your unsupported claim that this is so before accepting it.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Because I don't think it is more rational to enslave others for reason repeatedly stated ... IOW I don't accept your logic that it is more rational to be a slave owner.

Less work with no real tax on your book. How about we do this, let us assume you are a slave owner and that society supports that. I will give reasons why you should continue to enslave them you try to give reasons why it is morally repulsive, based on atheism. Then we will do the same thing with Christianity and see which philosophy gives us the better answer.

And I repeat that I don't accept that logic because I would not want my family or friends enslaved and I would implicitly have to accept that as OK if I did, because the morale of a free community is MUCH, MUCH better that that in an enslaved community (you can clearly see that in simple terms at work when employers step hard on their employees and rule them by fear. Happy, satisfied people, with goals, ambitions and good remuneration work harder, work better and are more loyal.

This isn't rocket science!

Kyu

Simple Question
why there is no morale in Atheism may there is but when i see
people talking about killing is allowed cos u're an atheist or stuff like that it freaks me out  :D  :D  :D  so tell me guys where ur rules come from.?? is it law cos if it's law mmm most of the main laws came from the ideas in frensh revolution or religion mostly?
so what u think :D

Humans forge rules. That's why they differ in different cultures. In truth, rules don't actually exist.

Atheism is nothing more than a disbelieve in God(s). Atheists are just as moral as theists, the only difference is that atheists leave the supernatural out of the equation. For the rest I see no major differences other than that religion occasionally forces people to do immoral or irrational things.

Atheists tend to come from theist societies. We may hold the same moral tenants as theists simply because we have been raised with the same norms, under the same system of law, etc., but we deny the existence of the creator of the, as an example, Ten Commandments that most Western societies' law is based around. It doesn't change the fact that some of those laws are good.

Check out the Humanist Manifesto (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html) for more.

[spoiler:3srylo9p]FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

    SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

    THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

    FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

    FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

    SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

    SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation â€" all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

    EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

    NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

    TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

    ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

    TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

    THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

    FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

    FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.[/spoiler:3srylo9p]

Quote from: "Tom62"Atheists are just as moral as theists, the only difference is that atheists leave the supernatural out of the equation.

I think i disagree with that point. A theist ( if they are to be beleived ) only follows the commandments in order to get a free pass into heaven, where an atheist behaves in a civil manner through having an empathetic view of other people. In my view, this makes the theist in question "less morale" than our subject atheist.

My morals just follow "treat others as you wish to be treated", can't really go too far wrong with that.

Human beings are born with empathy because we are social animals.  Even babies will start crying if another child starts crying.  We feel love so we act from love and empathy sometimes.  My thoughts on the matter of where our morality comes from can be found in the link in my signature.

Personally I'd say that this is based on a false assumption i.e. that there is an ultimate arbiter for what is right and wrong. That's where that question always seems to proceed from, yet if there is no such arbiter then it can't be right and we (science and/or psychologists) need to find another explanation.

It's also worth noting that many observation of animal groups shows distinct behaviours implying there are hierarchies and rules and acceptable/non-acceptable behaviours ... if that is not enough to demonstrate that we have the same only more sophisticated I don't know what is.

Ultimately of course we can also take the tack that yes, it may well imply barnyard behaviour (a favourite theist contention) but there is absolutely no reason to engage in such behaviour if it makes no sense and if we wish to aspire to better.

Kyu

Atheism has no rules or guidelines because it's a personal life philosophy as opposed to mass brainwashing which is organised religion. Atheism being what it is, too little unites the atheists for them to need a common set of rules.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Atheism has no rules or guidelines because it's a personal life philosophy as opposed to mass brainwashing which is organised religion. Atheism being what it is, too little unites the atheists for them to need a common set of rules.

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

Kyu

Humanity comes up with and has come up with morals for our own benefit.

really when askin what rules/morals atheists have is the same thing as asking what rules/morals a-bigfootists have.

Quote from: "MariaEvri"really when askin what rules/morals atheists have is the same thing as asking what rules/morals a-bigfootists have.

Or asking what rules a spelunker has.

Quote from: "MariaEvri"really when askin what rules/morals atheists have is the same thing as asking what rules/morals a-bigfootists have.

yea i know even though it's a simple Question but simples ones makes the base for what we are through  :D

but i guess it's pretty important question and sounds silly  :)
any way thanx to every one who participated in this subject . ur  opinions  were much useful  as always  :beer:

Quote from: "chuff"Humanity comes up with and has come up with morals for our own benefit.

Yes, morals are ethics based ideas that have socially evolved to make society work better.

Kyu

The GOLDEN RULE: "Those who have the gold, get shot."  

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"The GOLDEN RULE: "Those who have the gold, get shot."  :pop:  :pop:  

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "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..?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "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

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.

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).

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.

Quote from: "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.

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

"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.

Quote from: "AnnaM"

Quote from: "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.

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

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

Quotelol, 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.

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

Quote from: "AnnaM"

Quotelol, 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.

If you are using  your friends for yourself, as you put it, do you permit them to use you?

Quote from: "Wraitchel"

Quote from: "AnnaM"

Quotelol, 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.

If you are using  your friends for yourself, as you put it, do you permit them to use you?

Friendship, even in the very logical, reasoned sense, is a give and take.

Of course AnnaM permits them to use her, if the uses are reasonable, so that she maintains the friendship to use them again in the future.  Note I am using the word "use" in the least cold way possible.  I mean everything from being given humorous jokes by friends, to bumming 5 dollars off them, to asking them to be god parents (guide parents, if you prefer).  Obviously the friends you rely on for some things will no longer count you a friend if you offer them nothing in return, so obviously AnnaM returns favors and has a sense of reciprocity, which I suspect falls under those ethical virtues.

I'd like to say that I really liked AnnaM's first post in this thread, and that I wholeheartedly agree, despite the fact that I've debated morality many times.  Morality is subjective, and always concerns how one individual feels about a given situation.  As such, it is a useless and superfluous concept, as the statement "It feels wrong," holds the same value as "It strikes me as morally wrong."  Morality is nothing but the feelings + knowledge of an individual, if that much, and it holds little comparison to the principles that have allowed our survival as a species and our personal success up to this point.

I have often wondered if I am a moral person. If I am, I think I am a moral relativist. My objection to morality is that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are not real. They exist only in models of moral or virtuous human behavior. Yet people treat them as real things. And generally someone else (like the pope) wants to define them for me!

What I do know is that I make various trade-offs when deciding whether an action will have a good or bad effect on me and other people. I'm willing to call that morality so long as I can choose what "right" and "wrong" mean (if they mean anything to me). I also claim "virtue".

That accepted, as I see it, my morality is primarily a kind of consequentialism. That is I think the consequences of an action rather than the character of an action (for example the intent) or the character of the person acting (for example their virtue) form the best basis for judgment of an action. Although sometimes I do take intent into account as well, for example when deciding to forgive.

Virtue may be a reasonable way of attaining morality but I don't think a person's virtue is useful for judging their actions. Once they've carried out an action it's too late. Virtue had its chance. Now the action can only be judged through consequences and possibly intent.

I like consequentialism because consequences can often be quantified or are at least quantifiable whereas although I know my own intent, I can never be sure of the intent of others and they can never be sure of mine.

This is a model for how I judge actions. For each person concerned, I think I rate the consequences against the elements of an index (this is a model - I don't consciously do these calculations). It is something like the one below.

causes death?
improves health?
improves emotional wellbeing?
improves intellectual wealth?
improves material wealth?

Desirable effects become positive, undesirable ones become negative. The elements of the index are in order of importance with life being the most important. Some are easier to quantify than others but I think they are all quantifiable. Emotional wellbeing is a hard one but it's not impossible. Psychiatrists have tests for various kinds of emotional wellbeing. So it is at least quantifiable. I think it's interesting that my morality is based around quantifiable things. A religious person might be trying to please God. But they can't measure how many God-points they're getting.

Then I weight the elements of the index according to their importance and the result is positive (desirable) or negative (undesirable). Obviously I don't do an arithmetic calculation in my head, at least not consciously. And the index does not have units or a scale. This is just the best way I can describe what I think I do.

When several people are involved in an action, I weight them individually. I get the most weight. My friends and family get a higher weight than strangers. Animals get some weight depending on how much I empathize with them, although some of the elements of the index are not relevant to animals like intellectual and material wealth. I do not consider any other living things like trees. Sometimes I will assign a person a negative weight (in order to cause them harm).

Another interesting thing I think I do is I reduce the weights when I am considering taking no action as opposed to taking an action. For example, I may decide to let someone I don't like fall in a pond but I won't push them. I wonder what else affects the weighting?

So getting back to whether I accept the terms "right" and "wrong", I think I can now say almost but not quite, and only if I am allowed to choose what they mean. If the overall outcome is significantly positive, I can call the action "right". If it is significantly negative, I can call the action "wrong".

It doesn't really work when I am trying to harm people though. Then my desired (harmful) outcome gets a positive result. It would be a perversion of the word "right" to describe a harmful outcome as "right". So I don't think I have any use for the words "right" and "wrong" at the moment.

I should also say that this is just an approximation of what I think is going on in my head. And I expect my morality to adapt as it encounters new situations.

If I had to come up with some virtues for myself, these sound about right. A nice thing about defining your own morality is you can choose virtues that already describe you Also, not all of these virtues relate to morality.

honesty (makes true statements)
integrity (does what they say they will do)
fairness (actions affect others equally)
empathy (understands state of others)
altruism (actions help other people, possibly at personal cost)
forgiveness (deals out punishments lesser in degree to wrongful act)
tolerance (allows others to do distasteful things)
respect (does not do things that others dislike - basically the golden rule)
wisdom (possesses useful knowledge)
reason (makes decisions and acts in a rational way)
tenacity (sticks to chosen goals)
industriousness (works hard to achieve goals)
competence (able to achieve goals)

Why have virtues? Maybe I don't need them but it seems to save reinventing myself every time I have to make a decision. Some, like empathy, are also probably hard-wired.



As an atheist, do you accept morality?

If so, how do you judge an action?

I suppose an atheist could deliberately adopt a morality from a religion like Christianity?

Or you could inherit one from previous religious belief?

Or you might have picked up morality just through exposure to other people's? I think that's probably how I got mine. I've never been religious.

Or you could invent one from scratch or at least modify an inherited one?

Has anyone else tried to write down how they think their morality works?

What would you choose as atheist virtues if any?

I've always believed in the Eight Virtues, personally.  But that may be because I'm such a huge Ultima fan!

Basically, it is an ethical code that takes three principles (Truth, Love and Courage) and balances them through judgment and experience.  Always adhere to one so long as it doesn't negate another.  For instance, always tell the truth, until that truth can cause more damage than good (whereby not telling the truth would promote love for others by withholding damaging truths, and the courage to stick by your convictions).  It is pretty simplistic, I'm sure, but I don't think basic human ethicality needs a lot of over-analysis.  If you strive to be a good person, your actions will reflect that more frequently than not.

But I say good for you, I'm tired of hearing from these atheists that give no meaning to anything whatsoever.  I know there has to be more atheists like me that think it is worthwhile to give meaning to these things, even if not done so by a divine force.  No matter how simple or complex your belief is, it is yours and that is all that matters.

I think in terms of rules of behavior.  I don't make up the rules for each situation, I've adopted rules I've seen in action and agree with and I've invented a few of my own.  Many of these rules are based off of consequences but some are based off of personal values.  

For me, love and empathy are my major driving forces regarding moral judgments.  Is an action compassionate?  Is it of harm to anyone?  

Eh, I'll give more of an answer later, I'm hurting too much to think straight at the moment.

QuoteI've always believed in the Eight Virtues, personally. But that may be because I'm such a huge Ultima fan!

Wow your morality is based on a video game? That blows me away. I make video games for a living and while I've never made a game like Ultima I never realized people might base their morality on it. Jeez. I have to rethink some things...

QuoteI think in terms of rules of behavior. I don't make up the rules for each situation, I've adopted rules I've seen in action and agree with and I've invented a few of my own. Many of these rules are based off of consequences but some are based off of personal values.

For me, love and empathy are my major driving forces regarding moral judgments. Is an action compassionate? Is it of harm to anyone?

Eh, I'll give more of an answer later, I'm hurting too much to think straight at the moment.

That is very much as I thought until I decided to figure out what my morality really was to me and write it down. It's interesting. I challenge you!

The rules don't apply to me.  

I don't live by "morals" either, since I see morals as an action to be applied in every situation. However each situation life throws at you is unique and needs to be solved when it is introduced. To lock into a mentality that says something is always wrong is mental slavery.

Quote from: "AlP"Wow your morality is based on a video game? That blows me away. I make video games for a living and while I've never made a game like Ultima I never realized people might base their morality on it. Jeez. I have to rethink some things...

At the time I played Ultima 4/5, which is when the virtues were introduced, I was at a very impressionable age.  And since the virtues made far more sense to me than a bunch of arbitrary rules invented by an invisible figurehead, I chose to adopt them.  Such a shame EA went and destroyed one of the greatest RPG franchises of all time...

First let me say, if Moses was a real person, there was a reason it took him 40 days to come back down from the mountain. He was desperately trying to create a social contract he figured would be beneficial to everyone gathered on the desert floor below waiting for guidance. Then he employed the whole burning bush thing to give it the authority to stick.

Why start a discussion of morality this way? All morality to me, regardless of its inception, is a simple attempt at perfecting a social contract. The commandments, the constitution, UN charter, magna carta, etc.

For those who prefer a personal moral or ethical code, I would ask, if everyone adopted your code would your society be genuinely workable? Answer honestly. If so, go for it.

My morality is based on three simple notions. Is it true? Is it real? Will it harm others or myself physically, intellectually or emotionally? If I get a yes to the first two and a no to the last one, it's a good decision. Do I regularly fail my own three point test? Yep. And it usually ends badly.

Nice topic!

Jim

Hey AlP, I like this morality post -- plenty to think about.

My basic feeling is similar to yours in that I think consequentialism makes the most sense, although I certainly do think it is important to take intent into account.  For example,

Quote from: "AlP"It doesn't really work when I am trying to harm people though. Then my desired (harmful) outcome gets a positive result. It would be a perversion of the word "right" to describe a harmful outcome as "right". So I don't think I have any use for the words "right" and "wrong" at the moment.

I think your system still works fine, it's just that intent becomes important here.  Why are you trying to harm another person?  If you have a justifiable reason for causing the harm you're contemplating, then no problem.  If a guy is asking you for your bank account number because he is trying to steal from you, then I think lying to him is certainly justifiable.  Are you harming others by lying?  Maybe, but if they're trying to harm you, you have the right to defend yourself, don't you?  Or, what if somebody is trying to release poison into a water supply, killing everybody for miles around indiscriminately?  Isn't it okay to kill that person to stop them?  Isn't it "right" to do so?  I guess I'm just totally okay with saying that an outcome that may be harmful to one particular person (or a whole category of people) isn't necessarily wrong, and could certainly be right, without perverting any terms.

Regarding virtues, I've got issues with them.  They're only "good" in particular circumstances for particular reasons.  If some internet psycho starts hunting down avowed atheists and killing them, and asks you "Hey, where does that SteveS dude live so I can go kill him?", and you know the answer and tell it to him, I would certainly not consider your "virtue of honestly" to be very "good" in this circumstance.  In fact, even if you took me, personally, out of the equation I'd still feel the same (i.e. if they asked, "where does John Generic Smith the atheist live?" - doesn't matter, my feeling would be the same, it just wouldn't distress me quite as much ).

I'll try and list the criticisms of each.

Secular issues with religious morality:
1) The profit/guru/high supreme priest/whatever essentially determines what is moral. This gives him absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He can use this power to make people do pretty much anything and still believe that it is right. He can justify genocide.
2) The focus is doing God's will, and not doing what is right. Would you stand up to a corrupt God? How can you claim to know what God's will actually is?
3) It forces its moral system on other cultures: For example, Proposition 8 in California.
4) It has a bad track record. There is even a discussion on this islamic forum about [url="http] which is worse: Christian child-beating or Muslim wife-beating.
[/URL]//why%20doesn't%20link%20work
Religious issues with secular morality:
1) The individual/society/culture/whatever determines what is moral. They may be fallible, and furthermore, how dare they claim to be able to make such judgments as should be left to God?
2) There is no sin, so even if something is against God's will, it may not be considered wrong.
3) There is less of a sense of guidance. Without God's help, you have to decide what is right on your own. What if you decide wrongly?
4) There is a notably corrupt non-religious leader in history: Joseph Stalin.


If you think my list is incomplete or biased, please feel free to make your own list or add to this one.

I would have to think some more to add anything to your list. I found the religious criticisms of secular morality list interesting. I have never considered any of the items on the list. My current model of religious moral thought goes something along the lines of "do whatever I'm told by my true religion". Were you religious at some point?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"//why%20doesn't%20link%20work

Don't put quotes around the web address... I made the same mistake.  

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"//why%20doesn't%20link%20work

Don't put quotes around the web address... I made the same mistake.  

I tried it without the quotes first, before I remembered that the standard code uses quotes.

Quote from: "AlP"I would have to think some more to add anything to your list. I found the religious criticisms of secular morality list interesting. I have never considered any of the items on the list.

Those are the criticisms I have encountered that were actually more than "Yer a SLAVE of SATAN, ya dogs!~!"

Atheists are immoral. We explain clearly here
www.conservapedia.com/Atheism (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism)

Anyone who disagrees is free to attempt to rebut the article.

It's ok. I love you, kendoll.  

Welcome, Kendoll. I admire your courage to post your message on a forum, that is obviously run by child molesters, mass murders and devil worshipers. Hopefully they won't give you the "Evil Eye". I wish you all the luck in the world to find someone here, who can refute that excellent article in Conversapedia. Anyway, I've got  to go now. There are still a couple of churches in my town that need to be burned down; some Christian ladies to rape and babies to kill .

Quote from: "kendoll"Atheists are immoral. We explain clearly here
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism)

Anyone who disagrees is free to attempt to rebut the article.

Why don't you simply engage in one on one conversation instead of spamming the forum with links to sites that are less-than-credible?

Read the forum rules and feel free to debate directly with anyone here.

I see that someone has a lot of idle time....you know what they say about that.

Quote from: "kendoll"Atheists are immoral. We explain clearly here
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism)

Anyone who disagrees is free to attempt to rebut the article.

LOL, as if conservapedia is some bastion of philosophical and scientific knowledge.

Page won't even load for me. Was there not a thread on here a while ago where we had a hearty guffaw at the expense of the uneducated buffoons who inhabit that palce? I suppose that only lends credence to their immorality argument?

Quote from: "SSY"Page won't even load for me. Was there not a thread on here a while ago where we had a hearty guffaw at the expense of the uneducated buffoons who inhabit that palce? I suppose that only lends credence to their immorality argument?

Same here.  I guess the word of God is no match for a bad host server.

It worked for me, I have to say, this site is so incredibly ridiculous my sides hurt from laughter. Especially the title on their logo: Conservapedia, the Trustworthy Encyclopedia.

So does kendoll share an IP with skipdogs?

Quote from: "Kylyssa"So does kendoll share an IP with skipdogs?

No IP match on this forum.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi129.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp222%2Fthe_x-phile%2FObviousTroll.jpg&hash=50dc209d34039c3f34794c8e38356f2ab382c3c3)

I'm starting this because I dont really like the other thread we are using to discuss this's title.  

So, here are my last few posts in that thread:

Quote from: "templeboy"I think I am trying to get at is that a moral system should be judged on what its effects would be if it was followed widely...how can this be an objectionable principle?

This is kinda the ends justify the means isn't it?  You do realize that "judging on what its effects would be" is basically impossible to do without an objective set of goals that everyone agrees are "good" or "correct" (or if your basing it on theism, that a God says are 'good' or 'holy'). Its like asking me "How tall are you" when everyone has their own opinion on how long one inch is. If you dont have a unified unit to judge something it doesn't work.

Do you really look at the Nazi ethical system and think that although their ethical system was different from ours, it was equally as acceptable as everything is relativistic? And if you dont, doesn't it then boil down to a "my opinion against yours" dispute?  What makes your opinion more "good" than Hitlers? is it that more people support you right now? If that's the case, that's exactly why I moved my before mentioned scenario into the past where slavery was the norm.

Quote from: "templeboy"No I am saying nothing like this. If the individuals goals are outweighing the larger groups goals, then that is not humanism, it is individualism...it is ethical egoism....the attitudes of whites towards non-whites two hundred years ago fail to the humanist principle not because we should treat all humans the same, but because there is no rational or empirical basis why black people should be treated differently to white people

My apologies I wasn't trying to infer that what I was saying was humanism, I was only attempting to show you the logic you were using to support Humanism works equally as well supporting black inferiority back a couple hundred of years.

Quote from: "templeboy"Yeah of course...it would be fair to say that the universe has a ethical nihilist view towards us

But if we accept this, why don't we accept ethical nihilistic views of morality, as non-theistic-ly speaking they are absolutely the most logical.  Even superior to ethical egoism.. and here's why!

----------------------------------------------(gotta love transition sentences... ahh the academic system how I despise you!)

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't think ethical nihilism makes much practical sense as there would be no reason to care about how you treat others.  I think one thing people often forget about philosophy is that even if an argument is logically sound it must still fit reality.  I think something like ethical egoism would be appealing to most who accept ethical nihilism yet doesn't ignore the fact that humans do have a survival need to act morally.

From my understanding of ethical egoism rather than there being prescriptive morals one simply might act in a manner that benefits their neighbor knowing that doing so also benefits the self.  It's kinda like an explanation of what some have described happening with social contract theory without all the duty to society bs.

Ethical egoism can lead to anarchy or a view of do whatever you want, however I don't think going to that extreme is logically necessary or sound and is the result of not fully understanding the repercussions of actions nor the human need to depend on others for survival.

Ethical egoism may be more tolerable than nihilism, however it seems rather silly when you really think about it.  One should act morally because one needs to act morally to survive (even though what "morally" means is still about as clear as that pesky "should")?  I do agree that there is a slight possibility that this is what happened in the past, and possibly why morals exist, but in the modern day you can be the most despicably horrible person and survive equally as easily as a saint.  I'm not exactly sure how ethical egoism really applies anymore.  We as a society keep the most unfit of us alive, basically a gigantic F- you to natural selection, so we pretty much have thrown off the "survival of the fittest" idea for a "survival of any human" type mindset.  Throwing away survival of the fittest and ethical egoism doesn't make sense.

Personally ethical egoism seems more of a how morals developed, rather than an explanation of why one should act morally.

-Ihateusernames

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"but in the modern day you can be the most despicably horrible person and survive equally as easily as a saint.

I think you are forgetting that survival and the purpose of morality is more than just about food, clothing, shelter....it's about being able to get along with other people so that you can exist comfortably.  I guess I should have spelled out what I meant by survival and said "survive comfortably" or something like that.

I also don't get why things like "should" and "ought" are a problem for you.  If a person wants to survive comfortably then they ought to want to act morally so that they will get the support of society.  What's wrong with "ought"?  If they want to be miserable and have no friends they can be immoral all they want and face the consequences.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"but in the modern day you can be the most despicably horrible person and survive equally as easily as a saint.

I think you are forgetting that survival and the purpose of morality is more than just about food, clothing, shelter....it's about being able to get along with other people so that you can exist comfortably.  I guess I should have spelled out what I meant by survival and said "survive comfortably" or something like that.

I also don't get why things like "should" and "ought" are a problem for you.  If a person wants to survive comfortably then they ought to want to act morally so that they will get the support of society.  What's wrong with "ought"?  If they want to be miserable and have no friends they can be immoral all they want and face the consequences.

I disagree with the assumption that the more moral you are the more comfortable you are.

Lets assume there are two millionaires, being born into money they are both quite used to having money. Neither has held a job in their life, nor gone to anything other than the mandatory couple years of high school.  Now lets assume one gets it into their head to give all their money to shelters for battered women, while the other is selfish and doesn't share the money with anyone. Wouldn't you generally consider the one who gave away all the money more moral than the one who is stingy?  The end result of this is that the stingy person has money, creature comforts, and most probably the more comfortable life and the moral one has nothing, absolutely nothing, and most likely is in a state of extreme discomfort, possibly forever.

Now we could argue that the 'moral' one in this story will result in friends, grateful people... etc.  However that does not necessarily lead from the scenario.  It may be that they are thanked once, then forgotten about and live the rest of their life flipping burgers because they have no education or money, and thus extremely uncomfortable.  

Anyway this is just a long winded way of saying that the assumption that morality lead to comfort is a non-sequitur.  In fact I can think of a lot of ways that immorality would lead to a more enjoyable life. I'll just give one example.  Lets say you are married, but have to spend a good amount of time traveling for work.  Lets say I end up sleeping with your significant other every night you are not at home.  Lets say this goes on for 40 years, then you die, and you never found out, or had an inkling that I was doin' your special someone repeatedly and we both were enjoying it greatly.  I'd say we would generally consider this immoral, but accepting the assumption that you never find out doesn't this immorality end up making my life and your significant other's life much more exciting, enjoyable, and thus 'comfortable'?

Again, you may argue that this scenario can not ever possibly happen in the real world, however even though it may be extremely unlikely I think it is quite possible.

Also, words like "should" and "ought" imply there is a 'good' and 'moral' way that is more than just personal opinion (Ie objective vs subjective), assuming you want to condemn actions like the holocaust as more than a subjective "I think they shouldn't have done it, however they thought they should, so I can't really blame them because its a personal opinion vs personal opinion." Words like 'should' and 'ought' have to be objective--something most difficult to base non-theistic-ly.  

If you can explain what actually makes my opinion that Jews are valuable people better than a Nazi's opinion instead of just different I would be forever indebted to you.

-Ihateusernames

You are trying to apply prescriptive morals to ethical egoism...it doesn't work that way.    The whole idea is just that you act in you own self interest and through doing so will choose to do things that mutually benefit society.  Donating all of your money to some charity would be silly and not on one's best interest.  Being a complete jerk would lead to a life of no friend..fine if it floats your boat but isn't going to be acceptable for most humans.  SInce you can't know if you will get caught or not, cheating on your spouse is not in your own self interest....it doesn't matter if you are sucessful at cheating or not.  I'm not talking about what is moral based on outcome, I am talking about what is moral based on desired intent.  Determining morals based on outcome is problematic because then someone could trip over their shoe lace fall over and knock out a bad guy and that would be considered a moral action.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not talking about what is moral based on outcome, I am talking about what is moral based on desired intent.  

Fine, fine, another scenario then.   I'm a paranoid person, and I feel you are trying to kill me, as well as the rest of my family.  It honestly doesn't matter if its based on fact or fiction, that is how I feel.  taking your assumptions of desired intent, doesn't it mean that if I preemptively walk over to your house and murder you I did the 'moral' thing because my desired intent was saving me and my family's life by stopping you from killing us?   I mean if its in self defense, its not wrong to kill is it?

I think placing the emphasis on desired intent is equality as silly as placing it on the outcome.

Also, if a moral system isn't prescriptive, then its kinda just observation and useless to the discuss of what is 'right' and 'wrong' isn't it? Ethical egoism is just a personal choice on how to live life based on ethical nihilistic thought, its statements are as valid as Christianity if ethical nihilism is correct.

-Ihateusernames

If someone is insane then they are unable to make informed moral choices so it doesn't matter.

I'm getting the feeling that you think in order for a moral theory to be correct that it has to be perfect in even the most extreme of situations.  If morals really are just an evolved survival tool then we shouldn't expect any more perfection from morality than we do our own bodies.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Also, words like "should" and "ought" imply there is a 'good' and 'moral' way that is more than just personal opinion (Ie objective vs subjective),

When acting morally, why would one's actions be limited to those things that one "should" do? "Should", when used without any additional qualification, really needs some kind of authority to have any meaning. If you don't believe there is an appropriate authority then "should" doesn't become impossible to justify objectively; it becomes meaningless. Ditto "right" and "wrong". They can still be applied to law of course, because there we can agree on an authority or suffer the consequences, or in other words, deliberately commit the fallacy of appealing to prudence.

Quote from: "Whitney"If someone is insane then they are unable to make informed moral choices so it doesn't matter.

I'm getting the feeling that you think in order for a moral theory to be correct that it has to be perfect in even the most extreme of situations.  If morals really are just an evolved survival tool then we shouldn't expect any more perfection from morality than we do our own bodies.

I'd say its rather obvious that to be correct a system has to be perfect in even the most extreme of situations. If it doesn't work in extremes its a pretty dang fallacious system. You disagree with that?  However if you want to say that the system is purely from evolution, and thus not perfect, nor should we expect it to be, its not much of a 'system' is it.  More of an observation about a random happening.

What I'm getting at is if morals are merely product of evolution, now that we have the mental ability to override our animalistic instincts and the instance strikes that we desire to do something 'immoral' like legally exploit people there is really no philosophic reason not to. Maybe an emotional reason not to, but emotions are trainable.

Like you have said before, though, if a sound argument doesn't fit reality it throws up red flags, and nihilism throws up red flags to me.  Red flags, however, are not a reason for why it is wrong, or what might replace it.

-ihateusernames

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Also, words like "should" and "ought" imply there is a 'good' and 'moral' way that is more than just personal opinion (Ie objective vs subjective),

When acting morally, why would one's actions be limited to those things that one "should" do? "Should", when used without any additional qualification, really needs some kind of authority to have any meaning. If you don't believe there is an appropriate authority then "should" doesn't become impossible to justify objectively; it becomes meaningless. Ditto "right" and "wrong". They can still be applied to law of course, because there we can agree on an authority or suffer the consequences, or in other words, deliberately commit the fallacy of appealing to prudence.

Well, fine.  It means nothing.  The difference between being 'Impossible to justify' and having 'no meaning' seem like mincing words to me, but I agree with you.

Doesn't the phrase "when acting morally" inherently call for an option of "should"? The morally correct action always should be followed. When thinking about murdering someone or not murdering someone, the moral person should not murder.  I think to even say "When acting morally" you have to admit that the only options are limited to should, and should not.  Now I agree one's actions are not completely limited to those things that 'should' be done, but when deviating from the 'should' the person also deviates from the state of "acting morally".

I also agree with the law aspect of your post.  It is deliberately committing the fallacy of appealing to prudence, however enough people do it giving it enough strength that I follow along with them.  

-Ihateusernames

QuoteThis is kinda the ends justify the means isn't it? You do realize that "judging on what its effects would be" is basically impossible to do without an objective set of goals that everyone agrees are "good" or "correct" (or if your basing it on theism, that a God says are 'good' or 'holy'). Its like asking me "How tall are you" when everyone has their own opinion on how long one inch is. If you dont have a unified unit to judge something it doesn't work.

I'm only OK to say "the ends justify the means" only if the means are accepted as part of the ends...when we judge an action we do not just judge it on whether it achieves its goals, but also on what the collateral consequences...I'm not sure what your getting at after that...you are saying that it is impossible to quantify somethings goodness? OK, I follow and agree with that, and there is diversity of opinion on what is "good or correct," but surely there is also sufficient consensus that it is quite possible to make headway in improving society? Imperfection and inconsistency of ideology need not be an impediment to improvement.

QuoteDo you really look at the Nazi ethical system and think that although their ethical system was different from ours, it was equally as acceptable as everything is relativistic? And if you dont, doesn't it then boil down to a "my opinion against yours" dispute? What makes your opinion more "good" than Hitlers? is it that more people support you right now? If that's the case, that's exactly why I moved my before mentioned scenario into the past where slavery was the norm.

No way, I am not a moral relativist. There was something inherently flawed about the nazi version of ethics; it was based on unsound principles of racial superiority, on resentment and disaffection, on a bastardization of both darwinism and theology, on the lust for power and the dehumanisation of those who did not meet certain "ideals" of the human state.

QuoteEthical egoism may be more tolerable than nihilism, however it seems rather silly when you really think about it. One should act morally because one needs to act morally to survive (even though what "morally" means is still about as clear as that pesky "should")? I do agree that there is a slight possibility that this is what happened in the past, and possibly why morals exist, but in the modern day you can be the most despicably horrible person and survive equally as easily as a saint. I'm not exactly sure how ethical egoism really applies anymore. We as a society keep the most unfit of us alive, basically a gigantic F- you to natural selection, so we pretty much have thrown off the "survival of the fittest" idea for a "survival of any human" type mindset. Throwing away survival of the fittest and ethical egoism doesn't make sense.

Personally ethical egoism seems more of a how morals developed, rather than an explanation of why one should act morally.

-Ihateusernames

A clarification: I studied ethics at university this year, and learned that there is a difference between "ethical egoism" which is a moral theory suggesting that we should seek to act in our own self-interest for a variety of reasons, and as I am sure you can imagine there are plenty of objections. But you and Whitney seem to be talking about something more like what is termed "psychological egoism" which is not a moral theory but a phycological, anthropological idea which suggests that all our actions are ultimately and unavoidably made out of self interest; even the most seemingly altruistic action is ultimately made out of self-interest.

For the record, I subscribe to neither idea, although I find the latter a scary and haunting idea.



But my point about the universe being an ethical nihilist universe was that morality is not a universal property; it is only a property of creatures capable of fear, pleasure, desire and so on...and arguably even only those which are sentient, cultural, forward-thinking such as humans. That does not mean morality is relative , although I might suggest that a hypothetical species which has no sense of pain or suffering or fear would have different moral laws resulting from the different nature of the creatues; I cannot see how this could be applicable to different human cultures.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Well, fine.  It means nothing.  The difference between being 'Impossible to justify' and having 'no meaning' seem like mincing words to me, but I agree with you.

I worry about these things!

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Doesn't the phrase "when acting morally" inherently call for an option of "should"? The morally correct action always should be followed.

I think morality, in the general sense, is simply a code of conduct. It comes from the Latin "mores" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores), which means "norms", "customs", "virtues" or "values" according to Wikipedia.

I think "should" used without any qualification, implicit or explicit is meaningless. Appeal to prudence is sufficient qualification to make it meaningful: "you should not throw a loud party late at night if you don't want a visit from the police". You aren't doing things because they're right or wrong, you're doing them to get something or avoid something.

But that's a cynical morality. For me, it's a morality of last resort. My pride is my primary moral guide. I want what I do to be something I am proud of. When I'm gone, what I have done will be my only mark. The aesthetics come first.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"When thinking about murdering someone or not murdering someone, the moral person should not murder.  I think to even say "When acting morally" you have to admit that the only options are limited to should, and should not.  Now I agree one's actions are not completely limited to those things that 'should' be done, but when deviating from the 'should' the person also deviates from the state of "acting morally".

That would be black and white thinking. There are many courses of action. The broader question is more like "what now?" (which is meaningful) than "should I?" (which is not). One course of action would be to analyze why one is so greedy as to be seriously contemplating murdering someone. And if that doesn't work out then there's always the appeal to prudence.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I'd say its rather obvious that to be correct a system has to be perfect in even the most extreme of situations. If it doesn't work in extremes its a pretty dang fallacious system. You disagree with that?  However if you want to say that the system is purely from evolution, and thus not perfect, nor should we expect it to be, its not much of a 'system' is it.  More of an observation about a random happening.

When a system has evolved to work in general then there is no reason to expect it to work in extremes.  For instance, most kids can learn in a normal classroom setting yet their are exceptions where kids either need more help or more challenging work...does that mean the classroom system is wrong (we are assuming a good teacher)?  No, it just means that it doesn't work for all cases.

Aside from maybe math; nothing about this world is perfect.  I it doesn't make any sense to expect an understanding of why morality exists and why one ought to want to act morally should be perfect in so far as it can cover every crazy idea you can come up with.

Crap I just realized my current signature is relevant to this discussion.

Quote from: "Albert Camus"From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. It is not the world that is absurd, nor human thought: the absurd arises when the human need to understand meets the unreasonableness of the world, when my appetite for the absolute and for unity meets the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle.

Or in other words, this project of building a deductive argument for morality based on a foundation that amounts to nothing is absurd. It's impossible but we'll try anyway. We'll feel angst because we can't. Camus said it better.

I hate user names, if it'll make you feel better, you could always consider what I now have as a signature. I'll quote it for you:

QuoteThe best thing to do is reflect, understand, apreciate, and consider.

Don't expect to find a deductive argument for it, but if you can use it, feel free.  

Well said Renegnicat.

This just happened. A couple of hours ago I went out for a smoke. I smoke in different places but often on the steps of a church a block from me. I met Kate. Kate is beautiful. She was wearing a dress that let me see a lot of Kate. Kate asked me for a smoke. I warned her that they were menthols but she still wanted one. I realized as I tried to light her cigarette that she was very drunk. The first cigarette she tried to light backwards, meaning the filter end not in her mouth. The second time she extinguished the lighter. The third time she managed to light it.

Kate is a nurse. That was the third coherent sentence I got from her after her request for a cigarette and her name. Then she staggered close to me and indicated a desire to go home. She didn't specify who's home and damn she felt good. It turns out she'd been at a party and that she lives on my block. I half walked and half carried her in that direction. She seemed to like the contact and tried, drunkenly, to flirt with me.

I think I'll never know Kate because she was so drunk I doubt she'll ever remember. She got home safely. Her roommates were initially suspicious of me but eventually realized I was simply bringing her home. Tomorrow, I expect she will regret what lead to the hangover. But she won't regret what she did with me, if she even remembers.

So getting back on topic, we could look at this as "should" or "should not". I think she would have willingly had sex with me. So should I have had sex with her? I wanted to. I don't think I would have done anything wrong by the prevailing moral rules of society. But this misses a bigger picture. I want to do things that I will be proud of, things that people can look at and see that I have undeniably and objectively done. It's easy to do what you want but being what you want is the project of a lifetime.

Sorry about the lag in a well due reply from me... I have so much to say! (isn't discourse stimulating? I love it!) anyway, life issues are happening and internet forums happen to not be so high on the scale of importants right now...

I will be making time to reply to everything hopefully later tonight sometime!

Ok, so I got some time finally, yay! Rousing philosophical discussion time lets get to it!  Sorry for the length, but, you know, its been a while! :)[/quote]

Sorry, this is just useless.  The word “best” implies something is better than something else.  To say something is better or worse on anything other than personal opinion… meh I’ve already explained this : P. Thanks though. :yay: !

Ethical nihilist side:  Yes, you were an idiot to deny yourself if you feel that what you gained (pride) was less than what you would have gained (orgasms and whatnot.)  If you feel like you gained (pride) more from not doing it than you would have (orgasms and stuff), then obviously you were following ethical nihilism in that you do whatever you get more positive feelings from.  But then again, there is no should, or should not.  You have to accept that both are just opinions of what to do, so equally as valid.  In fact, taking her home and murdering her wouldn’t have been more ‘wrong’ than what you did, because there is no such thing as wrong.

Theistic morality side:  It may have been wrong to sleep with her.  It may have not been wrong, but there is the possibly that it was, so in all honestly you did the morally correct thing in taking the safer road...etc.  Obviously theistic morality brings up questions outside the realm of this thread.

Anyway… no one has really challenged the fact that ethical nihilism is the logical outworking of atheism.  I have heard no one explain how it isn’t.  I've only really been presented with something to the extent of “but we shouldn’t live like ethical nihilism is true because it leads to social instability."  I personally couldn’t care less about living to further social stability as I have no children, so who cares about the future past my death, and acting 'moral' is just a barrier to my personal interests in so many ways.

-Ihateusernames

PS: Please pardon any slight typos or extraneous words… I really, really, REALLY don’t feel like proof reading this time! : D as well as thanks again for (hopefully) reading this rather long post! : )

Well that is a long post. It's a good argument. I'll try and get to it tomorrow morning on the bus to work (it's a one hour ride).

QuoteThe word “improvement” is intrinsically making the moral judgment that the outcome is "better" than what used to be, instead of just “different”. While you might say that the “different” is more tolerable to you and those like you therefore it is “better”, that’s rather fallaciously based as it turns morals into purely opinion based, which everyone other than strict ethical nihilists disagree with in regards to the extreme cases of murder, rape, torture…etc.

Also, I believe the first part of your paragraph’s admittance of the fact that there is no way to quantify something’s goodness kinda kills your argument as well. How is it exactly logical to say something is “improved” if you admit there is no way of telling something’s goodness?

I don't think you've got it quite right. I am quite prepared to accept that in many ways a nihilistic approach is sound, that does not make it in any way inappropriate, on a more human level, to judge an action as "better" or "worse," based on its expected consequences...and the basis for this argument is more than opinions; just because people have different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions are equaly valid. As (I assume) an atheist, you should be well aware of that principle.
  Thats what it comes down to. Whose opinions are right? Thats why we argue, why we rationalize, we attempt to improve our imperfect models of right and wrong.

QuoteThis is the same issue as the before paragraph… basically are you really saying the Nazi system was flawed based purely on your opinion or are you assuming some kind of absolute “wrongness” with principles of racial superiority, resentment and disaffection, bastardization of darwinism and theology, lust for power and the dehumanization of those who did not meet certain "ideals" of the human state. If it is the former, why are their opinions “worse” than your’s, rather than just “different”? As you can see it’s the same issue as before… We both need to learn to be more concise I guess! : )

Yeah, same as before, not all opinions are equal- but you will ask, why might I judge mine to be more valid than someone elses, say a nazi? Well, the only way to do it satisfactorily would be to invision a hypothetical intelligent but ignorant and neutral person who responds only to reason, and sell our ideas to him. The fact that there is no such person leaves us in an unsatisfying position....but this is typical of what is ultimately only an abstract cultural construct. Thats why the nihilistic approach is so appealing. Except that the nihilistic approach seems very ineffective on a practical level.

Dammit is all I can say.




I'm struggling to see the connection back to original point though. You were objecting to something about humanism; so perhaps we could get back to humanism...what exactly is objectionable about it?

Quote from: "templeboy"

QuoteThe word “improvement” is intrinsically making the moral judgment that the outcome is "better" than what used to be, instead of just “different”. While you might say that the “different” is more tolerable to you and those like you therefore it is “better”, that’s rather fallaciously based as it turns morals into purely opinion based, which everyone other than strict ethical nihilists disagree with in regards to the extreme cases of murder, rape, torture…etc.

Also, I believe the first part of your paragraph’s admittance of the fact that there is no way to quantify something’s goodness kinda kills your argument as well. How is it exactly logical to say something is “improved” if you admit there is no way of telling something’s goodness?

I don't think you've got it quite right. I am quite prepared to accept that in many ways a nihilistic approach is sound, that does not make it in any way inappropriate, on a more human level, to judge an action as "better" or "worse," based on its expected consequences...and the basis for this argument is more than opinions; just because people have different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid. As (I assume) an atheist, you should be well aware of that principle.
  Thats what it comes down to. Whose opinions are right? Thats why we argue, why we rationalize, we attempt to improve our imperfect models of right and wrong.

  I'm sorry, but to say something is less valid than something else, there must be a unit of measurement. It is like I said before, if you ask me how tall I am and everyone has their own opinion of how big an inch is instead of a unified unit, my answer is going to be meaningless to you.

Likewise, If you are going to say that some opinions are more "valid" than others based purely on your own personal preference instead of some more objective unit, then it carries as much weight as a Nazi saying that their opinions are "valid" leaving you at a stalemate.  I dont think it would be disingenuous to condense your argument this statement: "My own opinions are valid because my goals are valid, and my goals are valid because my opinions on 'right' and 'wrong' are valid".  Its sounds suspiciously like the atheist saying "there is no god because I say there is no god" or the christian saying "Christianity is true because Christianity is true."  All three of these statements are equally as circular and logically fallacious.

Quote from: "templeboy"Yeah, same as before, not all opinions are equal- but you will ask, why might I judge mine to be more valid than someone elses, say a nazi? Well, the only way to do it satisfactorily would be to invision a hypothetical intelligent but ignorant and neutral person who responds only to reason, and sell our ideas to him. The fact that there is no such person leaves us in an unsatisfying position....but this is typical of what is ultimately only an abstract cultural construct. Thats why the nihilistic approach is so appealing. Except that the nihilistic approach seems very ineffective on a practical level.

Which is exactly why I personally think that a theistic system of morality could be considered a sound deductive argument, assuming there is a God.  To be God, wouldn't God necessarily possess the ability to fulfill that role?  And if a perfect being that I am quite comfortable admitting is greater than me makes a moral judgment, I really don't see the reason to second guess them.

If a perfect being says "I'm right because I am"  It is obviously circular logic, but due to the premise of "perfect" circular logic is no longer fallacious.  The only reason we call circular logic fallacious during our discussions is because we recognize our human imperfection.

Quote from: "templeboy"I'm struggling to see the connection back to original point though. You were objecting to something about humanism; so perhaps we could get back to humanism...what exactly is objectionable about it?

It connects quite well. humanism, at its core, commits the same fallacy that you have been committing all along.  Basically, Humanism is an opinion.  What makes that opinion 'better' or 'more valid' than someone who disagrees if there is no way of establishing something's 'goodness' rating off anything other than opinion.  So basically, although we might not be using the word humanism as much right now, the same issues apply.

-Ihateusernames

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "AlP"I think morality, in the general sense, is simply a code of conduct. It comes from the Latin which means "norms", "customs", "virtues" or "values" according to Wikipedia.
   

You do realize that this absolutely supports the position that if the culture condones an action it therefore is moral. If the moral option is based on what culture deems is moral, then at one point in time having slaves was the moral thing to do, killing jews was the moral thing to do, and in fact if you currently live in certain African tribes you almost have to admit that sewing up the genitals of women is acctually moral, as the majority of the others in your tribe (ie: your culture) believe that it is.

I think to say a definition of morality supports the view that owning slaves or killing Jews is moral is a stretch. But this gets to the heart of one of my issues with trivialized morality. Here's an example. I live in America. Americans enjoy a high standard of living, a standard of living that would be impossible without the exploitation of people living in countries on the other side of the trade deficit. Their labor buys less value than my labor. This disgusts me, not because it's "wrong" but because people are being exploited right now and I am partly responsible. This doesn't seem to be the prevailing view in America. Apparently, by the magic of capitalist dogma, it's okay. I might not be living in a country that enslaves Africans or murders Jews but I'm not naive enough to believe that this kind of thing isn't still happening around me.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I’m sorry, I think the idea morals are just what society says basically makes morals meaningless, as society’s only ‘official’ statements are laws, and a lot of laws are just shitty and immoral. But if society creates morals, how can I even say what the society created (a law) is not moral as that implies that the object that creates what is moral is immoral? It doesn’t make logical sense. It is circular logic to think that society creates morals, unless you devalue morals into solely personal opinion, which basically strips the word “moral” of any use. Why not just say “legal” then?

I think you argued that your idea of morality is meaningless? I'm trying to decipher the argument. I think the problem might be that you rely on "a lot of laws are immoral" as a premise and then go on to use it to justify the premise being meaningless.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "AlP"Why does law have any more logical force than morality? If you are willing to break whatever moral rules you like to get what you want, why not also the law?
   

Is not this ‘cynical morality’ basically what you are saying what you didn’t even understand before?

I was asking a question. I was curious as to why you thought laws had more logical force than morality.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Isn’t the ‘cynical morality’ what ‘morality’ actually boils down to? You don’t like it so you live above it, but I’m sorry you may live with pride as a primary moral guide, but this does nothing to suggest that living that way is ‘better’ than just living on or even below the line of what you term ‘cynical morality’. Your morality and the murderer’s is ‘different’ but nothing has yet been said to suggest it is ‘better’.

I think by 'cynical morality' I was describing morality that is justified by the consequences of not following it, or by appeal to prudence. I think I already said that an unqualified use of 'should' is logically meaningless and likewise 'right' and 'wrong'. 'Better' in this sense means 'more right'. Yes I agree that my morality cannot  logically be argued to be better than 'cynical morality'. But I am confident that in reality people, both myself and others, will appreciate the difference for real reasons. For example, the woman I don't take advantage of while she is drunk will appreciate the difference and I will appreciate not feeling the shame of having caused harm.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I’m sorry, the whole concept of morality is black and white. Law of non-contradiction and all that. You might have some personal aversion to black and white thinking, however it does happen sometimes. Something either is moral to do, or it isn’t, or there is no morality and its neither moral or immoral. These are the only options. Murder is either wrong and evil, or it isn‘t wrong and evil. It can’t be wrong and evil for some people, and not wrong and evil for some. That just doesn’t make logical sense.

I think that's a false dichotomy. The reality of the way people treat each other is extremely complicated. Boolean logic is a poor model.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"It really sounds like you have decided ethical nihilism is correct, and yet don’t like the ramifications of it so you just choose to live above what some would. That doesn’t do much to dissuade someone from indulging in less than desirable activities if they so desire, which is what the concept of morals applies to.

Actually I did for a while adopt nihilism. For me the ramifications were that it was inconsistent with reality. People, myself as a nihilist included, feel responsible for what they have done, feel shame, empathy, happiness, fear and all kinds of very real things. These real things affect how we treat each other. I call it morality. If it can't be reduced to logic then the model is wrong, not reality.

Interesting discussion... I'll try and get to the rest later.

Quote from: "AlP"I think to say a definition of morality supports the view that owning slaves or killing Jews is moral is a stretch. But this gets to the heart of one of my issues with trivialized morality. Here's an example. I live in America. Americans enjoy a high standard of living, a standard of living that would be impossible without the exploitation of people living in countries on the other side of the trade deficit. Their labor buys less value than my labor. This disgusts me, not because it's "wrong" but because people are being exploited right now and I am partly responsible. This doesn't seem to be the prevailing view in America. Apparently, by the magic of capitalist dogma, it's okay. I might not be living in a country that enslaves Africans or murders Jews but I'm not naive enough to believe that this kind of thing isn't still happening around me.

Isn't assuming that exploiting people is wrong, as you are doing, absolutely making the moral judgment that exploiting people is objectively 'wrong'?  I don't see why you would feel vindicated in your outraged at exploitation if there isn't something inherently 'wrong' in it--in fact I think you, self admittedly in the minority of Americans, would be doing something immoral to question what society thinks if morals are derived from society. after all, aren't morals derived from what society thinks?  I think basing morality on societal mores, personal opinion, or anything else subjective basically renders them useless philosophically speaking.  Non-philosophically speaking, obviously they have use... but non-philosophically speaking the Bible, Koran, Vedas...etc all have emotional uses.  They do make a crapload of people feel more secure and happy, don't they?

It really sounds like you recognize that philosophically speaking ethical nihilism is the only outcome of atheism, but you personally choose to live a life of attempted 'goodness' whatever that means.  I suppose if you are comfortable knowingly misleading yourself to achieve some sort of peace, who am I to try to take that away, but for me it seems ludicrous as well as having no weight in spurring others on to a 'moral' life.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I’m sorry, I think the idea morals are just what society says basically makes morals meaningless, as society’s only ‘official’ statements are laws, and a lot of laws are just shitty and immoral. But if society creates morals, how can I even say what the society created (a law) is not moral as that implies that the object that creates what is moral is immoral? It doesn’t make logical sense. It is circular logic to think that society creates morals, unless you devalue morals into solely personal opinion, which basically strips the word “moral” of any use. Why not just say “legal” then?

I think you argued that your idea of morality is meaningless? I'm trying to decipher the argument. I think the problem might be that you rely on "a lot of laws are immoral" as a premise and then go on to use it to justify the premise being meaningless.

I'm sorry I may not have been clear enough.  Let me go all acadmic-ish: : )

2.A 'moral' code, to be considered authoritative, must be devoid of anything 'immoral'.
3.The legal code is society's code of morality (Right and wrong are basically synonyms for legal and illegal in the assumption that morals come from society)
4.The legal code is not devoid of anything immoral
5.Authoritative morals can not be derived from societal consensus

I was trying to show that society's opinions on morality is lacking so basing your opinion on society's opinion doesn't make much sense.  Also, practically speaking when talking about extremes it seems to me everyone considers (at least unwarranted) torture and murder as universally 'wrong' even if some culture someplace else in the world doesn't agree.  Assuming that "my morals are better than yours" in the extreme case is utilizing a concept of authoritative morals that can not be atheistically based and yet we all do it.

Quote from: "AlP"I was asking a question. I was curious as to why you thought laws had more logical force than morality.

Ah, pardon my before comments then. : )

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Isn’t the ‘cynical morality’ what ‘morality’ actually boils down to? You don’t like it so you live above it, but I’m sorry you may live with pride as a primary moral guide, but this does nothing to suggest that living that way is ‘better’ than just living on or even below the line of what you term ‘cynical morality’. Your morality and the murderer’s is ‘different’ but nothing has yet been said to suggest it is ‘better’.

I think by 'cynical morality' I was describing morality that is justified by the consequences of not following it, or by appeal to prudence. I think I already said that an unqualified use of 'should' is logically meaningless and likewise 'right' and 'wrong'. 'Better' in this sense means 'more right'. Yes I agree that my morality cannot  logically be argued to be better than 'cynical morality'. But I am confident that in reality people, both myself and others, will appreciate the difference for real reasons. For example, the woman I don't take advantage of while she is drunk will appreciate the difference and I will appreciate not feeling the shame of having caused harm.

If you really understand it can't logically be argued to be "better than 'cynical morality'" then do you really condemn someone who does horrible stuff based only on her cynical morality?  I find it hard to believe you don't mentally despise someone who does evil-yet-technically-not-illegal stuff.  And if you do despise them, you realize your despising is based purely on emotion and not on logic, which is akin to what some religious people do to non-religious people.  Is it really equally as acceptable for a religious person to despise an atheist for being an atheist, after all, they don't need to logically prove that the atheist is a bad, they can base their assumptions on their emotional desire, can't they?

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I’m sorry, the whole concept of morality is black and white. Law of non-contradiction and all that. You might have some personal aversion to black and white thinking, however it does happen sometimes. Something either is moral to do, or it isn’t, or there is no morality and its neither moral or immoral. These are the only options. Murder is either wrong and evil, or it isn‘t wrong and evil. It can’t be wrong and evil for some people, and not wrong and evil for some. That just doesn’t make logical sense.

I think that's a false dichotomy. The reality of the way people treat each other is extremely complicated. Boolean logic is a poor model.

Is it really a false dichotomy?  The way people treat each other is extremely complicated, I agree, but people also have the ability to do immoral things making the complication possible while still leaving the actual state of things in a black and white morality.  If morality is not black and white, then whats the point of it?  If I'm really really angry at someone, is it only 80% wrong to kill them? 90%? I think the dichotomy of it is either 100% wrong, or 0% wrong is not a false one.  You can't say "aww you did something wrong, but it wasn't wrong." That doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"It really sounds like you have decided ethical nihilism is correct, and yet don’t like the ramifications of it so you just choose to live above what some would. That doesn’t do much to dissuade someone from indulging in less than desirable activities if they so desire, which is what the concept of morals applies to.

Actually I did for a while adopt nihilism. For me the ramifications were that it was inconsistent with reality. People, myself as a nihilist included, feel responsible for what they have done, feel shame, empathy, happiness, fear and all kinds of very real things. These real things affect how we treat each other. I call it morality. If it can't be reduced to logic then the model is wrong, not reality.

I find this hard to accept.  I knew a lot of really horrible people in my life, and I can honestly say they didn't feel shame or empathy for/to those they abused.  Does that then make it not 'wrong' for them to abuse others, as to them they don't feel bad?  I just can't accept morals based on feeling, as feeling is so easily changed.  Take some steroids and assuming you get some roid rage, you'll probably change your opinion on what is 'right' and 'wrong' does that mean abuse has somehow turned 'not wrong' for you?  It doesn't make sense to have morals that aren't based on something solid.  Either they exist, and are solid, or they don't.  I don't think that's a false dichotomy.

Quote from: "AlP"Interesting discussion... I'll try and get to the rest later.

I agree whole heatedly.  I am enjoying our discourse greatly, and don't worry about if you miss something, that is just the way conversations normally go (that and my long post was bordering on tl;dr so I don't mind : D! ).  : P  Its the beauty of message boards--responses can always wait and I'm not impatient at all! ^_^  Also if you don't feel something is going anywhere (I feel like I may be starting to repeat myself which normally leads me to the thought that a break should be taken before continuing else we both subconciously dig our heels in and create useless discourse!) then I dont mind if you just skip that portion of my post in your reply.  meh.. basically I'm trying to say I'm easy going so no worries! ^_^

-Ihateusernames

I was going to go through this point by point and I can if you like. I wanted to go in a slightly different direction...

I can think of two kinds of ethical nihilist, who I will call the philosophical nihilist and the practicing nihilist. The distinction is that the philosophical nihilist ponders morality, realizes he can't justify right and wrong logically but continues to behave like a regular member of society. That is he goes through the motions of acting morally. The practicing nihilist actually behaves differently, doing things that others consider right or wrong, without regard for other people's judgments. This is a false dichotomy of course. For example there is a spectrum lying between the two extreme types.

The philosophical nihilist is really only of academic interest. As far as others are concerned, and largely as far as the nihilist is concerned, his nihilism is irrelevant.

The practicing nihilist does things that make his nihilism relevant. I'm trying to think why he would be that way. The first idea I had was that he does not consider himself to be responsible for his actions. This is absurd though. He would be completely dysfunctional. I think it's more likely that he considers himself responsible for his actions but doesn't think that they are right or wrong, doesn't care that others do and doesn't care how he treats other people. I'm not going to defend this guy; he can look after himself.

If I am a nihilist then, firstly, I am a philosophical nihilist and, secondly, it is of no importance to me whatsoever. What is important to me is basing morality on things that are real. I am responsible for everything I have ever done. Whenever I do something, I become responsible for it. Morality, for me, is more about the actions I do and do not want to be responsible for, or as I said earlier, my pride. While I can't justify logically why it is wrong to cause harm, I do know that I don't want to have it on my permanent record.

Edit: spelling and grammar. I probably made it worse though!

Quote from: "AlP"I was going to go through this point by point and I can if you like. I wanted to go in a slightly different direction...

I like your direction and accept your offer! : )

Quote from: "AlP"I can think of two kinds of ethical nihilist, who I will call the philosophical nihilist and the practicing nihilist. The distinction is that the philosophical nihilist ponders morality, realizes he can't justify right and wrong logically but continues to behave like a regular member of society. That is he goes through the motions of acting morally. The practicing nihilist actually behaves differently, doing things that others consider right or wrong, without regard for other people's judgments. This is a false dichotomy of course. For example there is a spectrum lying between the two extreme types.

The philosophical nihilist is really only of academic interest. As far as others are concerned, and largely as far as the nihilist is concerned, his nihilism is irrelevant.

The practicing nihilist does things that make his nihilism relevant. I'm trying to think why he would be that way. The first idea I had was that he does not consider himself to be responsible for his actions. This is absurd though. He would be completely dysfunctional. I think it's more likely that he considers himself responsible for his actions but doesn't think that they are right or wrong, doesn't care that others do and doesn't care how he treats other people. I'm not going to defend this guy; he can look after himself.

If I am a nihilist then, firstly, I am a philosophical nihilist and, secondly, it is of no importance to me whatsoever. What is important to me is basing morality on things that are real. I am responsible for everything I have ever done. Whenever I do something, I become responsible for it. Morality, for me, is more about the actions I do and do not want to be responsible for, or as I said earlier, my pride. While I can't justify logically why it is wrong to cause harm, I do know that I don't want to have it on my permanent record.

Edit: spelling and grammar. I probably made it worse though!

I quite enjoyed your post and I agree with all of it.  

The issue for me is that if nihilism is true, as a philosophic nihilist claims, then why does reality seem so opposite to the logic the philosophic nihilist holds?  I've always lived by the idea that if something philosophic doesn't fit reality then it is the concept that is somehow flawed, however whenever I place nihilism into the before mentioned idea while maintaining logical requirements it always spits out 'false'.  This along with the fact that no other atheistic theory of morals really make any sense, are the cause of my comments about me being caught somewhere between theism (which can explain morality) and nihilism.

And on a practical level, I can almost assure you that you don't live up to your desired morality all the time as I know I sure don't, and have never met someone who does consistently.  What of the 'evil' (harm to others, if we want to define it as that) that was done?  Does it just disappear as time passes? can you remedy it by being extra 'good' tomorrow? I just can't see how being nice to someone can somehow counteract any evil done in the past.  Maybe it will pacify the person relationally speaking, but it can't erase the old action completely... can it?  I haven't ever seen it done...

But as I watch the progression of my thoughts in this post it seems to be slowly swirly back into the question of objective morality.  I can philosophically support nihilism, however practically I can't.  I can practically support theism, and honestly with recent cosmological advances (I dont know if your a geek like me but yay dark matter being 'captured' buweahaha, eh?) theistic (or at least deistic) arguments have gained considerable strength.

-Ihateusernames

PS:  I've always considered online forums as somewhere between spoken and written English... thus proper grammar is totally not required... and I revel in the freedom from the grammar Nazi's it allows! ; )

I'm going to try to be as clear as I can as I write this. key words are bolded for emphasis.

Here is my summation of what I believe you are saying(correct me if I am wrong):
You seem to be expressing that there is no such thing as inherent "good"/"evil"/"wrong"/"right".
Some people claim that there belief is "good/right" and other's beliefs are "evil/wrong".

But without an objective measuring stick to measure "goodness", there is no way to tell who is correct, and, thus no measuring stick, therefore, no morality.

I have a few thoughts that come to mind on this:
1) You seem to be interested in finding something(morality) that, by your own argument, does not exist.
2) Given this, I am not convinced that "morality", by it's traditional definition of goodness/wrongness/etc, is precisely adequate.

Could it be that you would be satisfied with a logically sound system that clearly shows precisely how one should act? A system of that sort would probably find some way of dividing up all actions into two categories: one that includes "ok" actions, and another that includes "not ok" actions.

From the previous posts, I think it mounts to be pretty clear that such a system can have no perfectly logical foundation. Any criterion that would be chosen to divide the actions would always be unjustified.

However, it seems to me that if we are seeking to look at the "objective" side of thi, then we can only observe one fact: That there are actions and consequences. I am not implying that any of these have any inherent qualities considered good or bad. But we can observe a close consistency between certain actions and certain consequences. Thus, it could be said that if one wants to have a certain consequence, they will need to produce the appropriate action.

Other than that, there probably is no ultimate moral system. But given this observation, it is clear that many systems can be devised that proscribe certain actions for certain results. It is this that gives society it's moral systems, probably. I can only imagine that any society would be a rigid system of structures designed toa llow many people to achieve the conseuences they want with minimal friction with others. There, of course, is nothing inherently good about this, or evil. If you do not want to live in a society, you may enter the wilderness, where it is possible you will die.

My computer is malfunctioning, so time to sign off. Ihateusernames, I think this is more a alidation of your argument than a challenge to it. But I think that it is important to point out that ethical nihilism assumes no structure at al, while, if you look at the fact of consistency between actions and consequences, it is clear that there is much "moral" structure to be had, even if it can't be arbitrarily assigned to be "superior" to any other.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg707.imageshack.us%2Fimg707%2F4130%2Fm7yt5l.gif&hash=391de2ab825dd64994b447404864587d1481f95f)

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"The issue for me is that if nihilism is true, as a philosophic nihilist claims, then why does reality seem so opposite to the logic the philosophic nihilist holds?

Most of society is blindly following rules that they copy from others.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I've always lived by the idea that if something philosophic doesn't fit reality then it is the concept that is somehow flawed, however whenever I place nihilism into the before mentioned idea while maintaining logical requirements it always spits out 'false'.

I don't think it's false. It's just irrelevant. It's what happens when you try to find a deductive logical argument to justify right and wrong without assuming God. The answer is no answer.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"This along with the fact that no other atheistic theory of morals really make any sense, are the cause of my comments about me being caught somewhere between theism (which can explain morality) and nihilism.

Out of interest, do you accept responsibility for your actions or do you need a deductive argument to justify it?

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"And on a practical level, I can almost assure you that you don't live up to your desired morality all the time as I know I sure don't, and have never met someone who does consistently.  What of the 'evil' (harm to others, if we want to define it as that) that was done?  Does it just disappear as time passes? can you remedy it by being extra 'good' tomorrow? I just can't see how being nice to someone can somehow counteract any evil done in the past.  Maybe it will pacify the person relationally speaking, but it can't erase the old action completely... can it?  I haven't ever seen it done...

I think that once you have done something it cannot be undone. It's historical fact. No amount of 'good' erases 'bad'.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"But as I watch the progression of my thoughts in this post it seems to be slowly swirly back into the question of objective morality.  I can philosophically support nihilism, however practically I can't.  I can practically support theism, and honestly with recent cosmological advances (I dont know if your a geek like me but yay dark matter being 'captured' buweahaha, eh?) theistic (or at least deistic) arguments have gained considerable strength.

I'm skeptical as to whether religion really has a deductive logical argument for morality. I'm pondering the impossibility of diagramming the assertions in the Bible. But even if I'm wrong, you have to accept certain premises, like the existence of God. You might have a reason to believe there is a God. Fair enough. But don't believe in God simply because He gives you a way to justify morality in objective terms!

Quote from: "AlP"Most of society is blindly following rules that they copy from others.

Which is exactly why my HAF worldview is what it is : P

Quote from: "AlP"I don't think it's false. It's just irrelevant. It's what happens when you try to find a deductive logical argument to justify right and wrong without assuming God. The answer is no answer.

I used the word "false" because I intended the meaning of "not accurate"  Obviously if nihilism is 'true' there is no such thing as morality, however if the reality of existence is based, say, in a system of theistic morality, it wouldn't be a stretch to say the concept of nihilism is a 'false' concept : P

Quote from: "AlP"Out of interest, do you accept responsibility for your actions or do you need a deductive argument to justify it?

Obviously if I am a normal member of society (and I'd wager I am, but who really knows--this is the internet afterall! bwueahah!) I take responsibility for my actions in the practical sense... However there are some actions in life that I'd rather not take responsibility for if I chose to do, (being rather cruel to certain people) and if I assume nihilism it's really, really hard to keep "taking responsibility" for evil actions when there is no law forcing me to.  Currently though, I'd rather assume there is some sort of objective code of morality to reality, as I'd rather like to condemn 'evil' actions of myself and others as more than personal preference.  My next goal is to figuring out exactly what that morality is... ;P

Quote from: "AlP"I think that once you have done something it cannot be undone. It's historical fact. No amount of 'good' erases 'bad'.

Then what do you say to the murderer/rapist/thief who has turned 'good'.  Can they ever 'redeem' themselves from the evil of their past or do you think the whole concept of "redeeming" oneself, other than just relationally to others, is pointless because of nihilistic thought.  It seems to boil down to the only reason to "be good" is personal preference, or the goal of avoiding punishment.  pretty selfish and crappy reasons if you think about it (although that doesn't necessarily make it wrong), as it frees up the person who legally exploits people to do just that--harm people legally for personal gain as personal gain seems to be the only reason to do anything.

Quote from: "AlP"I'm skeptical as to whether religion really has a deductive logical argument for morality. I'm pondering the impossibility of diagramming the assertions in the Bible. But even if I'm wrong, you have to accept certain premises, like the existence of God. You might have a reason to believe there is a God. Fair enough. But don't believe in God simply because He gives you a way to justify morality in objective terms!

I personally think that if a case of circumstantial evidence is strong enough, a claim can be made--even in the case of a divine being.  I'm also quite willing to place the widespread concept of morality into the category of +1 point of circumstantial evidence 'for the existence of god' if we are keeping a tally--as I don't think this is intellectually dishonest in the least.

Anyway, People are stupid.  That being said, stupid people, make for stupid ideas.  The stupidest idea I've heard is that people point to the bible and say "Omg, it is a rule book of morality.  Without the bible how can one know morality?!"  It is like a self-created straw man of what the christian is supposedly supporting.  I agree it'd be rather impossible to create a complete diagram of morality using just the bible.  However I also believe that doing that was not even the intent of the bible (human intention or God inspired intention, doesn't really matter how you look at it.) (Also, shouldn't the crapload of the stories of Jesus vs the-people-who-used-"sacred"-scriptures-as-rulebooks-for-morality kinda make it obvious the bible isn't a rulebook?)  The entire point of the bible hinges around the question of objective morality or subjective to me.  If there is objective morality laced into reality, then when we screw up/sin/do evil... whatever..., we ARE doing something inherently wrong and need a sort of 'redemption' else we will forever be in the state of screwed up (which if is inherently wrong, we should try our darnedest to get out of).  

The deductive argument for theistic morality rests in the fact that if there is a god, this god is absolutely 'greater' than humans.  To be greater than someone, it goes to reason that you must be more 'moral'. So, if he is greater in an absolute way, which is what some forms of theism claim, then his opinion's on things can rightfully also be considered 'greater'  or more 'correct' (or good or holy or whatever word you want to use )  If there is a being that I can rightfully claim is absolutely 'greater' to me regarding morality, I can rest assured that what that being requests of me (morally speaking) will be absolute (or objectively) true even if I, a human and lesser being, have second thoughts about it).

Meh, I'm not trying to claim divine command theory, as I would say that if God commanded something egregiously wrong (such as unwarranted murder of someone completely innocent) then that being, by definition, cannot be God.

-Ihateusernames

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Obviously if I am a normal member of society (and I'd wager I am, but who really knows--this is the internet afterall! bwueahah!) I take responsibility for my actions in the practical sense... However there are some actions in life that I'd rather not take responsibility for if I chose to do, (being rather cruel to certain people) and if I assume nihilism it's really, really hard to keep "taking responsibility" for evil actions when there is no law forcing me to.  Currently though, I'd rather assume there is some sort of objective code of morality to reality, as I'd rather like to condemn 'evil' actions of myself and others as more than personal preference.  My next goal is to figuring out exactly what that morality is... ;P

Well I think what one is responsible for is largely just what one has done, though whether one also takes the intent of an action into account is also an interesting question. I hold that thoughtful consideration of what you want to be responsible for long term is a workable basis for morality. This isn't a universal basis for morality but it's closer than the whimsical basis implied by nihilism. It applies to theists and atheists alike. One can research much of recorded history and learn about the people who are now famous and infamous. Pick some role models. People haven't changed. It doesn't point to a black and white model for right and wrong but putting everything that we know has happened in perspective, or in other words understanding reality, offers a close second.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "AlP"I think that once you have done something it cannot be undone. It's historical fact. No amount of 'good' erases 'bad'.

Then what do you say to the murderer/rapist/thief who has turned 'good'.  Can they ever 'redeem' themselves from the evil of their past or do you think the whole concept of "redeeming" oneself, other than just relationally to others, is pointless because of nihilistic thought.  It seems to boil down to the only reason to "be good" is personal preference, or the goal of avoiding punishment.  pretty selfish and crappy reasons if you think about it (although that doesn't necessarily make it wrong), as it frees up the person who legally exploits people to do just that--harm people legally for personal gain as personal gain seems to be the only reason to do anything.

I don't think it's pointless because of nihilist thought. I think one cannot change the past. For a rapist that feels guilty, the most they can hope for is forgiveness at an individual level. They will forever have raped. They cannot exchange responsibility for the rape for something else by making amends. Morality is not capitalism.

I also think you're trivializing this thing you call personal preference. The responsibility is personal. The personal choice (or preference) is what makes it one's responsibility. The "personal preference" of an individual to go against the prevailing view of their society can become the stuff of legend. See Oskar Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler).

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I personally think that if a case of circumstantial evidence is strong enough, a claim can be made--even in the case of a divine being.  I'm also quite willing to place the widespread concept of morality into the category of +1 point of circumstantial evidence 'for the existence of god' if we are keeping a tally--as I don't think this is intellectually dishonest in the least.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"The deductive argument for theistic morality rests in the fact that if there is a god, this god is absolutely 'greater' than humans.  To be greater than someone, it goes to reason that you must be more 'moral'. So, if he is greater in an absolute way, which is what some forms of theism claim, then his opinion's on things can rightfully also be considered 'greater'  or more 'correct' (or good or holy or whatever word you want to use )  If there is a being that I can rightfully claim is absolutely 'greater' to me regarding morality, I can rest assured that what that being requests of me (morally speaking) will be absolute (or objectively) true even if I, a human and lesser being, have second thoughts about it).

You just switched from a deductive argument to an inductive argument. Why are you holding atheism to the stringency of a deductive argument while theism to the lesser inductive argument?

Quote from: "AlP"Well I think what one is responsible for is largely just what one has done, though whether one also takes the intent of an action into account is also an interesting question. I hold that thoughtful consideration of what you want to be responsible for long term is a workable basis for morality. This isn't a universal basis for morality but it's closer than the whimsical basis implied by nihilism. It applies to theists and atheists alike. One can research much of recorded history and learn about the people who are now famous and infamous. Pick some role models. People haven't changed. It doesn't point to a black and white model for right and wrong but putting everything that we know has happened in perspective, or in other words understanding reality, offers a close second.

So, you really don't mind if people research much of recorded history, become enamored with infamous people, and attempt to be them?  Is that really a valid option?  It seems as your bases for morality is more similar to the statement "everyone does what they want to" than attempting to explain how morality can be considered objective rather than subjective.  If you believe that reality is honestly that everyone just does what they want to, and the group has social constructions, you have chosen subjective morality, yet I'd wager that you still live as if objective morality exists in that when you condemn an evil action as evil(at least I am assuming you believe there is something inherently wrong with things like needless murder or rape other than social construct, although you very well might not.)

Quote from: "AlP"I also think you're trivializing this thing you call personal preference. The responsibility is personal. The personal choice (or preference) is what makes it one's responsibility. The "personal preference" of an individual to go against the prevailing view of their society can become the stuff of legend. See Oskar Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler).

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean by trivializing 'personal preference'.  Obviously the preference may be for things that will later be considered legend, however assuming nihilism (as I was when I spoke of morality being purely personal preference) is there really anything morally different between Schindler and Hitler?  Yeah Schindler's personal preference may be considered (somewhat) 'good' if one assumes objective morality, however, if one assumes subjective morality his actions were just that, actions.  Same as my actions, your actions, or Hitler's actions.  Just actions, devoid of any moral 'good' or 'bad'.  Anyway I'm curious as to what you meant, could you please elaborate on this portion of your post? : )

Quote from: "AlP"You just switched from a deductive argument to an inductive argument. Why are you holding atheism to the stringency of a deductive argument while theism to the lesser inductive argument?

My apologies, I wasn't thorough enough with my abrupt seeming change of direction.  I intended to say that I hold the existence of god, and thus a basis for theistic morality, perhaps possible to reasonably prove with an inductive argument.  If god can be proven (or at least accepted philosophically speaking) then a system of theistic morality could then possibly be considered deductive.  I wasn't attempting to imply that atheistic morality must have a deductive argument, but theistic morality doesn't need one, I was merely saying that atheistic morality doesn't even have the slightest possibility of being deductive while theistic morality does hold a possibility (however slight one may choose to put it).

Basically, if we assume objective morality, it seems to follow that we must also assume a god.

-Ihateusernames

PS: I'm sleepy, been a reeeally long day, probably should put this post off till tomorrow where I can proof read it.. but what the heck, here it is in all of its grammatical (and hopefully not) logical errors! : )

I apologise if I'm covering areas that have all ready recently been discussed in other topics, but I couldn't find this idea anywhere else.
I have been thinking. Many theists claim that their religion should be supported/believed/whatever due to the morals that it teaches. First of all, I want to point out that I find it very offensive when, particularly Christians, claim that the ten commandments are the basis for western countries legal systems and morals. These people seem to believe that if it wasn't for Christianity, the human race would not have realised that murder, rape, theft etc are things that we should not do. Understanding that we should not do these things is a result of our intelligence and development of social structure, which has led to the morals many religions preach and our current legal systems, and it was not the case, as many would have you believe, that these religions were the source of these morals. This is not my main point however.

The main reason for this thread is for me to ask a question.

Do you think that the concept of morals is still valid in a world without God, and if so, would you agree that this concept is far more logical without God?

Whilst many of the major religions have, at least in part, an admirable set of basic morals (ignoring the true face of the religion for now), these values are all really, in my opinion, a manifestation of selfishness. A theist believes that they must not murder their neighbour because if they do, God will not be happy, and will punish them or not allow them into heaven etc. Although I am of course not suggesting that all Christians would go out and become murderers without the ten commandments, the reason they follow the ten commandments is because they want to be treated the same way, and want to get into heaven.

Now then, lets look at the world from an atheist point of view. Personally, as an atheist I believe that there is no such thing as good or evil, they are man made concepts. However, it is still obvious that certain things are wrong. Murder, theft and rape, are thing that it would be horrible for me to do. So ignoring the defects in my personality, and assuming I can stick to these morals, I would be doing it purely because I recognise it is the right thing to do. There would be no one omnipotently judging me, and I recognise that life and nature has no concept of 'fair', and so chances are I will not be rewarded. So if I still stick to my morals, does that not make me a much better person than a Christian sticking to their morals to get into heaven?

I await your comments, good or bad.

I think that morals are a product of evolution.  Humans, being social animals, require some means of cooperating in groups.  Morality defines what we have decided as a society is beneficial or harmful (killing bad, helping others good).  As we have become more advanced in our thinking what is moral has become more complex (ie the abortion debate, animal rights etc).

Frankly, I'm scared of anyone who only acts morally because they fear their god and hope they always hold onto the religion that is apparently keeping them from killing me.  Normal, mentally healthy, human beings are able to empathizes with others and therefore will feel bad if they do something that causes harm.

Quoteparticularly Christians, claim that the ten commandments are the basis for western countries legal systems and morals.

How do they figure that? Thou shall not steal and thou shall not murder are the only 2 out of 10 that most people follow. Because most people don’t care about adultery. They might say they care, but how many people do you know who cheat or even have been cheated on?

QuoteThese people seem to believe that if it wasn't for Christianity, the human race would not have realised that murder, rape, theft etc are things that we should not do. Understanding that we should not do these things is a result of our intelligence and development of social structure, which has led to the morals many religions preach and our current legal systems, and it was not the case, as many would have you believe, that these religions were the source of these morals. This is not my main point however.

“we should not do these things is a result of our intelligence and development of social structure, which has led to the morals..” a recent thought has come to me that our society hasn’t realized that murder, rape, or theft is wrong. We can claim that its wrong but how many people fill up over populated prisons? Right now as you read this someone most likely is murdered. Most likely more than just one. So how does our society or any society claim to know murder, rape, and theft, and ect. Are immoral and wrong?

QuoteDo you think that the concept of morals is still valid in a world without God, and if so, would you agree that this concept is far more logical without God?

I don’t believe in morals or ethic systems. I think its a trained response to the pressures of society. I don’t know if there are 2 people on the face of the earth with the exact same moral standards.
So to answer the main question i don’t think without a gods influence morality would be much different. We would still be pack/herd animals and care about our family and people in our circles. So no I don’t think god influenced anything.  

QuoteWhilst many of the major religions have, at least in part, an admirable set of basic morals (ignoring the true face of the religion for now), these values are all really, in my opinion, a manifestation of selfishness. A theist believes that they must not murder their neighbour because if they do, God will not be happy, and will punish them or not allow them into heaven etc. Although I am of course not suggesting that all Christians would go out and become murderers without the ten commandments, the reason they follow the ten commandments is because they want to be treated the same way, and want to get into heaven.

Interesting thought. I think it was mother Teresa who said there is no such thing as an unselfish act...

QuotePersonally, as an atheist I believe that there is no such thing as good or evil, they are man made concepts. However, it is still obvious that certain things are wrong. Murder, theft and rape, are thing that it would be horrible for me to do. So ignoring the defects in my personality, and assuming I can stick to these morals, I would be doing it purely because I recognise it is the right thing to do.

If you do not believe in good and evil why would you believe in right and wrong? Obviously right and wrong are not universal. So who decides what is right and what is wrong?
“I would be doing it purely because I recognise it is the right thing to do.”  in defence of some of our Christian friends there are people in the world who are just good, sweet, or helpful. I think it might be kinda unfair to state that theists only do nice things to please a god.

QuoteI recognise that life and nature has no concept of 'fair', and so chances are I will not be rewarded.

Not in an eternal since, no.

Quote from: "samjones4455"So if I still stick to my morals, does that not make me a much better person than a Christian sticking to their morals to get into heaven?

I await your comments, good or bad.

If you do not believe in good or evil then you cannot believe in right or wrong. If evil is a human construction, then so too is wrong, and without these principles morality becomes a pointless search for meaning in a meaningless world. You are no better or worse than anyone else, you just are.

However, your claim that morality is a human invention interests me; please expand.

Personally I think morality must appear to exist for society to function adequately. Morality only makes sense as an objective truth, and this objectivity can only work with a God. As such I do not believe that morality can survive in the absence of some kind of universal deity/law-maker.

I understand that without a divine creator, and no one judging the entire world, there can be no definitive right or wrong. I also understand that more complex moral issues such abortion are entirely subjective. Your statement that we "just are" is one which I entirely agree with. So perhaps I am being rather naive, but I still believe that there are certain really simple actions that we know are wrong, such as murdering an innocent man. There is no divine reason why this is wrong, there is no black and white binary, and the idea of universal morals falls apart with any added complexity, but I still think that murder of an innocent man is wrong.

My statement that morality is a human invention is linked with this, and you appear to be getting at it in your own words ("Personally I think that morality must appear to exist for society to function adequately"). We have created a moral structure so that we can co-operate and be social and do all the stuff that makes us different from animals, and it just happens that not only is it an illusion, but the very concept of it is flawed without a God.

Anything I missed?

Quote from: "Dagda"Personally I think morality must appear to exist for society to function adequately. Morality only makes sense as an objective truth, and this objectivity can only work with a God. As such I do not believe that morality can survive in the absence of some kind of universal deity/law-maker.

If morality were objective, esp if it were god given, there would be no debate over whether things like homosexuality and abortion are immoral or not.  Many religious people can't even agree on if it is moral to dance and sing, or if it is okay for women to cut their hair, leave it uncovered, dress like a man etc.  The list of things people disagree over is very very long and to those that think some of the things are wrong it is a huge deal.

So, where is objective morality from God?

What morals are objective other than those which are obviously for survival; like don't kill a clan member (which really is about as close as we get to universal do not kill since many cultures have existed in which it is okay to kill someone who is not like yourself; waring countries do that today on a massive scale)

This is why I say that if it is right to call morality objective that morality is only objective in the sense that right and wrong can be objectively determined by investigating the effects of action upon a society....the objective source would be "human nature" or even "gorilla nature" since humans are not the only animals who display an understanding of right and wrong in their interactions with others.

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "samjones4455"Morality only makes sense as an objective truth

Disagree, do you have any arguments to support this?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Dagda"Personally I think morality must appear to exist for society to function adequately. Morality only makes sense as an objective truth, and this objectivity can only work with a God. As such I do not believe that morality can survive in the absence of some kind of universal deity/law-maker.

If morality were objective, esp if it were god given, there would be no debate over whether things like homosexuality and abortion are immoral or not.  Many religious people can't even agree on if it is moral to dance and sing, or if it is okay for women to cut their hair, leave it uncovered, dress like a man etc.  The list of things people disagree over is very very long and to those that think some of the things are wrong it is a huge deal.

So, where is objective morality from God?

What morals are objective other than those which are obviously for survival; like don't kill a clan member (which really is about as close as we get to universal do not kill since many cultures have existed in which it is okay to kill someone who is not like yourself; waring countries do that today on a massive scale)

This is why I say that if it is right to call morality objective that morality is only objective in the sense that right and wrong can be objectively determined by investigating the effects of action upon a society....the objective source would be "human nature" or even "gorilla nature" since humans are not the only animals who display an understanding of right and wrong in their interactions with others.

Pardon my interjection but the philosophic viscosity of this post was rather low...

It doesn't follow that If morality were objective there would be no debate over the morality of various actions.  If an ultimately great being exists who established an objective morality in the universe during its creation (the question on hand), and there also exists a different being who has the ability to question or think ('free will', if you will) then the possibility of the second being deviating from the objective morality established is definitely possible at least.  If you then multiply this possible deviation by, what, 6.7 billion, I'd say the variety of our opinions on morality should be expected to be very diverse but this diversity still doesn't necessarily mean that there is no objective moral code built into existence that we all 'should' follow.

Think of the rationalization of evil that we all do.  There are large groups of people (even whole societies) to which certain things we hold as evil are taken for granted (female genital mutilation, rape, child slave labor... etc.). Are you really saying that because their society doesn't think their actions are "wrong" it then make the inhabitants of that society's atrocious actions not evil?  for example, I don't see any of us claiming that the goal of human rights in china is just 'evil American ethnocentrism', but think of it, if we claim there is no objective morality then how can it be anything BUT pure ethnocentrism?

I really don't understand the sentiment that if a "large group of people think X is right, then X should be considered 'moral'"  That sentiment totally misses the whole concept of 'morality' or 'right and wrong'.  For something to be "moral" doesn't it has to be moral whether any human thinks it is moral or not?

Anyway, to me, your post is basically advocating the before sentiment.

-Ihateusernames

PS: just a small side note: Obviously the assumption of the greater being, as well as the creation of the universe are topics for different posts, but if you accept those two premises (even for the sake of argument), objective morality actually does make sense, even in our world of differing opinions.

Quote from: "samjones4455"My statement that morality is a human invention is linked with this, and you appear to be getting at it in your own words ("Personally I think that morality must appear to exist for society to function adequately"). We have created a moral structure so that we can co-operate and be social and do all the stuff that makes us different from animals, and it just happens that not only is it an illusion, but the very concept of it is flawed without a God.

Anything I missed?

Sorry, I cannot let you away with that one. ‘makes us different from animals’ is a Christian myth which, as an atheist, you really should not be advocating. We are animals. If you think differently then I challenge you to come up with a trait which raises us above the animal kingdom beyond mere ascetics. Dolphins and some primates seem to make moral decisions and ants build cities (hives) with a clear social structure, and some termites even seem to have self-awareness (although not really a human style of self-awareness, but awareness none the less). I think you will find that it is very difficult to set humanity apart from the rest of the living world without appealing to some sort of Christian myth.

As to your claim that some things are just wrong without there being any kind of objective moral framework, then here is an exercise for you: I enjoy killing innocent men; it is your job to convince me that this action is ‘just wrong’.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "samjones4455"Morality only makes sense as an objective truth

Disagree, do you have any arguments to support this?

Why do you disagree? My logic is one of elimination. Every other theory about morality makes no sense therefore I was left with objectivism. As no better theory has yet surfaced I maintain that morality makes no sense unless it is objective. Of course if morality does not exist then my problem disappears, but I have yet to be convinced of that fact. We each have a moral compass of some description. The simplest explanation is that we have a moral compass because some form of morality exists. Although it is possible that morality is an evolutionary development of some description, no evidence has come forward in support of this theory, so I hold on to the simplest explanation until it can be disproved.  

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Dagda"Personally I think morality must appear to exist for society to function adequately. Morality only makes sense as an objective truth, and this objectivity can only work with a God. As such I do not believe that morality can survive in the absence of some kind of universal deity/law-maker.

If morality were objective, esp if it were god given, there would be no debate over whether things like homosexuality and abortion are immoral or not. Many religious people can't even agree on if it is moral to dance and sing, or if it is okay for women to cut their hair, leave it uncovered, dress like a man etc. The list of things people disagree over is very very long and to those that think some of the things are wrong it is a huge deal.

So, where is objective morality from God?

What morals are objective other than those which are obviously for survival; like don't kill a clan member (which really is about as close as we get to universal do not kill since many cultures have existed in which it is okay to kill someone who is not like yourself; waring countries do that today on a massive scale)

This is why I say that if it is right to call morality objective that morality is only objective in the sense that right and wrong can be objectively determined by investigating the effects of action upon a society....the objective source would be "human nature" or even "gorilla nature" since humans are not the only animals who display an understanding of right and wrong in their interactions with others.

Just to reiterate, no objectivist should claim that they know the objective moral truth, just that there is one.

What's with the ten commandments anyway? The first three or four (depending on which version you read) are just about god, his name, idols and so forth. They have nothing to do with morals. They're just big sky daddy telling us he's jealous and wants us to worship him correctly. When talking morality why not say the seven commandments? Or the six commandments? Just saying ...

I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  if you're the result of an accident, good is that which benefits you.  a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.  

if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient.  i believe in a designed universe.  good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  if you're the result of an accident, good is that which benefits you.  a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.  

if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient.  i believe in a designed universe.  good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

The one thing this universe does better and more often than anything else is make black holes, and eventually this universe will be made up of black holes and remnant particles. By your argument, the best thing we humans could do is make a black hole.

I guess the LHC is on the right track.  :drool

Does it matter if there is an intention behind it if ultimately the race for survival leads to a place where everything attempts to evolve to"resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient"...is that not what evolution does?

"The universe" doesn't care. It has no objective. It simply is.

[/thread]

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.

But that is what theists do!  The funny thing is that most people who subscribe to Social Darwinism are religious.  I would bet every penny I have that, the percentage of atheists who support Social Darwinism is far smaller than the percentage of religious folks that do.*  

In example; Republicans in America strongly support Social Darwinism.  They believe that the economy should be a completely free market economy with no controls whatsoever where the powerful can be in complete control.  They want to be free of regulations that prevent monopolies, free of minimum wages and mandated safety regulations, and they want all government attempts to assist those less fortunate stopped completely.  Most Republicans are Christians.  The percentage of atheist Republicans is minuscule, far lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population.


*I'm anticipating an assertion that there are fewer atheists than Christians in the general population so that is why a smaller percentage of them are Social Darwinists than the percentage of religious folks that are Social Darwinists.  I anticipate this assertion because, in discussions with religious fundamentalists it nearly always comes up.  But let's explain percentages a moment.  Say that ten percent of a group of a thousand people are atheists.  That means there are a hundred atheists in that group.  Let's say that 50% of atheists have brown eyes.  That means that fifty atheists have brown eyes.  But let's also say that 50% of theists have brown eyes.  That means that 450 of the theists have brown eyes.  While more theists in that situation have brown eyes, the exact same percentage of atheists have brown eyes even though there are only fifty atheists in this group who have brown eyes.  450 theists out of 900 theists is the same percentage as 50 atheists out of 100 atheists.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where I ever said life is an accident.  :P

Where does one's sense of right and wrong come from? The conscience. Where does the conscience come from? The brain. Where does the brain come from? Well, you see, a long time ago the only life on earth was bacteria.....

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat""The universe" doesn't care. It has no objective. It simply is.

[/thread]

+1

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  if you're the result of an accident, good is that which benefits you.

I can see that you've put a lot of thought into this.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  
{snip}.

Before you type one more letter read the following Probability theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory)

Quote from: "Whitney"Does it matter if there is an intention behind it if ultimately the race for survival leads to a place where everything attempts to evolve to"resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient"...is that not what evolution does?

no, blind forces do not work in coordination.  what's good for the snake is bad for the mouse.  darwin and dawkins do not believe that blind forces are working together to form a more magnificent whole.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.

QuoteBut that is what theists do!

no the theist believe there is a right and wrong irregardless of what any cooperative belives

QuoteThe funny thing is that most people who subscribe to Social Darwinism are religious.  I would bet every penny I have that, the percentage of atheists who support Social Darwinism is far smaller than the percentage of religious folks that do.*  

In example; Republicans in America strongly support Social Darwinism.  They believe that the economy should be a completely free market economy with no controls whatsoever where the powerful can be in complete control.  They want to be free of regulations that prevent monopolies, free of minimum wages and mandated safety regulations, and they want all government attempts to assist those less fortunate stopped completely.  Most Republicans are Christians.  The percentage of atheist Republicans is minuscule, far lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population.

[/quote]
i'm not a republican, i'm actually a green and yes, a lot of right-winged christians give theism a bad name

Quote from: "Sophus"Where does one's sense of right and wrong come from? The conscience. Where does the conscience come from? The brain. Where does the brain come from? Well, you see, a long time ago the only life on earth was bacteria.....

odd, why is it that napoleon's conscience and abraham lincolon's conscience say such different things

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Sophus"Where does one's sense of right and wrong come from? The conscience. Where does the conscience come from? The brain. Where does the brain come from? Well, you see, a long time ago the only life on earth was bacteria.....

odd, why is it that napoleon's conscience and abraham lincolon's conscience say such different things

My point exactly. There is no absolute Right or Wrong.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Whitney"Does it matter if there is an intention behind it if ultimately the race for survival leads to a place where everything attempts to evolve to"resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient"...is that not what evolution does?

no, blind forces do not work in coordination.  what's good for the snake is bad for the mouse.  darwin and dawkins do not believe that blind forces are working together to form a more magnificent whole.

Did you ever read The BLIND Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Whitney"Does it matter if there is an intention behind it if ultimately the race for survival leads to a place where everything attempts to evolve to"resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient"...is that not what evolution does?

no, blind forces do not work in coordination.  what's good for the snake is bad for the mouse.  darwin and dawkins do not believe that blind forces are working together to form a more magnificent whole.

Thanks for proving that you haven't read either of their books.

It's actually best for both the snake and the mouse if they survive in balance...if the snake eats all the mice the snake dies too; if the snakes die out the mice become overpopulated and then eat up all of their food source and die too.  Life can only continue where there is healthy balance.  

Now...are you ready to discuss instead of pretending you are teaching?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.

QuoteBut that is what theists do!

no the theist believe there is a right and wrong irregardless of what any cooperative belives

A theist may believe there is an absolute moral code, but they can never agree on what that absolute moral code is. Some Christians thought that owning slaves was a god given moral right. Some Christians thought it was a good idea to torture millions of people just because they didn't believe in the same fairy tale. In the bible god commands the "chosen people" to rape and murder, even in the new testimate god requests Jeptha to sacrifice his daughter... is all this ok with you?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.

QuoteBut that is what theists do!

no the theist believe there is a right and wrong irregardless of what any cooperative belives

A theist may believe there is an absolute moral code, but they can never agree on what that absolute moral code is. Some Christians thought that owning slaves was a god given moral right. Some Christians thought it was a good idea to torture millions of people just because they didn't believe in the same fairy tale. In the bible god commands the "chosen people" to rape and murder, even in the new testimate god requests Jeptha to sacrifice his daughter... is all this ok with you?

i'm well aware that theists are capable of having a primitive morality.  no one really seems to understand where right and wrong come from.  there can only be "good" if there is a goal.  without goals there is no standard by which one can measure an actions goodness.  i think most theists will agree that the goal of the designer is to see his design continue in the most pleasant, less painful way possible.  as far as what actions contribute to the design's continuity that's a much more difficult debate.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no one really seems to agree with me about where right and wrong come from.

FIFY!  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"there can only be "good" if there is a goal.  without goals there is no standard by which one can measure an actions goodness.  i think most theists will agree that the goal of the designer is to see his design continue in the most pleasant, less painful way possible.  as far as what actions contribute to the design's continuity that's a much more difficult debate.

Where is the evidence for this designer? How do you know what the designer's goals are?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i think most theists will agree that the goal of the designer is to see his design continue in the most pleasant, less painful way possible.  as far as what actions contribute to the design's continuity that's a much more difficult debate.

There was a point in time where most people thought the earth was flat.  Majorities are very capable of being incorrect, especially when they make assumptions such as the existence of a designer, let alone that assumed designer's assumed goal.

QuoteThere was a point in time where most people thought the earth was flat.  Majorities are very capable of being incorrect, especially when they make assumptions such as the existence of a designer, let alone that assumed designer's assumed goal.

i'm not really interested in debating the existence of a designer.  i've been down that back and forth road before.  i'm here to debate the nature of right and wrong.

the designer's goal is not hard to fathom.  if you design something then we can infer that you prefer construction to destruction.  if the designer loved destruction we wouldn't be here.  you have to use the anthropic principle.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i'm well aware that theists are capable of having a primitive morality.  no one really seems to understand where right and wrong come from.  there can only be "good" if there is a goal.  without goals there is no standard by which one can measure an actions goodness.  i think most theists will agree that the goal of the designer is to see his design continue in the most pleasant, less painful way possible.  as far as what actions contribute to the design's continuity that's a much more difficult debate.

We almost all have similar goals: to be safe, to be happy, to be fed, to be comfortable... etc. Because of these similar goals, we all help each other out so that we all can achieve them. Working together has allowed the majority to achieve most of their goals.

No creator is required for us all to want to be safe and therefore create rules that we all abide by to keep us safe.

On a side note, if Christianity doesn't stop people from having "primitive morality" then what is the point? Maybe what is needed is to explain why things are bad and good instead of just saying there is some supreme "moral" (I put that in quotes because there are lots of examples in the bible that show that this version of god is very immoral), entity that will punish them.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i'm not really interested in debating the existence of a designer.  i've been down that back and forth road before.  i'm here to debate the nature of right and wrong.

the designer's goal is not hard to fathom.  if you design something then we can infer that you prefer construction to destruction.  if the designer loved destruction we wouldn't be here.  you have to use the anthropic principle.

What? You posit a designer as the source of a moral system, but won't debate the designer?

That's rather disingenuous, isn't it?

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i'm not really interested in debating the existence of a designer.  i've been down that back and forth road before.  i'm here to debate the nature of right and wrong.

the designer's goal is not hard to fathom.  if you design something then we can infer that you prefer construction to destruction.  if the designer loved destruction we wouldn't be here.  you have to use the anthropic principle.

What? You posit a designer as the source of a moral system, but won't debate the designer?

That's rather disingenuous, isn't it?

Exactly.  Harriet_tubman, your explanation of right and wrong hinges on the acceptance of a designer.  You're in an atheist forum.  The existence of your supposed designer seems to be at the heart of your argument, yet you won't debate the designer's existence?   Seems pretty pointless to continue the conversation.

I'm going to go ahead and take the position that right and wrong are derived from a wise magic turtle.  Also, I will not debate the existence of the wise magic turtle.  Most followers of the Turtle believe its goal is to make its creations happy and inspire successful propagation.  Totally makes sense.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I'm going to go ahead and take the position that right and wrong are derived from a wise magic turtle.

I like to think that god is Professor Dumbledore.  

Our concepts of right and wrong are merely arbitrary distinctions placed within us by the crawling chaos, he of a thousand forms and servant of Azathoth - Nyarlathotep.  These ideas we possess are only for the amusement of him and those who dwell in the unknown Kadath.  I'm surprised no one mentioned this...

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i'm not really interested in debating the existence of a designer.  i've been down that back and forth road before.  i'm here to debate the nature of right and wrong.

the designer's goal is not hard to fathom.  if you design something then we can infer that you prefer construction to destruction.  if the designer loved destruction we wouldn't be here.  you have to use the anthropic principle.

"You must believe the President passed this law."
"What if there's no President and he doesn't really exist?"
"That's not relevant to my case."

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  
{snip}.

Before you type one more letter read the following Probability theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory)

Still talking unsupportable rubbish harriet? Yes you are, you just seem to want to continue to display your ignorance for all to see. The very first line in you OP is complete balderdash and piffle, yet you plough on as if simple effort will carry your case, it won't. And that's the problem for a theistic world view now. You can't bully people into believing your nonsensical world view with immediate or eternal threats of pain and torment. No mythical perfect father exists, what you see through your eyes is real and what you do is ALL your responsibility. Nobody else to let you off the hook of your bad thoughts and actions. It's all your fault harriet, get used to it.

Heh, Tank, I was reading your post thinking how utterly British it sounded, and then I looked at your location.  *facepalm*

I don't really have anything to add that someone else hasn't said already, so I'm content to sit back and watch another theist flounder when confronted with the illogical consistencies of their own BS.

Quote from: "Davin"We almost all have similar goals: to be safe, to be happy, to be fed, to be comfortable... etc. Because of these similar goals, we all help each other out so that we all can achieve them. Working together has allowed the majority to achieve most of their goals.

not true, the spartans had one goal: kill the athenians, the athenians had a different goal: kill the spartans.  further, exxon's goals are radically diverse from mine.

QuoteNo creator is required for us all to want to be safe and therefore create rules that we all abide by to keep us safe.

true, if this were an accidental universe we would still want security.  however if you believe the universe is intended then what is good is defined as what helps the creator achieve its purpose.

QuoteOn a side note, if Christianity doesn't stop people from having "primitive morality" then what is the point?

what you seem to be saying is that if laws do not change humans then what is the point.  the point is the law exists and no matter what humans do the law will not change.  humans have to modify their behavior in accordance with the moral law of the universe.  even if we fail to adhere to the law we will still suffer it's consequences.  take global warming: right now we are destroying the planet, and if we don't change we destroy the planet.  irregardless of what humans do, if carbon levels rise above maybe 450 ppm then it will set off a chain reaction ruining everything.  

QuoteMaybe what is needed is to explain why things are bad and good instead of just saying there is some supreme "moral" (I put that in quotes because there are lots of examples in the bible that show that this version of god is very immoral), entity that will punish them.

in order for things to be objectively good then the definition of good must be anchored on some fact that is independent of humans.  humans do not decide what good is.  if humans decide what good is then what is good will change with each century.

i believe that the fact from which the definition of good comes is the fact that construction is good and destruction is bad.  a universe where destruction is good cannot exist long.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"The existence of your supposed designer seems to be at the heart of your argument, yet you won't debate the designer's existence?   Seems pretty pointless to continue the conversation.

you are so right, pinkocommie. see thread the universe is designed

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Heh, Tank, I was reading your post thinking how utterly British it sounded, and then I looked at your location.  *facepalm*

I don't really have anything to add that someone else hasn't said already, so I'm content to sit back and watch another theist flounder when confronted with the illogical consistencies of their own BS.

You should read it hearing a Roger Moore accent. I haven't got a Roger Moore accent, but it would sound sexy if Roger Moore read it  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"The existence of your supposed designer seems to be at the heart of your argument, yet you won't debate the designer's existence?   Seems pretty pointless to continue the conversation.

you are so right, pinkocommie. see thread the universe is designed

 

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"We almost all have similar goals: to be safe, to be happy, to be fed, to be comfortable... etc. Because of these similar goals, we all help each other out so that we all can achieve them. Working together has allowed the majority to achieve most of their goals.

not true, the spartans had one goal: kill the athenians, the athenians had a different goal: kill the spartans.  further, exxon's goals are radically diverse from mine.

Seriously? No one has similar goals? I may be going out on a limb here but I'm pretty sure the Spartans had more than just one goal, and I'm sure that the Athenians had more than one goal. I'm also pretty sure that both Exxon execs and you don't want to be murdered.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteNo creator is required for us all to want to be safe and therefore create rules that we all abide by to keep us safe.

true, if this were an accidental universe we would still want security.  however if you believe the universe is intended then what is good is defined as what helps the creator achieve its purpose.

If you build your house from straw, don't expect it to weather a storm.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteOn a side note, if Christianity doesn't stop people from having "primitive morality" then what is the point?

what you seem to be saying is that if laws do not change humans then what is the point.  the point is the law exists and no matter what humans do the law will not change.  humans have to modify their behavior in accordance with the moral law of the universe.  even if we fail to adhere to the law we will still suffer it's consequences.  take global warming: right now we are destroying the planet, and if we don't change we destroy the planet.  irregardless of what humans do, if carbon levels rise above maybe 450 ppm then it will set off a chain reaction ruining everything.

But the laws at least work to a good degree. If someone is going to refuse to obey the law, we lock them up to protect others (while I do also agree that often we lock up people we shouldn't), with religion there is no more authority to go around stoning people for breaking the rules (often very silly rules).
And please stop saying "irregardless." What does irregardless mean that regardless doesn't? All you're doing is adding two more characters and an extra syllable to the word regardless, to produce a word with the same exact meaning.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteMaybe what is needed is to explain why things are bad and good instead of just saying there is some supreme "moral" (I put that in quotes because there are lots of examples in the bible that show that this version of god is very immoral), entity that will punish them.

in order for things to be objectively good then the definition of good must be anchored on some fact that is independent of humans.  humans do not decide what good is.  if humans decide what good is then what is good will change with each century.

i believe that the fact from which the definition of good comes is the fact that construction is good and destruction is bad.  a universe where destruction is good cannot exist long.

Do we just make crap up and say, "hey, this magical man in the sky will give you sky cake when you die if you don't rape and kill me" or do we base our decisions what we can be sure about?

Quote from: "Davin"No one has similar goals? I may be going out on a limb here but I'm pretty sure the Spartans had more than just one goal, and I'm sure that the Athenians had more than one goal. I'm also pretty sure that both Exxon execs and you don't want to be murdered.

inevitably what happens is man divides into two camps: optimists and pessimists.  the pessimists distrust man and believe that the best course of action is the accumulation of power.  the optimist trust man and believe that the best course is wider cooperation. you cannot convince a pessimist he is wrong with objective facts if you start from the premise that the universe is accidental.

Quotethe laws at least work to a good degree.

no, the laws do not work to a good degree if you cannot establish a criterion from which to base laws.  a theist's criterion is that destruction is bad, construction good, death bad, life good.  what is the atheist's criterion for establishing laws?  

Quotewith religion there is no more authority to go around stoning people for breaking the rules (often very silly rules).

i don't know what you mean

Quotei believe that the fact from which the definition of good comes is the fact that construction is good and destruction is bad.  a universe where destruction is good cannot exist long.

QuoteDo we just make crap up and say, "hey, this magical man in the sky will give you sky cake when you die if you don't rape and kill me" or do we base our decisions what we can be sure about?

no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good, destruction is bad.  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad, if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"inevitably what happens is man divides into two camps: optimists and pessimists. the pessimists distrust man and believe that the best course of action is the accumulation of power. the optimist trust man and believe that the best course is wider cooperation. you cannot convince a pessimist he is wrong with objective facts if you start from the premise that the universe is accidental.

Sorry... I'm annoyingly optimistic and I don't trust anyone. Also, WHO ever said this universe is an accident?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"inevitably what happens is man divides into two camps: optimists and pessimists.

Really? Why wasn't I notified of these two groups? Are the groups always optimistic and pessimistic, because I am optimistic about some things and pessimistic about other things and neutral or have no opinion about others, do we create different groups for each thing or do we count up the views we hold on everything and whichever has the most is the group you get placed in? I'd rather just not bother and stay out of both groups myself and continue to make decisions on the available information instead of preconceived ideas. However you said it was inevitable, so do I get like a letter in the mail from the group I'm selected for?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no, the laws do not work to a good degree if you cannot establish a criterion from which to base laws.  a theist's criterion is that destruction is bad, construction good, death bad, life good.  what is the atheist's criterion for establishing laws?

Like I said before, we create laws based on things we have in common. Don't steal is based on all of us not wanting people to take our stuff, don't kill comes from all of us not wanting to be murdered... etc. So create laws that we all must abide and we punish and/or lock up those that don't.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quotewith religion there is no more authority to go around stoning people for breaking the rules (often very silly rules).

i don't know what you mean

Might help if you kept it in it's sentence: If someone is going to refuse to obey the law, we lock them up to protect others, with religion there is no more authority to go around stoning people for breaking the rules.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good, destruction is bad.  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad, if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good

Why do we start from that assumption? Without deconstruction we'd all starve to death.

Watching someone strain so hard to argue from the position of false dichotomies is kind of interesting.  

Destruction is bad. Construction is good.

Harriet Tubman will be signing copies of her book in the lobby.

I'm just curious as to how destruction can be considered "bad" when it is a necessary part of life.  For example, the death of one organism contributes to the life of another.  I think the destruction=bad, construction=good is an elementary view of things.

Quote from: "Davin"Really? Why wasn't I notified of these two groups? Are the groups always optimistic and pessimistic, because I am optimistic about some things and pessimistic about other things and neutral or have no opinion about others, do we create different groups for each thing or do we count up the views we hold on everything and whichever has the most is the group you get placed in? I'd rather just not bother and stay out of both groups myself and continue to make decisions on the available information instead of preconceived ideas. However you said it was inevitable, so do I get like a letter in the mail from the group I'm selected for?

the point is you believe that human beings can decide what is moral in an accidental universe.  that is impossible.  in an accidental universe a good action is that which helps YOU accumulate power.  if someone takes power from you he is bad, but that person that just took power from you he did a good thing from his point of view.
inevitably some humans will understand that this dog eat dog philo will get us nowhere and that we should work together.  but some humans, like stalin, can not be persuaded of this and will think that the best course of action is the accumulation of personal power.


in an intended universe there is one goal: that the universe should continue.  anything that fosters the universe's continuity is good, anything that harms it is bad.

QuoteLike I said before, we create laws based on things we have in common.

well how about things that we do not have in common.  only 4% of the population is homosexual.  should they be excluded because they are not common?  

QuoteDon't steal is based on all of us not wanting people to take our stuff,

in most third world countries 1% own 50% of the land.  is it lawful to steal their land and give it to the poor?

Quotedon't kill comes from all of us not wanting to be murdered... etc.

how about killing stalin? you see, if you cannot anchor morality in an objective fact that doesn't change then what is good depends on what majority wants.  what the majority wants changes each decade.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good, destruction is bad.  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad, if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good

Why do we start from that assumption? Without deconstruction we'd all starve to death.[/quote]

what you're referring to is terminating harmful life.  terminating a destructive life force is good.

Quote from: "Squid"I'm just curious as to how destruction can be considered "bad" when it is a necessary part of life.  For example, the death of one organism contributes to the life of another.  I think the destruction=bad, construction=good is an elementary view of things.

there is good destruction and bad destruction.  killing stalin, which kruschev and 3 others actually did, that was a good deed.

dropping a bomb on an afghan wedding party under the pretext of getting al qaida that's bad.

you have to measure an action's goodness by asking whether or not it contributes to the continuity of the universe, removes pain, and increases happiness.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i'm well aware that theists are capable of having a primitive morality.  no one really seems to understand where right and wrong come from.  there can only be "good" if there is a goal.  without goals there is no standard by which one can measure an actions goodness.  i think most theists will agree that the goal of the designer is to see his design continue in the most pleasant, less painful way possible.  as far as what actions contribute to the design's continuity that's a much more difficult debate.

If that is the designer's goal, then the designer's goal has been thoroughly thwarted by all the evil in this world. Much of this "design" has in fact not continued. Much of this design has not been pleasant. Much of this design is painful.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"there is good destruction and bad destruction.  killing stalin, which kruschev and 3 others actually did, that was a good deed.

dropping a bomb on an afghan wedding party under the pretext of getting al qaida that's bad.

you have to measure an action's goodness by asking whether or not it contributes to the continuity of the universe, removes pain, and increases happiness.

So what you're saying is that good isn't objective and that it changes with the circumstances? On a side note, the continuity of the universe does not depend on the existence of the human race. Even if Stalin had continued his reign as dictator of the USSR and by chance the world did experience nuclear Armageddon, the universe would have continued on. To quote Alan Moore - "Everyone will die. And the universe will not even notice". And if the continuity of the universe depends on the removal of pain, why don't we just annihilate the human race and end pain for good?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"in order for things to be objectively good then the definition of good must be anchored on some fact that is independent of humans. humans do not decide what good is. if humans decide what good is then what is good will change with each century

Considering the fact that what is considered "good" has changed (a lot more commonly than each century) you have just proved that humans do decide what is good. Bravo!

Quote from: "harriet_tubman".  humans do not decide what good is.  if humans decide what good is then what is good will change with each century.

i believe that the fact from which the definition of good comes is the fact that construction is good and destruction is bad.  a universe where destruction is good cannot exist long.

What is good has indeed changed through time. Three thousand years ago people had different views of good and bad, especially regarding theist's ideas of what god considered good.

Where do you get the idea that destruction is bad? That is an objective statement. Would you say that the destruction of slavery would be bad? Would you say that the construction of laws encouraging slavery would be good?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"in an accidental universe a good action is that which helps YOU accumulate power.

Simple-minded nonsensical rubbish. Why is a mouse when it spins? Now why would anyone try to engage in an intelligent conversation with someone who says "in an accidental universe a good action is that which helps YOU accumulate power?" Absolutely pointless. This is a person with the IQ of a tool shed.

QuoteSo what you're saying is that good isn't objective and that it changes with the circumstances?

almost every circumstance is different.  every once in a while you'll find two circumstances exactly alike.  the standard doesn't change however.  think of whether or not a law is constitutional.  every law is different but the constitution remains the same.

QuoteConsidering the fact that what is considered "good" has changed (a lot more commonly than each century) you have just proved that humans do decide what is good. Bravo!

humans decide what they think is good, but they're wrong.

Quote from: "John09"Where do you get the idea that destruction is bad? That is an objective statement. Would you say that the destruction of slavery would be bad? Would you say that the construction of laws encouraging slavery would be good?

the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.  destruction of slavery, good, constructing laws that encourage slavery, bad, for reasons which are obvious to both of us

So by this:

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good, destruction is bad.  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad, if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good

What you really meant was this:

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good [unless it's bad, then it's not considered construction anymore], destruction is bad [unless it's good, in which case it's not destruction].  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad [unless it isn't], if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good [unless it's bad].

 

Quote from: "pinkocommie"What you really meant was this:

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no, we don't make crap up we start from the premise that construction is good [unless it's bad, then it's not considered construction anymore], destruction is bad [unless it's good, in which case it's not destruction].  if an action tends towards destruction it's bad [unless it isn't], if an action fosters construction, life, then it is good [unless it's bad].

 

here's a more exact statement of my belief:
the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.

i've listed mine, let's see yours

by the way, esse j slim, i see you refer to yourself as a rational moralist.  have you ever seen anyone call themselves an irrational moralist?  you might as well have as your title: good person.  anyway, the definition for what is rational is not exactly clear but let's say it means there is reason behind one's actions.  ok, what's the reason behind your moral actions?  how do come up with an irrefutable rational definition of a moral act in an accidental universe and how do you know it's the RIGHT one.  

each creature is fighting for its existence, especially the meat eaters.  how are you going to reason with the snake and say you're bad because you eat mice.  as for human morality, let's take all these primitive americans that believe that if we cut and run in afghan then the "terrorists" have won.  how do you come up with a reason to persuade them that they're wrong, especially when they believe it's kill or be killed

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"here's a more exact statement of my belief:
the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.

i've listed mine, let's see yours

By whose standards are you calculating this decrease of pain and increase of joy?  These are subjective concepts, which makes your revised statement as worthless as the statement made before.  Not to mention, what exactly do you mean by 'promotes the cosmos' continuity'?  We have no influence on the cosmos' continuity, so why would our criterion to which we measure an actions goodness include this concern about which we are entirely impotent?

See my what?  Statement of belief?  I don't have one.  I'm not terribly big into beliefs.  I prefer facts, and I'm very secure with saying 'I don't know for sure' until I know the facts.

QuoteBy whose standards are you calculating this decrease of pain and increase of joy?

ok, i admit that was a bad statement on my part and i apologize.  there is good pain and there is bad pain. certainly hitler suffering pain because he couldn't take stalingrad is invalid pain.  

Quotewhat exactly do you mean by 'promotes the cosmos' continuity'?

if you're a designer your whole modus operandi is about manipulating reality to suit your desire.  living objects can manipulate reality much more so than nonliving objects, therefore life is the agent of the designer.  life therefore is good, death bad.  joy which promotes life is good, joy which promotes death is bad. pain which promotes death is bad, pain which discourages death is necessary if not good.

QuoteWe have no influence on the cosmos' continuity,

wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.  

QuoteSee my what?  Statement of belief?  I don't have one.  I'm not terribly big into beliefs.  I prefer facts, and I'm very secure with saying 'I don't know for sure' until I know the facts.

what facts do you point to affirm your knowledge that the cosmos is an accident? post on other thread.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.  

How can you possibly know this?

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.  

How can you possibly know this?

it doesn't take much too logic to conclude that if you like to create, creating a living object is much more satisfying than a nonliving one.  i don't think that is a very outrageous assumption.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"it doesn't take much too logic to conclude that if you like to create, creating a living object is much more satisfying than a nonliving one.  i don't think that is a very outrageous assumption.

So, you don't know it, you assume it?

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"it doesn't take much too logic to conclude that if you like to create, creating a living object is much more satisfying than a nonliving one.  i don't think that is a very outrageous assumption.

So, you don't know it, you assume it?

i would be ridiculous if i claimed to know this.

i've named the premises i start from, now let's see yours.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i would be ridiculous if i claimed to know this.

I agree, but it's the basis of your claim. Rather renders your argument unsound.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i've named the premises i start from, now let's see yours.

For which claim that I've made? Oh, wait. I've made no claims.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i would be ridiculous if i claimed to know this.

QuoteI agree, but it's the basis of your claim. Rather renders your argument unsound.

would you like to take the opposing view, that one who creates inanimate matter is not interested in creating animate matter?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"would you like to take the opposing view, that one who creates inanimate matter is not interested in creating animate matter?

I'd like to see evidence for a creator, actually. Do you have any?

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"would you like to take the opposing view, that one who creates inanimate matter is not interested in creating animate matter?

I'd like to see evidence for a creator, actually. Do you have any?

sure, where there is a design, there is a designer.  

the universe is finely tuned.

getting back to my thought experiment where we suddenly found out we were living inside the parthenon.  i look at the parthenon and infer it's designed, you look at the parthenon and refuse to believe it's designed, mostly because you have too much emotion wrapped in your atheistic worldview.

we'll talk about synchronicity later.

also by the way i noticed that the smyrna church advertises on this website.  that's bizarre.  i wonder why the webmasters allow it.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"sure, where there is a design, there is a designer.  

the universe is finely tuned.

getting back to my thought experiment where we suddenly found out we were living inside the parthenon.  i look at the parthenon and infer it's designed,  

Repeating an assertion does not add validity to the assertion.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"you look at the parthenon and refuse to believe it's designed, mostly because you have too much emotion wrapped in your atheistic worldview.

Ad hominem.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"we'll talk about synchronicity later.

My favorite album from The Police?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"there is good destruction and bad destruction.  killing stalin, which kruschev and 3 others actually did, that was a good deed.

dropping a bomb on an afghan wedding party under the pretext of getting al qaida that's bad.

you have to measure an action's goodness by asking whether or not it contributes to the continuity of the universe, removes pain, and increases happiness.

Removes pain and increases happiness for who?  Suddenly destruction is dichotomous now?  Is there also "bad construction"? Please define "continuity of the universe".  Dealing in abstraction does nothing for progression of a meaningful conversation.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"also by the way i noticed that the smyrna church advertises on this website.  that's bizarre.  i wonder why the webmasters allow it.

The advertisements aren't under Whitney's control.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"if you're a designer your whole modus operandi is about manipulating reality to suit your desire.  living objects can manipulate reality much more so than nonliving objects, therefore life is the agent of the designer.  life therefore is good, death bad.  joy which promotes life is good, joy which promotes death is bad. pain which promotes death is bad, pain which discourages death is necessary if not good.

Life isn't always good, death isn't always bad.  Your argument is a false dichotomy.  Also, creator again?  If you're not willing to discuss the validity of your perceived creator, why do you keep bringing it up?  Again - atheist forum.  Few here are going to simply accept your name dropping some made up entity to prove your obviously poorly thought out point.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.

Gum is made of poison!  Coloring in an up and down motion is incorrect!  Mirrors capture a piece of your soul and never give it back!  What?  Oh, I thought we were making ridiculous statements without providing any proof of our claims.  Again, you've not only presented this creator without any evidence (and in fact have stated that you will not discuss the validity of your creator cuz...I don't know, that's your deal.), but now we're meant to take your word on knowing what this unproven creator's core concerns are?  Haha, do you have a direct line, or its personal email or what?  Just please, don't tell me your excuse for knowing the assumed motivations of an assumed creator are based on your own opinion of what 'makes sense'.  It's going to make sense to you, you're the one making all of it up.  Not making it up?  Then show me the proof.  Not restating your assertion, but proof.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"what facts do you point to affirm your knowledge that the cosmos is an accident? post on other thread.

Did I ever say the cosmos was an accident?  You keep saying that and trying to claim that people here think it - it seems like you've already decided what our arguments are and are getting frustrated because we're not adhering to your internal script.  It's interesting to watch for sure.  

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"also by the way i noticed that the smyrna church advertises on this website.  that's bizarre.  i wonder why the webmasters allow it.

The advertisements aren't under Whitney's control.

Harriet...why don't you try to address what people are saying instead of worrying about what I allow to be advertised on the site?

I have no issue taking a few cents from some church or religious site that wants their ads to run here; it doesn't hurt anyone (some are quite funny) and helps with hosting costs.

Where right and wrong come from has been sufficently explained on this forum, just use the search button.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"by the way, essej slim, i see you refer to yourself as a rational moralist.  have you ever seen anyone call themselves an irrational moralist?  you might as well have as your title: good person.

Well, good person would've been a little too general for my taste.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"anyway, the definition for what is rational is not exactly clear but let's say it means there is reason behind one's actions.  ok, what's the reason behind your moral actions?  how do come up with an irrefutable rational definition of a moral act in an accidental universe and how do you know it's the RIGHT one.

I don't come up with an irrefutable definition of morality, in fact my morals change (or are at least tweaked) quite often, like when I learn something new or someone presents an issue to me from a different point of view. Therefore, I don't know if what I consider a moral act is the right one, but then again I never claimed to. I' also never claimed that the universe is an accident. I accept that knowing that is beyond my ability (but apparently it's not beyond yours). Quite frankly (as I've said before) I couldn't care less about issues concerning the origin of life or the creation of the universe

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"each creature is fighting for its existence, especially the meat eaters.  how are you going to reason with the snake and say you're bad because you eat mice.  as for human morality, let's take all these primitive americans that believe that if we cut and run in afghan then the "terrorists" have won.  how do you come up with a reason to persuade them that they're wrong, especially when they believe it's kill or be killed

I wouldn't tell the snake he/she is bad, he/she is just trying to survive in a harsh world. (I don't see how this has anything to do with what I stated before). I also don't think we should cut and run in Afghanistan. We created the mess they are in now, and it's up to us to fix it. On top of that terrorism is evil and I'd like to see the entire Taliban exterminated.

Here's a question for you. How come you keep ignoring what people are actually saying to you and instead, pretend we say something else and ask us about that?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"here's a more exact statement of my belief:
the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.

Good, fine. Name one thing, one human action, just one, that has "promoted the cosmos' continuity."

QuoteRemoves pain and increases happiness for who?  Suddenly destruction is dichotomous now?  Is there also "bad construction"? Please define "continuity of the universe".  Dealing in abstraction does nothing for progression of a meaningful conversation.

i admit that it's a fair question and a difficult one.  the atheists certainly don't have an answer.  i elaborated somewhat before with this

if you're a designer your whole modus operandi is about manipulating reality to suit your desire. living objects can manipulate reality much more so than nonliving objects, therefore life is the agent of the designer. life therefore is good, death bad. joy which promotes life is good, joy which promotes death is bad. pain which promotes death is bad, pain which discourages death is necessary if not good.

let me try to elaborate a little more

as a creator you're interested in the whole growing, becoming more healthy (less death, less pain), itself learning new capabilities.  

so let's take the film avatar, the sky people were the clear bad guys because they were destroying another planet and another people for the sake of their personal enrichment.  the sky people were not helping the whole, they were satisfying a part at the expense of another part.  the navi on the other hand were not threatening the stability of the whole.

is there bad construction?  sure, building an oil rig in the ocean, very bad construction because it threatens the whole.

definition of continuity of the universe, as a creator the universe is just a platform, life is where the real action is, but the platform is necessary.  any action that threatens the existence of life or the platform as a whole is bad.

Harriet, you whole argument is based on the assumption of a creator. Since you've already stated you can't know the creator or what it wants, your argument falls flat. Why keep re-asserting this argument when it's already fatally flawed?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Life isn't always good, death isn't always bad.  Your argument is a false dichotomy.  

i never said life is always good.  only life which helps the whole of life is good.

QuoteAlso, creator again?  If you're not willing to discuss the validity of your perceived creator, why do you keep bringing it up?  

i already told you that i opened this debate in another thread.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"wrong.  life is the core concern of the creator.  the earth is just a platform on which to build his more complex creation, which is life.

QuoteOh, I thought we were making ridiculous statements without providing any proof of our claims ... now we're meant to take your word on knowing what this unproven creator's core concerns are?  

creators by their very nature enjoy creating, otherwise they wouldn't be creators.  that's obvious.  would you like to take the opposing view that creators don't like to create?

QuoteDid I ever say the cosmos was an accident?

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

Quote from: "JillSwift"Harriet, you whole argument is based on the assumption of a creator. Since you've already stated you can't know the creator or what it wants, your argument falls flat. Why keep re-asserting this argument when it's already fatally flawed?

no, it's based on the radical proposition that, one, where there is a design there is a designer, and two, creators like to create.  

since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

Harriet, please answer my question, please, pretty please with sugar on top:

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"here's a more exact statement of my belief:
the criterion to which we measure an actions goodness is whether or not it promotes the cosmos' continuity and whether it decreases pain and increases joy.

Good, fine. Name one thing, one human action, just one, that has "promoted the cosmos' continuity."

QuoteTherefore, I don't know if what I consider a moral act is the right one, but then again I never claimed to.

i'd like to see what your definition of a rational moralist is.  i would think it would be one who believes that there is a REASON why a certain moral act is good, or right and that the REASON is an objective fact independent of any human influence.  the opposite of a rational moralist would be moral relativist, one who believes that "anything goes," or what is good depends on the tastes of the person.

QuoteI' also never claimed that the universe is an accident. I accept that knowing that is beyond my ability (but apparently it's not beyond yours). Quite frankly (as I've said before) I couldn't care less about issues concerning the origin of life or the creation of the universe

then you're an agnostic.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"each creature is fighting for its existence, especially the meat eaters.  how are you going to reason with the snake and say you're bad because you eat mice.  as for human morality, let's take all these primitive americans that believe that if we cut and run in afghan then the "terrorists" have won.  how do you come up with a reason to persuade them that they're wrong, especially when they believe it's kill or be killed

QuoteI wouldn't tell the snake he/she is bad, he/she is just trying to survive in a harsh world. (I don't see how this has anything to do with what I stated before).

it relates to the definition of a rational moralist.

QuoteI also don't think we should cut and run in Afghanistan. We created the mess they are in now, and it's up to us to fix it. On top of that terrorism is evil and I'd like to see the entire Taliban exterminated.

terrorism is evil and america is terrorist nation number one.  they attacked us on 9/11 because we have military bases in THEIR country.  if the muslims had a military base in your backyard would you take it lying down or would you be a man and fight back?  americans have killed more foreign citizens since wwwii (1.5 million korean, 3.5 million vietnamese), dropped bombs on about 22 nations, and have attempted to overthrow 70 governments and succeeded in 35.  as for fixing the mess, what, are we going to fix the mess by dropping bombs on civilians?

QuoteHere's a question for you. How come you keep ignoring what people are actually saying to you and instead, pretend we say something else and ask us about that?

[/quote]
show me where i've done this and we'll discuss it.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Good, fine. Name one thing, one human action, just one, that has "promoted the cosmos' continuity."

i answered it elsewhere, here is what i wrote

definition of continuity of the universe, as a creator the universe is just a platform, life is where the real action is, but the platform is necessary. any action that threatens the existence of life or the platform as a whole is bad.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Good, fine. Name one thing, one human action, just one, that has "promoted the cosmos' continuity."

i answered it elsewhere, here is what i wrote

definition of continuity of the universe, as a creator the universe is just a platform, life is where the real action is, but the platform is necessary. any action that threatens the existence of life or the platform as a whole is bad.

But, you see, that is not an answer. In fact it's hard to get to whatever it is you're driving at. "Life is where the real action is, but the platform is necessary." I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Okay, so tell me one human action that has impeded or otherwise had a negative impact on the continuity of the cosmos.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

There is debate. You make a claim and I say your claim is bogus as it is riddled with fallacy and is not evidenced in the least. I don't have to offer a counter-claim, that's just a facile gambit on your part.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

There is debate. You make a claim and I say your claim is bogus as it is riddled with fallacy and is not evidenced in the least. I don't have to offer a counter-claim, that's just a facile gambit on your part.

no there isn't a debate.  here's how our debates work.

me: because of x therefore y
you: wrong
me: why
you: i don't have to state a reason

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"Really? Why wasn't I notified of these two groups? Are the groups always optimistic and pessimistic, because I am optimistic about some things and pessimistic about other things and neutral or have no opinion about others, do we create different groups for each thing or do we count up the views we hold on everything and whichever has the most is the group you get placed in? I'd rather just not bother and stay out of both groups myself and continue to make decisions on the available information instead of preconceived ideas. However you said it was inevitable, so do I get like a letter in the mail from the group I'm selected for?

the point is you believe that human beings can decide what is moral in an accidental universe.  that is impossible.  in an accidental universe a good action is that which helps YOU accumulate power.  if someone takes power from you he is bad, but that person that just took power from you he did a good thing from his point of view.
inevitably some humans will understand that this dog eat dog philo will get us nowhere and that we should work together.  but some humans, like stalin, can not be persuaded of this and will think that the best course of action is the accumulation of personal power.

Really? That is what I believe? My my, to think I've going all this time thinking that I thought other things. It's a damn good thing you came along to let me know what I think instead of what I thought I think. Seriously though, if you want to have a discussion with someone else, it's important to have the argument with them and not some person from your imagination.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"in an intended universe there is one goal: that the universe should continue.  anything that fosters the universe's continuity is good, anything that harms it is bad.

In the universes I created, destruction was good. It's what got you points and extra lives. The point is: without first even knowing that a creator exists, speculating as to what the imaginary creator wants is completely pointless.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteLike I said before, we create laws based on things we have in common.

well how about things that we do not have in common.  only 4% of the population is homosexual.  should they be excluded because they are not common?

Stop this. Really? Most of us humans have similar goals. By bringing up homosexuals, Klu Klux Klan, Hitler, slaves, purple aliens, Mexicans... it doesn't matter, almost all of us want to stay alive and don't want our stuff taken. That doesn't require a god at all, just us.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteDon't steal is based on all of us not wanting people to take our stuff,

in most third world countries 1% own 50% of the land.  is it lawful to steal their land and give it to the poor?

So most people do like to have their stuff taken?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quotedon't kill comes from all of us not wanting to be murdered... etc.

how about killing stalin? you see, if you cannot anchor morality in an objective fact that doesn't change then what is good depends on what majority wants.  what the majority wants changes each decade.

I'm pretty sure Stalin didn't want to be killed. I'm sorry, I'm not seeing whether you're agreeing or disagreeing that even without making shit up about a sky cake man, we can create some very good morals.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"Why do we start from that assumption? Without deconstruction we'd all starve to death.

what you're referring to is terminating harmful life.  terminating a destructive life force is good.

Really, cute little rabbit frolicking in the forest is a destructive life force? First thing you need to do is stop these assumptions of what I'm talking about and just read what I'm talking about.

Every single post you've ignored me and talked about something else. You asked how we can create laws without some made up cloud man, I answered and you ignore that line of reasoning for something else. FOCUS! Stay on target. If were talking about French Toast, don't change the subject to plastic figurines. You want to talk about how the laws go created without the need for and often in spite of religion. There are several laws that came from people claiming to know that a god existed and on top of that what that god wanted, do you support these laws? Because that is exactly what you're proposing.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

There is debate. You make a claim and I say your claim is bogus as it is riddled with fallacy and is not evidenced in the least. I don't have to offer a counter-claim, that's just a facile gambit on your part.

no there isn't a debate.  here's how our debates work.

me: because of x therefore y
you: wrong
me: why
you: i don't have to state a reason

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Wow...  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"no there isn't a debate.  here's how our debates work.

me: because of x therefore y
you: wrong
me: why
you: i don't have to state a reason

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi282.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk243%2Flunatica_lunatica%2FCool%2520text%2FSiskoAnimated.gif&hash=9b7ef85510a9e958f0cc65aecdc9ef00435aeceb)

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"living objects can manipulate reality much more so than nonliving objects, therefore life is the agent of the designer. life therefore is good, death bad.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i never said life is always good.  only life which helps the whole of life is good.

Seems like you're doing a bit of the ol' moving the goalposts here.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i already told you that i opened this debate in another thread.

So now you are willing to prove your claims of a creator, but only on a different thread?  Why all the crazy rules of engagement?  Prove your wild claims as you make them or stop making them, here there and anywhere else on this forum.  I can tell, people are growing pretty tired of your fallacious arguments and this 'comment on my other thread if you want to talk about this' song and dance isn't helping.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"creators by their very nature enjoy creating, otherwise they wouldn't be creators.  That's obvious. would you like to take the opposing view that creators don't like to create?

More wacky assertions made without evidence.  This statement is just your conjecture put forth as fact.  I'm going to let you in on a secret - even if you add comments about your own assertions like 'that's obvious' and seem to really REALLY believe your assertions are factual, that's not enough to make them factual.    Taking the opposing view would be equally illogical.  I don't know the motivations of everything that could possibly be considered a creator, so claiming that creators don't like to create is the same amount of absurd as claiming creators like to create.

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

...I'm not Richard Dawkins, why is it relevant what Dawkin's thinks?  No, I don't think the universe is the result of an intention.  Not believing the universe is a result of an intention does not mean that I have to think the universe was created by accident.  Stop trying to pigeon hold me within your false dichotomy.

(edited to fix a quote fail on my part)

Quote from: "JillSwift"I don't have to offer a counter-claim

Jill, every human decision is a claim, even the decision to remain skeptical or agnostic is a claim.  

let's take this photo

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi87.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk137%2Fkylefoley76%2F19.jpg&hash=44d45792cc2ede80ff2dae5ba5e3908350086581)

there are various claims:
1) i need to see more context, but even this is not a valid claim because a human can make a judgment solely from the photo
2) it's an accident perhaps due to something like wind or erosion or an earthquake
3) it's the result of humans
4) it's the result of some other intelligence such as aliens

almost everyone except atheists goes with 2. atheists don't want to admit humans did it because they understand that they're inferring design based on intuition.  most atheists prefer choice 1 because then they don't appear completely irrational, but if you think about it, let's say you could see more of the desert, what if there was a building next to it, would that matter? what if there was an alien next to it, would that matter? no because humans know that photos of aliens can be faked.  

so your refusal to make a decision is itself a decision that must be supported by reason.  

sometimes it's rational to remain agnostic such as with the question whether or not izzy stone was a spy.  well, in order to make an intelligent decision on whether or not izzy stone was a spy you have to sift through moutains of kgb documents, most of it in russion, plus they used code names making it very difficult to confirm whether or not izzy stone was a spy.  in that case agnosticism is actually the best mode of conduct.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"Tripe

You're not worth further time. Buh bye.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"there are various claims:
1) i need to see more context, but even this is not a valid claim because a human can make a judgment solely from the photo
2) it's an accident perhaps due to something like wind or erosion or an earthquake
3) it's the result of humans
4) it's the result of some other intelligence such as aliens

almost everyone except atheists goes with 2. atheists don't want to admit humans did it because they understand that they're inferring design based on intuition.

No, most atheists would say they don't know... unless they did know, in which case they would provide the evidence for their claim.

Let me give you some advice: Stop assuming. Your baseless speculation means nothing useful, it gets in the way, wastes other peoples time and makes you look like someone not concerned with honest debate.

QuoteNo, most atheists would say they don't know... unless they did know, in which case they would provide the evidence for their claim.

right, most atheists would say number one which shows how irrational they are. anyone with any sense would choose 3.

this is my challenge to you davin.  take that photo and show it to 10 people and say, i, davin, believe there is not info in this photo to decide whether or not it is the result of human agency and see what the general common sense reaction is.

harriet_tubman please stop telling us what we believe after we've already told you we do not think that way. Thanks.  

QuoteIn the universes I created, destruction was good. It's what got you points and extra lives.

this is impossible because if a creator suddenly repented of his creation we wouldn't be here.

QuoteThe point is: without first even knowing that a creator exists, speculating as to what the imaginary creator wants is completely pointless.

none of us can ever KNOW what happened in the beginning, we have to make a decision based on the info available to us, and if the most rational decision is that we do not have enough info then so be it.  when we see fine-tuning the most rational inference is that it is the result of intelligence.

QuoteMost of us humans have similar goals. By bringing up homosexuals, Klu Klux Klan, Hitler, slaves, purple aliens, Mexicans... it doesn't matter, almost all of us want to stay alive and don't want our stuff taken. That doesn't require a god at all, just us.

most humans do not have similar goals.  there are the greedy and there are the altruistic, though of course almost all are a combination of both.  now how do you prove to someone who is greedy that he is wrong.  for example:

you: nero, you're a bad person because you killed you're mother
nero: this world is kill or be killed

how do you prove that he is wrong?  

QuoteSo most people do like to have their stuff taken?

my point is your maxim to not steal doesn't explain a lot.

QuoteReally, 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.

QuoteThere are several laws that came from people claiming to know that a god existed and on top of that what that god wanted, do you support these laws?

this is the because people do bad things in the name of God, God therefore does not exist fallacy.  and no, i don't support those laws and those people that made them were wrong.

QuoteBecause that is exactly what you're proposing.

no, it's not.  please demonstrate how.

Davin,
i'm still waiting for your justification of right and wrong in an accidental universe other than "most humans have common goals."

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"since you're not willing to state that creators hate creation and since you're not willing to back up the statement that random forces can create designs with evidence there is no debate between us.

There is debate. You make a claim and I say your claim is bogus as it is riddled with fallacy and is not evidenced in the least. I don't have to offer a counter-claim, that's just a facile gambit on your part.

no there isn't a debate.  here's how our debates work.

me: because of x therefore y
you: wrong
me: why
you: i don't have to state a reason

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=5&p=66506#p66506 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&p=66506#p66506) .

haf is for civil discussion, you have not been civil since you got here and this is a prime example.  shape up or ship out.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteIn the universes I created, destruction was good. It's what got you points and extra lives.

this is impossible because if a creator suddenly repented of his creation we wouldn't be here.

Impossible? No I have done it several times. It's not impossible.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteThe point is: without first even knowing that a creator exists, speculating as to what the imaginary creator wants is completely pointless.

none of us can ever KNOW what happened in the beginning, we have to make a decision based on the info available to us, and if the most rational decision is that we do not have enough info then so be it.  when we see fine-tuning the most rational inference is that it is the result of intelligence.

If it's rational, then what is your reasoning? Where is your evidence?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteMost of us humans have similar goals. By bringing up homosexuals, Klu Klux Klan, Hitler, slaves, purple aliens, Mexicans... it doesn't matter, almost all of us want to stay alive and don't want our stuff taken. That doesn't require a god at all, just us.

most humans do not have similar goals.  there are the greedy and there are the altruistic, though of course almost all are a combination of both.  now how do you prove to someone who is greedy that he is wrong.  for example:

you: nero, you're a bad person because you killed you're mother
nero: this world is kill or be killed

how do you prove that he is wrong?

What does this have to do with the discussion of laws that we're having?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteSo most people do like to have their stuff taken?

my point is your maxim to not steal doesn't explain a lot.

My point is that because most of us have similar interests like not having our stuff stolen, it naturally leads into a civilization making laws against stealing.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteReally, 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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteThere are several laws that came from people claiming to know that a god existed and on top of that what that god wanted, do you support these laws?

this is the because people do bad things in the name of God, God therefore does not exist fallacy.  and no, i don't support those laws and those people that made them were wrong.

No, I'm asking you, since you previously said that we just have to extrapolate what some creator of the universe wants in order to make a decision as to what is right and wrong. This has been done lots of times before, so I'm asking: do you support these laws which came about by the very same speculative process that you're saying that we should use?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteBecause that is exactly what you're proposing.

no, it's not.  please demonstrate how.

Please refer to... everything you said. And the above.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"Davin,
i'm still waiting for your justification of right and wrong in an accidental universe other than "most humans have common goals."

Then you're going to be waiting a long time. Why are you moving the goal post to some field I don't even play in?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"creators by their very nature enjoy creating, otherwise they wouldn't be creators.  That's obvious. would you like to take the opposing view that creators don't like to create?

QuoteMore wacky assertions made without evidence.  This statement is just your conjecture put forth as fact.

if it's such a wacky assertion, that creators like to create then try out this statement on some strangers and see how they react: "i, pinkocommie, do not believe creators like to create.  see how far you get.

QuoteI'm going to let you in on a secret - even if you add comments about your own assertions like 'that's obvious' and seem to really REALLY believe your assertions are factual, that's not enough to make them factual.

when we're talking about metaphysics we're dealing with speculation and an absence of hard concrete, rock solid evidence.  this is where faith comes in.  the atheist puts his faith in an accidental universe.  the agnostic says, well, the universe is fine-tuned but i still don't know.  the theist says where there is fine-tuning there is intelligence.  you have to make a decision, if you refuse to make a decision then you're an agnostic and even that decision is untenable.  

QuoteI don't know the motivations of everything that could possibly be considered a creator, so claiming that creators don't like to create is the same amount of absurd as claiming creators like to create.

not true.  would you say destroyers hate destruction just as much as they love it?  would you say accountant love accounting just as much as they hate it?  

QuoteNot believing the universe is a result of an intention does not mean that I have to think the universe was created by accident.

it's really a minor point.  you might as well say that just because i like scarlet does not mean i like crimson. why are you so ashamed to admit that the universe is accidental?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Your inflated sense of self importance is showing.  Banning you won't send any message to anyone, you're not that important.

Quotethis is impossible because if a creator suddenly repented of his creation we wouldn't be here.

QuoteImpossible? No I have done it several times. It's not impossible.

provide me with a concrete example.

Quotenone of us can ever KNOW what happened in the beginning, we have to make a decision based on the info available to us, and if the most rational decision is that we do not have enough info then so be it.  when we see fine-tuning the most rational inference is that it is the result of intelligence.

QuoteIf it's rational, then what is your reasoning? Where is your evidence?

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.  

Quoteyou: nero, you're a bad person because you killed you're mother
nero: this world is kill or be killed
how do you prove that he is wrong?

QuoteWhat does this have to do with the discussion of laws that we're having?

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.

QuoteMy point is that because most of us have similar interests like not having our stuff stolen, it naturally leads into a civilization making laws against stealing.

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.  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteReally, 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.

QuoteReally? 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.

QuoteNo, I'm asking you, since you previously said that we just have to extrapolate what some creator of the universe wants in order to make a decision as to what is right and wrong. This has been done lots of times before, so I'm asking: do you support these laws which came about by the very same speculative process that you're saying that we should use?

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.  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"Davin,
i'm still waiting for your justification of right and wrong in an accidental universe other than "most humans have common goals."

Then you're going to be waiting a long time. Why are you moving the goal post to some field I don't even play in?[/quote]

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?  

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"why are you so ashamed to admit that the universe is accidental?

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

ROFLOL  clicking on an add is the equivalent of pennies; i really don't care if you click on them or not.

And no, it will just send a message that we don't allow people who can't play nice to post here; we ban theists and atheists alike and have resident theists who are able to play nice with others.

Does this mean you want to be banned now rather than later?  I can make exceptions.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"why are you so ashamed to admit that the universe is accidental?

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

 

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 (http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicsandculture/p/GodlessMorals.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!

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Whitney"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:

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteI 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?

QuoteI 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

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteBecause 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteMorality 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.  

QuoteIt 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?

QuoteI 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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!  

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.

Quote from: "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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states)

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...

Quote from: "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...

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

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

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quotereally, 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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"provide me with a concrete example.

Super Mario Brothers.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteReally, 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.

QuoteReally? 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?

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"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.

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...

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "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 (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).

Quote from: "EssejSllim"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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

Quoteand 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.  

QuoteMost 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.

Quote from: "zookie"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 never said that because i desire something to be true it is therefore true.  if i have show me.

QuoteAs 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.'

i'm actually quite surprised einstein said this.  what he's saying is everything that happens is due to some natural law.  seems ridiculous.  how about something that was caused by a human or some other animal.  if the human mind obeys a natural law that can be measured and repeated i would like to see einstein's proof for this.  and by the way just because E says something does not mean it's true.

Quote'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.'

that quote is so vague that it has no meaning.  how do you define sympathy.  how about sympathy for racists?  is it moral to feel sympathy for the klu klux klan?

Quote'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 agree.  morality should rest on the objective fact that we live in a created universe and were created by a deity that prefers creation to destruction.

QuoteThe '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.

what if that moral voice tells us to kill an abortion doctor?

QuoteYou 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...

so how about describing for me a situation when adultery is moral.

Quotein short, all behaviour is a reaction to a stimulus - and so is ethical behaviour as a part of the human psyche.

this is behavorism.  what your saying is

if stimulus x occurs to being y then reaction z will occur.  this reduces man to a mere computer.  input stimulus, output reaction.  there is no room for creative thinking.  i would like to know what stimulus occurred that caused newton to discover calculus.

QuoteI 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.

what your saying is that because the creation is flawed therefore there is no creator.  this is a fallacy.  a creation does not need to be perfect in order for it to be created.

QuoteThe pyramids and my robo-skeleton army will live on in my mind as the most ridiculous 'what if' I have ever been presented.

you can't just say something is ridiculous you have to prove it

Quote from: "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?  :)

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "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?  :)

No...

Quote from: "Cecilie"

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "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?  ) .

who cares if your the 13th best country to live in, what matters is what countries do not drop bombs on other countries, what countries are doing the most to prevent the earth from overheating.  germany in 1938 probably ranked 8th on the human development index, it doesn't matter.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"who cares if your the 13th best country to live in, what matters is what countries do not drop bombs on other countries, what countries are doing the most to prevent the earth from overheating.  germany in 1938 probably ranked 8th on the human development index, it doesn't matter.

It wasn't ment to be taken too seriously.

Quote from: "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.

Wow blanket generalisations always make me warm and fuzy. I'm going to go on a limb and bet you've never even been to America and on that same limb guess you have met (Not seen met and talked to) few to no Americans. There are so many worse places in the world. Would you rather live in America for a year or Somalia for 6 months? Bet you'd pick the U.S. Also your comment is a total non sequiter.

On a side (and more serious note) I think you should know that I am alergic to mushrooms and will not eat them.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"who cares if your the 13th best country to live in, what matters is what countries do not drop bombs on other countries, what countries are doing the most to prevent the earth from overheating.  germany in 1938 probably ranked 8th on the human development index, it doesn't matter.

Point out one single country that never fought a war with anyone.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"who cares if your the 13th best country to live in, what matters is what countries do not drop bombs on other countries, what countries are doing the most to prevent the earth from overheating.  germany in 1938 probably ranked 8th on the human development index, it doesn't matter.

WTF! America is busy dropping bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan and produces more carbon per capita than any other country!

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"who cares if your the 13th best country to live in, what matters is what countries do not drop bombs on other countries, what countries are doing the most to prevent the earth from overheating.  germany in 1938 probably ranked 8th on the human development index, it doesn't matter.

WTF! America is busy dropping bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan and produces more carbon per capita than any other country!

Actually I believe that may have been HT's point.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"who cares if your the 13th best country to live in, what matters is what countries do not drop bombs on other countries, what countries are doing the most to prevent the earth from overheating.  germany in 1938 probably ranked 8th on the human development index, it doesn't matter.

WTF! America is busy dropping bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan and produces more carbon per capita than any other country!

Actually I believe that may have been HT's point.

Ah! May have taken that the wrong way then. Apologies if that is the case.

QuoteWTF! America is busy dropping bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan and produces more carbon per capita than any other country!

QuoteActually I believe that may have been HT's point.

yea, that was my point.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Whitney"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

Yes...and that is not a good word to use because something can't be unintended unless there is a being around that did not intend to do something.  If you don't want to sound like you are always assuming a creator then say uncaused when talking about a universe without a god.

Quote

Quoteand 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.  

They theoretically could...atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god.  While most people who believe in ghosts and other similar nonsense don't tend to self describe as atheist if they didn't think a god existed they would still be an atheist.  Being an atheist doesn't make one rational; it's simply a lack of belief in a diety.

Quote

QuoteMost 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.

  Not sure what any of this has to do with what I said....

I don't care if some atheists tend to always talk about the a religious god when defending their atheism.  Them having emotional hangups does not affect what the word atheist means nor how the majority of atheists will respond to questions about how the universe got here.

If an alien race from another universe created our universe then that alien race would be a creator but not supernatural or god....so it's not a contradiction.  In order for something to fit the intention of the word god it must be a supernatural being that created everything that exists.

There is still the problem from your original post that is still unresolved: where did right and wrong come from. I gave an explanation of where right and wrong come from, it's time for quid pro quo: Which idea of right and wrong did not come from a human?

Quote from: "Davin"There is still the problem from your original post that is still unresolved: where did right and wrong come from. I gave an explanation of where right and wrong come from, it's time for quid pro quo: Which idea of right and wrong did not come from a human?

i already answer that with this

if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient. i believe in a designed universe. good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"i already answer that with this

if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient. i believe in a designed universe. good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

So right and wrong come from humans deciding what is right and what is wrong.

Quote from: "Whitney"If you don't want to sound like you are always assuming a creator then say uncaused when talking about a universe without a god.

ok

QuoteThey theoretically could...atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god.  While most people who believe in ghosts and other similar nonsense don't tend to self describe as atheist if they didn't think a god existed they would still be an atheist.  Being an atheist doesn't make one rational; it's simply a lack of belief in a diety.

well if you believe in ghosts and don't believe in deities it's a rather contradictory position.  if you believe in ghosts then you believe that the physical body has a spirit which lives beyond death.  if you believe that the immaterial (spirit) can manipulate the material, then it doesn't take too much logic to conclude that the immaterial (God) manipulates the material

Quote

QuoteMost 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.

  Not sure what any of this has to do with what I said....
[/quote]
you said:
"I don't know how the universe got here but I see no reason to assume a god had a hand in it" camp
which i interpreted as a variation of the argument if the universe is created why does it have to be God? why can't it be the flying spaghetti monster?  this is where atheists really don't understand that when we talk about God we are just talking about that being that designed the universe.  it's as if we find a paper and the atheist says ok it's written but why does it have to be written by a writer? it's the same with a creation.  if you see a creation we at least know that it was made by a creator.  

QuoteIf an alien race from another universe created our universe then that alien race would be a creator but not supernatural or god....so it's not a contradiction.

then we would just be debating who created the aliens. God is immaterial, pure consciousness.  i do not have a good explanation for how something came from nothing, but then again neither do you.  to me it sounds more rational that we go from nothing, to immaterial, then to material, rather than just jump from nothing, to ordered material.

QuoteIn order for something to fit the intention of the word god it must be a supernatural being that created everything that exists.

true

Quote from: "Davin"So right and wrong come from humans deciding what is right and what is wrong.

no, read my post: if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient. i believe in a designed universe. good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

so what is right and wrong is dependent on that which furthers the goals of the designer, which is that his design should continue.  

the question a human must ask himself is: does this action help the design as a whole? if you help a part that harms the whole (such as pleasing napoleon at russia's expense) then the action is bad.

[spoiler:23kmzn36](https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg4.imageshack.us%2Fimg4%2F9589%2F75298346.jpg&hash=4d18eebf929e3d5f123e1c2bec531d9ec556c297)[/spoiler:23kmzn36]

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"So right and wrong come from humans deciding what is right and what is wrong.

no, read my post: if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient. i believe in a designed universe. good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

so what is right and wrong is dependent on that which furthers the goals of the designer, which is that his design should continue.  

the question a human must ask himself is: does this action help the design as a whole? if you help a part that harms the whole (such as pleasing napoleon at russia's expense) then the action is bad.

I contend that you are the designer of this designer you are talking about, so ultimately Davin is correct.   :bananacolor:  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"So right and wrong come from humans deciding what is right and what is wrong.

no, read my post: if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient. i believe in a designed universe. good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

so what is right and wrong is dependent on that which furthers the goals of the designer, which is that his design should continue.  

the question a human must ask himself is: does this action help the design as a whole? if you help a part that harms the whole (such as pleasing napoleon at russia's expense) then the action is bad.

Yes exactly, you're a human (I'm assuming), and you're creating a concept of right and wrong.

Harriet, you know what they say happens when you assume right?

Anyway...

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"to me it sounds more rational that we go from nothing, to immaterial, then to material, rather than just jump from nothing, to ordered material.

Just because you personally think something sounds more rational doesn't mean that it is.  Rationally there is no reason why the following could not be true 1) that the natural state of things is existence and energy cannot be created or destroyed holds true no matter how far back we go or 2) Something can come from nothing.  In quantum physics this is theoretically possible....they are finding out some really odd things with quantum and so far what they can test has been verified as true.

There is especially no reason to think that immaterial (something) coming from nothing is any more reasonable than material (something) coming from nothing.  Both involve there being some sort of entity where there was not one before.  

In fact, given what we know about the natural laws we would have to assume 1 if we wanted to stand at a conclusion (though I'm not inclined to fell the need to jump to a conclusion since I know there is a lot we don't know about the universe).  Unless you have pantheist leanings, you aren't likely to find it proper to call energy god.  So, this is a valid example of why an atheist doesn't have to say that something came from nothing.

Quote from: "Whitney"Harriet, you know what they say happens when you assume right?

i'm just as guilty of assuming as you are, whitney.  we do not have rock-solid evidence to prove everything, therefore where evidence is lacking we have to make a leap of faith, especially when it comes to morality.  all of us have to decide whether or not to lie, cheat and steal and that decision is based on our worldview.  


Anyway...

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"to me it sounds more rational that we go from nothing, to immaterial, then to material, rather than just jump from nothing, to ordered material.

QuoteJust because you personally think something sounds more rational doesn't mean that it is.

exactly, that's why i said it sounds more rationally to me, rather than it is true that

QuoteRationally there is no reason why the following could not be true 1) that the natural state of things is existence and energy cannot be created or destroyed holds true no matter how far back we go or 2) Something can come from nothing.

whatever is the true case most likely we'll never know

QuoteIn quantum physics this is theoretically possible....they are finding out some really odd things with quantum and so far what they can test has been verified as true.

i always thought string theory could not be tested.  these people are at least debating it
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science- ... ience.html (http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/28638-string-theory-science.html)
in any case, neither you nor i are able to evaluate the claims of the quantum physicists

QuoteThere is especially no reason to think that immaterial (something) coming from nothing is any more reasonable than material (something) coming from nothing.  Both involve there being some sort of entity where there was not one before.  
In fact, given what we know about the natural laws we would have to assume 1 if we wanted to stand at a conclusion (though I'm not inclined to fell the need to jump to a conclusion since I know there is a lot we don't know about the universe).  Unless you have pantheist leanings, you aren't likely to find it proper to call energy god.  So, this is a valid example of why an atheist doesn't have to say that something came from nothing.

you see you're just as guilty of assumption as i am

Quote from: "Davin"Yes exactly, you're a human (I'm assuming), and you're creating a concept of right and wrong.

wrong, newton did not create the concept of the laws of motion, they were always there and he discovered them.  

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.  i've already stated what that is numerous times, so no need to repeat myself.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

QuoteThere is especially no reason to think that immaterial (something) coming from nothing is any more reasonable than material (something) coming from nothing.  Both involve there being some sort of entity where there was not one before.  
In fact, given what we know about the natural laws we would have to assume 1 if we wanted to stand at a conclusion (though I'm not inclined to fell the need to jump to a conclusion since I know there is a lot we don't know about the universe).  Unless you have pantheist leanings, you aren't likely to find it proper to call energy god.  So, this is a valid example of why an atheist doesn't have to say that something came from nothing.

you see you're just as guilty of assumption as i am

Actually, no.  That whooshing sound?  That's a missed point, flying over your head.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"Yes exactly, you're a human (I'm assuming), and you're creating a concept of right and wrong.

wrong, newton did not create the concept of the laws of motion, they were always there and he discovered them.  

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.  i've already stated what that is numerous times, so no need to repeat myself.

Are you saying that moral law is mathematically provable?  I would like to see an actual real example of that, mathematics and all.
Laws of motion, gravity, etc are provable by mathematics.  Moral laws are subjective to the cultures in which they are derived and evolve over time.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence

BS. Moral law is subjective and is created by an individual or a group of individuals depending on its purpose and circumstances.

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.

You know this....... how?

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.

You know this....... how?

Haha, is there really a point to asking this question anymore?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.

You know this....... how?

Haha, is there really a point to asking this question anymore?

Not thinking there is, no real empirical proof has been provided as of yet........

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.

You know this....... how?

Haha, is there really a point to asking this question anymore?

Nope....

[spoiler:1ak92ffn](https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecoolhunter.net%2Fimages%2Fstories%2F2007pics%2Fstoriesnew2007pics%2Fmarchpics%2F0shampoo.jpg&hash=1ebe688da836887f1b17cda26a556f3bf3773a7f)[/spoiler:1ak92ffn]

:yay:  

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.  i've already stated what that is numerous times, so no need to repeat myself.

Your statements, unless backed up with evidence, are simply an act of intellectual masturbation and should really be carried out in the privacy of your own home.

[spoiler:nvfr3ew6](https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ficanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2Ffunny-pictures-squirrel-loves-new-shampoo.jpg&hash=48b0b93d93e740d2bf37568c15c4c2923508db3e)[/spoiler:nvfr3ew6]

[spoiler:1vdrt51r](https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F2dl3ez7.jpg&hash=495d7b91b5eb1ffdeb8d605cea58ef5c66b28285)[/spoiler:1vdrt51r]

Quote from: "Tank"Your statements, unless backed up with evidence, are simply an act of intellectual masturbation and should really be carried out in the privacy of your own home.

The interesting thing about ht is that he/she seems to believe that their perceptions about reality somehow count as evidence for their assertions.

By that logic, I have absolute evidence that I am a robot.  My evidence?  Pfft, it's pretty obvious I'm a robot.  You don't see it?  Well, you're obviously just being contrary, cuz I am one.  Yay!  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"cuz I am one.  Yay!   :cool:

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"you see you're just as guilty of assumption as i am

someone needs to learn how to read....

I never made a conclusion...you have.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Tank"Your statements, unless backed up with evidence, are simply an act of intellectual masturbation and should really be carried out in the privacy of your own home.

The interesting thing about ht is that he/she seems to believe that their perceptions about reality somehow count as evidence for their assertions.

By that logic, I have absolute evidence that I am a robot.  My evidence?  Pfft, it's pretty obvious I'm a robot.  You don't see it?  Well, you're obviously just being contrary, cuz I am one.  Yay!   :bananacolor:

Quote from: "harriet_tubman"

Quote from: "Davin"Yes exactly, you're a human (I'm assuming), and you're creating a concept of right and wrong.

wrong, newton did not create the concept of the laws of motion, they were always there and he discovered them.  

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.  i've already stated what that is numerous times, so no need to repeat myself.

Wrong: Newton did create a concept of reality that he not only could provide evidence for, but could also demonstrate, show others how to verify it and predict how things would happen that turned out to be accurate.

If you're going to bring up Newton here's a quote:

Quote from: "Sir Isaac Newton"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses.  For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

Because of your apparent lack of being able to understand things that other people have said: Sir Isaac Newton is saying that his theory only explains the motion of the object, not what caused the objects because trying to explain what caused the objects to move the way they do would be mere speculation. Of course to put this into context, Sir Newton said:

Quote from: "Sir Isaac Newton"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses;' for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

Essentially Sir Newton shares my idea that if you don't have evidence to support your claim, your claim is useless.

So either support your claim or stop claiming it as truth. I seriously would have no problem if you accepted that your claims are not able to be supported by evidence making them just some idea that you rather like.

Based on the discussion here, I would like to start a new thread:

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5063

Is there any absolute basis for morality?  In the absence of any such basis, are there good reasons, nevertheless, to be moral?  How do we decide what is moral without some absolute standard to reference?  How should disagreements about moral behavior be decided?  What options are available to us in making our choices?

First you need to define "moral, unless this one works:

Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior; conforming to a standard of right behavior; sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment.

Quote from: "i_am_i"First you need to define "moral, unless this one works:

Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior; conforming to a standard of right behavior; sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment.

Yes.  Yes, a definition might be a good place to start, eh.   Oops.

Is that Merriam-Webster, by the way?  I love Merriam-Webster.  

There's also a decent, and much longer, discussion of morality and the difficulty in defining it, at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, for anyone who's interested:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Partly, I was rather hoping to hear how other people defined "moral" for themselves, and on what they based that definition, if anything.  But I understand that a productive discussion cannot proceed very far without an agreement on a definition.  

The problem I have with the above definition, personally, is that it begins to sound circular.  But maybe that's just me.  It's a good place to start, anyway.  This might turn out to be too broad for a single thread, in which case, I may have to try again with a more narrow question.  I was attempting to get at the decision making process by which we decide what behaviors not only to engage in (or refrain from), but what behavior to sanction in others (or prohibit, or encourage).

I've read a lot of your posts and I find them very impressive. I'm no intellectual so what I say will probably seem rather simplistic, but here goes.

To me, morality was very much something that I had to learn. There was a time when I just didn't give a damn and I did some bad things to myself and to others.

Funnily enough it was after I became convinced that God is made-up that I began to see what "doing right" meant, what it meant to me. It had very much to do with my own pleasure, with what made me feel good about myself. I started looking back at things I'd done in the past and that made me feel bad about myself, see? And I learned from that.

Now it makes me feel good to smile at strangers, to be honest, to respect other people and feel happy for their achievements, to be attentive to my wife and my mother, to always be true to myself. Being true to myself makes me feel good about myself, and it makes me feel good to make others feel good.

To me, it's right for me to give free music lessons to my next-door-neighbor's son. It's not written anywhere that this is the right thing to do, it just feels right to me and it's no sacrifice on my part at all, because I enjoy it very much.

So it's all about feeling good, really. Pretty simple, I guess.

I realize that this is all subjective and that it doesn't add up to much of a philosphy that could be applied to humanity in general. I am, however, convinced that morality is largely subjective, that the very idea of morality is open to all sorts of interpretation.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I've read a lot of your posts and I find them very impressive.

I really appreciate your kind words, thank you.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I'm no intellectual...

Nor am I - honestly, I don't have the cred.  I haven't decided whether or not it's something to aspire to, or even something that can be aspired to by an average joe like myself.  I do like to read, however, and to think (as far as I am able with my given abilities and my current level of training) - surely just like everyone here.  But I'm off topic (again  )...

I definitely feel like I had to learn "moral" behavior.  Like you, I've done many things, to myself and others, that I regret.  It seems like what you're describing is a kind of "honorable selfishness," to which I can definitely relate.  I had to learn to enjoy behavior beneficial to both myself and others.  But what happens when the two come in conflict (the self and others)?

I just have to wonder - and Ihateusernames has a point in the other thread - just because we like something doesn't necessarily mean it has intrinsic value.  Psychopaths, well some psychopaths anyway, enjoy dominating others, have little or no empathy, and thereby have no compunction against causing harm, especially if it serves their ends.  If what pleases you is good, by what measure is their behavior wrong?  I desperately want the behavior of psychopaths to be intrinsically wrong, but what standard can we offer that makes it so?  My emotional revulsion would hardly suffice.

I suppose another question might be, does it matter whether or not, "objectively," their behavior is wrong?  Most will want to protect themselves against such individuals, will take action to do so, and I can see no reason why that behavior would be wrong either.  Does that mean that it's merely the will of the stronger group that, in the end, counts?  That's a little disturbing to me as well.

I'm reading a little on game theory, and it seems to bear on this issue - that there are practical reasons to engage in mutual protection, to have concern for others, to be generous to a point and to refrain from harming other humans, wherever possible, to be honest and forthright in one's dealings.  In short, to engage in behavior typically described as moral.  But I don't see how the contemplation of practical consequences in any way imparts intrinsic "goodness" to a thing.  What do others think?

Intrinsic goodness. Now you're getting into territory that I may have trouble navigating through. So I'll think on that awhile, and let our more philosohpically-inclined members take that up.

Good thread, Jester. Oh, and please call me J.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Intrinsic goodness. Now you're getting into territory that I may have trouble navigating through. So I'll think on that awhile, and let our more philosohpically-inclined members take that up.

Good thread, Jester. Oh, and please call me J.

I only have a moment, but I was wondering--will it super piss you off if i start calling you 'G'?  Cus my bratty side is oh-so-wanting to do that  

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "i_am_i"I've read a lot of your posts and I find them very impressive.

I really appreciate your kind words, thank you.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I'm no intellectual...

Nor am I - honestly, I don't have the cred.  I haven't decided whether or not it's something to aspire to, or even something that can be aspired to by an average joe like myself.  I do like to read, however, and to think (as far as I am able with my given abilities and my current level of training) - surely just like everyone here.  But I'm off topic (again  )...

I definitely feel like I had to learn "moral" behavior.  Like you, I've done many things, to myself and others, that I regret.  It seems like what you're describing is a kind of "honorable selfishness," to which I can definitely relate.  I had to learn to enjoy behavior beneficial to both myself and others.  But what happens when the two come in conflict (the self and others)?

I just have to wonder - and Ihateusernames has a point in the other thread - just because we like something doesn't necessarily mean it has intrinsic value.  Psychopaths, well some psychopaths anyway, enjoy dominating others, have little or no empathy, and thereby have no compunction against causing harm, especially if it serves their ends.  If what pleases you is good, by what measure is their behavior wrong?  I desperately want the behavior of psychopaths to be intrinsically wrong, but what standard can we offer that makes it so?  My emotional revulsion would hardly suffice.

I suppose another question might be, does it matter whether or not, "objectively," their behavior is wrong?  Most will want to protect themselves against such individuals, will take action to do so, and I can see no reason why that behavior would be wrong either.  Does that mean that it's merely the will of the stronger group that, in the end, counts?  That's a little disturbing to me as well.

I'm reading a little on game theory, and it seems to bear on this issue - that there are practical reasons to engage in mutual protection, to have concern for others, to be generous to a point and to refrain from harming other humans, wherever possible, to be honest and forthright in one's dealings.  In short, to engage in behavior typically described as moral.  But I don't see how the contemplation of practical consequences in any way imparts intrinsic "goodness" to a thing.  What do others think?

I would just like to first off second i_am_i's initial statements.

Secondly, it is for the very reasons you have brought up that I believe the dichotomy between deism/theism and ethical nihilism is not a false dichotomy.  A false dichotomy can only happen when there are two options presented that are not mutually exclusive, however I believe that these are.  Either objective values/morals do exist (and the only theory that even comes close to explaining how that can be is deistic or theistic thought) or they are a complete illusion, granted a useful illusion for practical purposes, but an illusion none the less.

Sure you can say that theism/deism are just wrong if you wish (which on an atheistic message board is going to be the almost unanimous position), but that just means that you have selected ethical nihilism out of the dichotomy, not that it was a false dichotomy to start off with.  If this is a point of contention (which I am guessing it will be) in such that "atheism doesn't necessarily lead to ethical nihilism," (as I often here hear--without any justification) I would absolutely love to hear as it would most probably revolutionize large portions of atheistic thought. For one, humanism would absolutely love you, as for right now it is based off of the knowledge "what we say doesn't really hold philosophic water, but... ummm... lets say and do it anyway cus it makes us happy!" purely because of the issue between objective and subjective morality.

To lesson my verboseness, what I'm trying to say is that atheistically speaking, there never has been anything presented that harmonizes the attempt to claim there are 'inherent' or 'objective' moral values in the universe with the claim that there is no god (or even weak atheism--that there probably is no god).

If you, or anyone else, know of somehow to harmonize these two things, please rip me to shreds because it really would greatly strengthen atheistic thought.

-Ihateusernames

I personally think that the essence of a "good" morality lies in the application of the Golden Rule.  

Of course, that renders my standard entirely subjective, and I accept that.  I'm pretty suspicious of any "absolute", especially a pronuciamento in such an ephemeral topic.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I personally think that the essence of a "good" morality lies in the application of the Golden Rule.  

Of course, that renders my standard entirely subjective, and I accept that.  I'm pretty suspicious of any "absolute", especially a pronuciamento in such an ephemeral topic.

I'm going to psuedo-jokingly pick on you because the golden rule morality came up... with just one simple question:

Should a masochist follow the golden rule?

/end pseudo-joke

This is going to be sloppily presented as I'm not done with my coffee yet, but here goes.  Morality, right vs. wrong, or how we treat each other IMHO is based on how a group of animals choses to set their societal structure.  Other animals who live in packs, or large grouping exhibit morality towards one and other as its essential to the packs sucess.  There are always members of the pack who decide to go it alone and they will be morally challenged as far as the pack is concerned, but their morals will be based on a loner set of moralities.  Now there are intricacies of this that are harder to explain like how free music lessons to a neighbor benefit a pack society, but some of that has to with chemical releases in the body that make us happy when we act a certain way that can be influenced by nuture and nature.  It's a complicated topic but I think the root cause of "The Golden Rule" is our choice to live as an intertwined society which was made long long ago.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I would just like to first off second i_am_i's initial statements.

Thank you, I really appreciate that.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Secondly, it is for the very reasons you have brought up that I believe the dichotomy between deism/theism and ethical nihilism is not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy can only happen when there are two options presented that are not mutually exclusive, however I believe that these are.

I certainly agree that it is a true dichotomy in the sense that the two options presented are, in fact, mutually exclusive.  My original (obnoxious) retort was meant to question whether or not it was a true dichotomy in the other, related sense that the presented options were the only two available.  Two options can be mutually exclusive, but not jointly exhaustive, and so can be a 'false dichotomy' in the second sense, if not in the first.  However, you go on to argue lucidly here that the options are also jointly exhaustive:

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Either objective values/morals do exist (and the only theory that even comes close to explaining how that can be is deistic or theistic thought) or they are a complete illusion, granted a useful illusion for practical purposes, but an illusion none the less.

And no, at the present time I can present no counter-argument to 'rip to shreds' this claim.  You're right, the secular humanists, with whom I have much sympathy, would love to be able to point to objective features of the universe and claim that they have discovered moral properties without recourse to a divine being instilling those properties.  My understanding of the Deontologists is that they have tried to do precisely this.  But my reading of them is a little scant to be able to comment on their success or failure.

And, as you may have heard, Sam Harris is trying valiantly to argue that you can define an 'objective' morality with recourse only to science.  The argument is garnering lots of whooping derision in traditional philosophic circles, usually based on our old friend the 'is/ought' problem - that you can in no way derive prescriptions for behavior from descriptions of the state of the world.  

Here's an article he wrote, if anyone's interested: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

My reading of his argument is that it is plausible up to a point - but only up to a point.  The gist of it seems to be that since we are beginning (and only just) to develop an understanding of consciousness, we are beginning to develop the tools to be able to define what promotes the actual or potential 'well-being' for beings with consciousness, and therefore "that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science."

He refrains from defining 'well-being' in any but the fuzziest terms, which is part of the reason for the derision on the philosophic front - but he argues that there could be many "peaks" in the "moral landscape" that represent different ways of maximizing conscious 'well-being,' depending upon certain benign individual and cultural proclivities and idiosycrasies.  Whatever our doubts about positive answers, there are some answers to the moral question, he claims, that are patently wrong.  He gives the example of the Library of Alexandria.  While we cannot know what precisely was contained in that library, we can certainly know that it did not include Cather in the Rye.  Why can we not, at the least, do this for morality?

But he seems to define "wrong" as anyone who isn't interested in well-being, and takes for granted that most people will, however fuzzy their definitions of the term, want to promote, in general, the 'well-being' of everyone else.  Or that they should want that, even if they don't.  Because it's best.  Now, I believe there are sensible reasons for thinking along those lines, but I cannot argue that it is because my preferences have any sanction other than my own.

To defend the fuzziness of 'well-being,' he uses the example of the term 'health' and 'life,' both of which are similarly difficult to pin down.  This difficulty does not prevent progress in the medical sciences, so why should uncertainty over the term 'well-being' prevent progress in this hypothetical budding 'science' of morality?  What about psychopaths?  Well, we ignore quacks in physics, why should we not ignore obvious outlier's in morality?  But providing examples of difficulties in other disciplines does not relieve you of the burden of your own similar problems.  It merely points out that the problem is wide-spread.

In the end, even if every single person did agree exactly on what was right and what was wrong, this would merely be a contingent fact about the universe, not a necessary one, and although we would need to explain this curious convergence of opinion, it could be that 'everyone' is simply wrong.  And, again, even if it is most pragmatic for everyone to seek the long term well-being of others, that makes it practical, not intrinsically good.  But the question is...do we need anything more than 'practical.'

But...the article was still an interesting read.

Atheists are moral for the exact same reason God-Believers are moral.  You see, they think that they are getting their morals from the bible, and that they behave because they know God is watching them.

No one (except Al Qaeda, Orthodox Jews, or the Westboro Baptist Church), draws their morals from scripture.  If all theists actually drew their morals from scripture, they would be stoning all their friends to death, burning people alive, buying and selling slaves, and living in the Dark Ages.  No, theists get there morals from reason, just like everybody else.

We are moral because we are social animals, and in a society, people decide how we should behave toward one another.  To me, 'Moral' just means, 'not causing suffering'.  We get our morals from our ability to reason that within a group of people, it is best that we don't harm each other, so as to function as a whole.  Theists get their morals from the exact same reasoning, and not from the bible.

If anyone thinks the only reason to be moral is religion, then they are quite deluded, and I feel sorry for them.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." ~ Albert Einstein
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Christopher Hitchens once said: "Morality comes from humanism and is stolen by religion".

Yes, absolute morality doesn't exist. Morality is made up. Morality is subjective. We don't need morality for the human race to survive... though maybe we might need morals to survive given how long babies are weak, how few can be born at a time and how defenseless the mother is during the last few months, but for this argument let's say that morals aren't required for the survival of the human race.

What morals are in their most basic form is; "I won't kill you if you don't kill me." The reason to be moral is to make the society better, which also makes your own life better. The question is, what kind of life do you want to lead, because without morals I really doubt that we'd be having a conversation over the internet, we'd be trying to protect what we think is ours from everyone else. And the few people that group up and create the "protect each other to protect ourselves" moral would be surpassing the people with the "take what you can when you can" moral, because the bigger group can better protect against one person.

Morals aren't just some imaginary construct, they're what helped us develop into the society we see now. If you don't want to live by the morals that help out and enrich the society in which you live, then that is something else to discuss, but the reasons to be moral (read morals directed at bettering the society) should be pretty obvious as you're using one of the benefits from having them right now.

Quote from: "KebertX"Atheists are moral for the exact same reason God-Believers are moral. You see, they think that they are getting their morals from the bible, and that they behave because they know God is watching them.

No one (except Al Qaeda, Orthodox Jews, or the Westboro Baptist Church), draws their morals from scripture. If all theists actually drew their morals from scripture, they would be stoning all their friends to death, burning people alive, buying and selling slaves, and living in the Dark Ages.

I agree with everything you've said here.  Dawkins makes these points well in The God Delusion.

Quote from: "KebertX"No, theists get there morals from reason, just like everybody else.

Depends very much on how you define "reason."  If you mean logic - no, I would have to disagree, they don't "get there [sic] morals" from logic.  They may use the logic of predictable consequenses to defend their morals, or to achieve the end for which the moral was established, but they don't derive the morals themselves from logic.  If you have a certain goal - and the final 'end' or goal has to be established by definition (preferences, emotional reactions, self-preservation, mommy-told-you-so, whatever), not logic - then logic and rational thought will help you reach that goal.  But you can't derive the goal.

Morals seem to me to be very much dependant upon, or reactions too, one's cultural context.  Dawkins makes a great argument along these lines, showing how what is abominable in the present was often the norm in the past. And further, he argues that the progress in the morality of society happens entirely apart from religion, often in spite of it, and seems to obey cultural forces (including the influences of specific luminaries) entirely outside traditional supernatural explanations.  I definitely agree with that.  And yes, there does seem to be a lot of cross-cultural overlap in specific morals - which I take as a great place to start when developing a non-religiously based ethical system.  Looking at what needs and goals those common morals serve and deciding if I agree with those goals.

Quote from: "KebertX"To me, 'Moral' just means, 'not causing suffering'.

Are you a strict pacifist?

Quote from: "Cecilie"Christopher Hitchens once said: "Morality comes from humanism and is stolen by religion".

I absolutely agree with him.  Secular Humanism is perhaps closest to what I would call my own system of moral behavior.

Quote from: "Davin"Yes, absolute morality doesn't exist. Morality is made up. Morality is subjective. We don't need morality for the human race to survive... though maybe we might need morals to survive given how long babies are weak, how few can be born at a time and how defenseless the mother is during the last few months, but for this argument let's say that morals aren't required for the survival of the human race.

I actually do think morality is necessary for the human race to survive.  I think morality would never have evolved or survived in the meme pool if it didn't serve a vital function.  I don't think it's just a matter of improving our lives - I think our lives actually depend upon it to a great extent.  I think empathy evolved in service of our survival.  And I personally have a great stake in this (the survival of the human race, and of course myself by extension).  I just don't think the universe cares one way or another what I think.  And no, that may not be relevant as a matter of practical consequence.  I'm just wondering, given that we must determine morality for ourselves, how we can figure out exactly what morals to agree on, or how to come to that agreement or how to define exactly what moral means.  

Quote from: "Davin"And the few people that group up and create the "protect each other to protect ourselves" moral would be surpassing the people with the "take what you can when you can" moral, because the bigger group can better protect against one person.

I hear that...again, totally agree...

Quote from: "Davin"If you don't want to live by the morals that help out and enrich the society in which you live...

I do, very much.  I'm just trying to clarify the base on which we stand.  I was sort of hoping to find out how, through converstations with everyone here, to respond to folks like Nietzsche, who don't seem to feel that social harmony and the survival of the group are things worth valuing.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Davin"If you don't want to live by the morals that help out and enrich the society in which you live...

I do, very much.  I'm just trying to clarify the base on which we stand.  I was sort of hoping to find out how, through converstations with everyone here, to respond to folks like Nietzsche, who don't seem to feel that social harmony and the survival of the group are things worth valuing.

Well I can't force or coerce other people into valuing something, but I can express what I value and often why I value it.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Davin"If you don't want to live by the morals that help out and enrich the society in which you live...

I do, very much.  I'm just trying to clarify the base on which we stand.  I was sort of hoping to find out how, through converstations with everyone here, to respond to folks like Nietzsche, who don't seem to feel that social harmony and the survival of the group are things worth valuing.

Well I can't force or coerce other people into valuing something, but I can express what I value and often why I value it.

Fair enough.  It's entirely possible that I'm far too obsessed with rebutting people like Nietzsche.  But he does make me think...

Quote from: "The Black Jester"I do, very much.  I'm just trying to clarify the base on which we stand.  I was sort of hoping to find out how, through converstations with everyone here, to respond to folks like Nietzsche, who don't seem to feel that social harmony and the survival of the group are things worth valuing.

Remember that Nietzsche's rejection of morals and human morality was, from my reading, a necessary extension of the claim, "The only truth is that there is no truth," which then led him to ultimately conclude that if no absolute truth exists then all established human morals are completely subjective and relative. Further, he argues in "Beyond Good & Evil" that our conception of morality is derived from the manipulation of language  by the powerful to define all "good" things/actions in way that best served their [the powerful's] goals and aims, which, perhaps correctly or incorrectly, led Nietzsche to postulate that there are no absolute morals, just word play. Nietzsche sought the underlying bedrock for truth and morality and upon finding only shifting sands he simply adopted a nihilist perspective and closed up shop on absolutes, morality included. I'm still struggling with his arguments ever since I first encountered them years ago, and, while I wouldn't go so far as to describe my opinions about morality to be as extreme as Nietzsche's, I do, for better or worse, sympathize with his conclusions, and certainly empathize with your journey to uncover the foundations (if any exist) of morality.

Quote from: "keithwdowd"

Quote from: "The Black Jester"I do, very much.  I'm just trying to clarify the base on which we stand.  I was sort of hoping to find out how, through converstations with everyone here, to respond to folks like Nietzsche, who don't seem to feel that social harmony and the survival of the group are things worth valuing.

Remember that Nietzsche's rejection of morals and human morality was, from my reading, a necessary extension of the claim, "The only truth is that there is no truth," which then led him to ultimately conclude that if no absolute truth exists then all established human morals are completely subjective and relative. Further, he argues in "Beyond Good & Evil" that our conception of morality is derived from the manipulation of language  by the powerful to define all "good" things/actions in way that best served their [the powerful's] goals and aims, which, perhaps correctly or incorrectly, led Nietzsche to postulate that there are no absolute morals, just word play. Nietzsche sought the underlying bedrock for truth and morality and upon finding only shifting sands he simply adopted a nihilist perspective and closed up shop on absolutes, morality included. I'm still struggling with his arguments ever since I first encountered them years ago, and, while I wouldn't go so far as to describe my opinions about morality to be as extreme as Nietzsche's, I do, for better or worse, sympathize with his conclusions, and certainly empathize with your journey to uncover the foundations (if any exist) of morality.

I have found a similar disturbing allure in Nietzche's writings.  I would go so far as to say I was haunted by them, to some degree.  Perhaps your experience of him is not quite so extreme, but really, it seems to be similar to mine.  In fact, from the little I've seen of what you've written, it would seem we think in many similar ways.

Did he really close up shop on morals and value altogther?  I thought that his writings in Zarathustra and The Antichrist, for example, were attempts to argue a morality and value-creating system, beyond Nihilism?  Is that just incorrect?  It's the values he posits in reaction to Christianity, and to Nihilism, that trouble me.  I do not like them, but I have difficulty refuting them.

This is an excellent topic, Black Jester, and I've been following it with keen interest but embarrassingly not enough knowledge on the subject  to add something truly productive.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Davin"Yes, absolute morality doesn't exist. Morality is made up. Morality is subjective. We don't need morality for the human race to survive... though maybe we might need morals to survive given how long babies are weak, how few can be born at a time and how defenseless the mother is during the last few months, but for this argument let's say that morals aren't required for the survival of the human race.

I actually do think morality is necessary for the human race to survive.  I think morality would never have evolved or survived in the meme pool if it didn't serve a vital function.  I don't think it's just a matter of improving our lives - I think our lives actually depend upon it to a great extent.  I think empathy evolved in service of our survival.  And I personally have a great stake in this (the survival of the human race, and of course myself by extension).  I just don't think the universe cares one way or another what I think.  And no, that may not be relevant as a matter of practical consequence.  I'm just wondering, given that we must determine morality for ourselves, how we can figure out exactly what morals to agree on, or how to come to that agreement or how to define exactly what moral means.

I did, however think I'd mention after reading this that I also think that morals are essential for social animals to survive as social animals and that morals are just as complicated as the social/cultural/historical structures they belong too. Would modern societies have gotten this complex if there weren't complex moral systems; subjective, objective and programmed through learning to go with it? I think not.

IMO On the societal level we probably haven't evolved fast enough though. Most of our more subjective morals standards are probably better suited to small tribal communities, where unwritten but agreed upon laws are enough to maintain stability.

I think one of the difficulties in trying to define exactly what moral means is that there really is no absolute in the interpretation of morals. Even something which the overwhelming majority see as moral such as 'don't kill' is open to interpretation. Most would consider it alright to kill in self defence, for instance and they probably wouldn't be blamed for it or considered amoral/immoral. Law courts would acquit them or lessen their sentence compared to a murderer if self defence were adequately proven. In both cases people were killed, but the one killed in self defence is worth less in this context. If something such as 'don't kill' or 'don't torture defenseless children' isn't an "absolute" moral standard, then what is?

I don't buy into the moral nihilists discourse either. I think that the 'rawest' of morals, the ones that evolved with as as social animals that are complemented with things such as empathy and feelings of guilt, are our basic morals and the biological brakes towards amorality.

In my opinion humans are social creatures because they need to be, not necessarily because they started out that way. We will all  need some kind of help from someone somewhere along the line, all of us. Have you ever run out of gas and had someone, a complete stranger, stop to help you push your car to the side of the road and drive you to a gas station? Why would someone do that? Why would you do that for someone else?

I'm convinced that it feels good to help others because it reinforces a basic atavistic trust that we can rely on other human beings, even when we know for a fact that that's not always the case. It's that sort of fundamental hope, for lack of a better word, that makes human beings so wonderful to me.

What can feel better than seeing a smile on someone's face because you've helped make their day a little brighter? Now I don't know if that really has anything to do with morality but I'm rather convinced that this is where it all begins.

Quote from: "i_am_i"In my opinion humans are social creatures because they need to be, not necessarily because they started out that way. We will all  need some kind of help from someone somewhere along the line, all of us. Have you even run out of gas and had someone, a complete stranger, stop to help you push your car to the side of the road and drive you to a gas station? Why would someone do that? Why would you do that for someone else?

Yeah, early hominids needed numbers so that they could live and evolve big brains since they didn't have speed, claws and jaws, armour or any of those things that evolutionary arms races has produced in most animals. I don't think a lone Australopithecus would've fared very well in the wild African bush.

QuoteI'm convinced that it feels good to help others because it reinforces a basic atavistic trust that we can rely on other human beings, even when we know for a fact that that's not always the case. It's that sort of fundamental hope, for lack of a better word, that makes human beings so wonderful to me.

What can feel better than seeing a smile on someone's face because you've helped make their day a little brighter? Now I don't know if that really has anything to do with morality but I'm rather convinced that this is where it all begins.

I think you touched on an interesting point.

I actually do think that's the biological basis for morality and that to a certain extent our brains are hardwired for it. It evolved with us as a species, and evolved in other social species as well.  

I think it's interesting because while the person who helps the other in need feels gratification, the one being helped projects a sort of hero figure on the saver. In Darwinian biological terms, it is a strange thing that one individual would sacrifice energy to help another without energetic gain in return (in the wild such things are precious commodities). To think of an animal that evolved that way is really cool, and what makes us human in our case (and all of this happened before religion   ).

Going slightly off topic from morality on onto heroism: what image is more morally valued than that of a hero? I really can't think of one, especially since the image of a guy who sacrificed his own life for complete strangers is one of the strongest reasons Christians give for why they believe in Christianity, usually amidst strong emotions. Jesus is the ultimate hero.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Yeah, early hominids needed numbers so that they could live and evolve big brains since they didn't have speed, claws and jaws, armour or any of those things that evolutionary arms races has produced in most animals. I don't think a lone Australopithecus would've fared very well in the wild African bush.

I don't disagree with this possibility, however I would like to add the possibility that it worked the other way around. The claws, toughness... etc. may have been less useful to animals that are more social. So for social animals claws, big teeth and such may hurt the survivability of the groups of some of the kinds of animals. For most animals, confrontation is unavoidable even within the same species, so stronger animals that killed fewer of their buddies would help the survivability of the species far more than stronger animals that killed their buddies. Of course I understand that it's far more complicated, just thought that I'd offer "weaker" animals coming from society as a possibility over society coming from "weaker" animals.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Yeah, early hominids needed numbers so that they could live and evolve big brains since they didn't have speed, claws and jaws, armour or any of those things that evolutionary arms races has produced in most animals. I don't think a lone Australopithecus would've fared very well in the wild African bush.

I don't disagree with this possibility, however I would like to add the possibility that it worked the other way around. The claws, toughness... etc. may have been less useful to animals that are more social. So for social animals claws, big teeth and such may hurt the survivability of the groups of some of the kinds of animals. For most animals, confrontation is unavoidable even within the same species, so stronger animals that killed fewer of their buddies would help the survivability of the species far more than stronger animals that killed their buddies. Of course I understand that it's far more complicated, just thought that I'd offer "weaker" animals coming from society as a possibility over society coming from "weaker" animals.

Wouldn't it be likely, however, that stronger animals killing more of their competitors (or frightening them off) would lead to the stronger animals breeding with the females of the unit - denying offspring to the weaker and thereby increasing the number of their own progeny, and the strength of the offspring overall?

In any case, doesn't evolution work more, by the action of natural selection, toward the survival of the genes of the particular individual, rather than blindly towards the increase of the group?  Not the survival of the masses, necessarily, but the continued adaptation of the type?

I just wonder...evolution has a darker side as well, the poorly adapted are culled.  I don't wish to commit the naturalistic fallacy, but subscribing to the idea that one should adopt the code one sees in nature, but isnt' that the very thing for which we are arguing here?  Are we not suggesting that we base our morals on the practical needs of the species?  But perhaps I am oversimplifying.  As xSilverPhinx and i_am_i have pointed out, we are complex social creatures, and so perhaps our needs are different that other animal groups in which we seem to observe a more basic order and more cruelty.  Different groups have different needs.

I don't know if I correctly understand Plato's take on the topic but he said that evil is ignorance. That the confluence of love and knowledge brings out the moral person in every man. To love is to know. And to know is to be good.

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"I don't know if I correctly understand Plato's take on the topic but he said that evil is ignorance. That the confluence of love and knowledge brings out the moral person in every man. To love is to know. And to know is to be good.

I don't agree with that at all for the simple reason that it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Quote from: "Davin"I don't disagree with this possibility, however I would like to add the possibility that it worked the other way around. The claws, toughness... etc. may have been less useful to animals that are more social. So for social animals claws, big teeth and such may hurt the survivability of the groups of some of the kinds of animals. For most animals, confrontation is unavoidable even within the same species, so stronger animals that killed fewer of their buddies would help the survivability of the species far more than stronger animals that killed their buddies.

Well in our case we're weaker only in the physical sense, we didn't evolve speed, claws and jaws and such but we did evolve big brains that allowed us to make tools to compensate for those deficiencies. Living in society could have been what played a major role in opening up the pathway for our brain's evolution. If our hominid ancestors were lone creatures, being the way they physically were, they would have to adapt to much stronger and 'darker' natural selective pressures or die. In the physical sense we’re weak, but numbers gave us our strength to compensate.

Other stronger social animals have different ways of maintaining their group’s survival and stability. For instance, African wildogs live in huge packs (much larger than wolf packs) in groups that are almost unsustainable. They look after their weaker members and those members in turn help with keeping the balance by looking after pups etc. In lion pride however, they're a bit more selfish, their morality leans a bit more toward what’s better for the individual first before what best for the pride (if you’ve got a pet cat then you could easily see what their social structure is like) A wounded or old wildog which is no longer able to hunt has a much lower chance of being abandoned by their group than an old or wounded lion does. Wildogs are also weaker in the physical sense than a lion, but they are much more successful in their hunts.
I think our early ancestors were more like wildogs than lions.

QuoteOf course I understand that it's far more complicated, just thought that I'd offer "weaker" animals coming from society as a possibility over society coming from "weaker" animals.

Well I think it depends on the animal. Living things have to deal with the hand that they’re given and the more adaptable have higher chances of surviving to pass on their genes and evolve, but I just don’t see how the human case is not one of society coming from physically weaker animals. I could be wrong, but us evolving from lone pregnant females with in their late pregnancy that live alone and have to fend for themselves, climb trees, ward off predators and do all those physically demanding things that a lone animal would have to do to avoid others that are higher on the food chain, find food, shelter, protect their shelter etc and survive in number seems unlikely to me. Chances increase dramatically if their partner lives with them.  Keeping their family members together again increases the odds dramatically, up to the sustainable limit, of course.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"Wouldn't it be likely, however, that stronger animals killing more of their competitors (or frightening them off) would lead to the stronger animals breeding with the females of the unit - denying offspring to the weaker and thereby increasing the number of their own progeny, and the strength of the offspring overall?
In any case, doesn't evolution work more, by the action of natural selection, toward the survival of the genes of the particular individual, rather than blindly towards the increase of the group?  Not the survival of the masses, necessarily, but the continued adaptation of the type?

That’s exactly what happens in social animal groups which have an alpha male and female, but even so, they still live in groups which increase not only the survivability of the offspring of the alpha pair but of the group too. Most smaller social groups are also blood relatives, and the non alphas are an earlier generation of the alpha’s offspring. They share the same genes and moral evolution is tuned to preserving that.
If the “goal” of natural selection is to preserve the genes, then small family groups are a rather ingenious way of increasing the chances for survival and propagation of those genes, and it works very well for social species.  

QuoteAre we not suggesting that we base our morals on the practical needs of the species? But perhaps I am oversimplifying.  As xSilverPhinx and i_am_i have pointed out, we are complex social creatures, and so perhaps our needs are different that other animal groups in which we seem to observe a more basic order and more cruelty.  Different groups have different needs.

Yes, but is there or ever will be one absolute that’s practical for every group within a social species such as ours? That’s why I think that we’re a bunch of smaller tribes (ideologically, financially, etc) living together and trying to make it work for all of us. Objective morals (such as the law) are extremely important, because otherwise many of us would just fall back into tribal behavior. The best we can do is achieve a rather delicate balance.

Response to the one making the Thread: Morals arnt absolute, as you know its common morals in Iraq to wrestle down 5 year old girls and cut out their clitoris, which is fcking sick, here in Sweden we would drag those fuckers into jail and then the whole country would stand in line to rape them..
basically morals are what we have been told that they are, BUT if you want to make sure your actions are good, then watch the response of the human your doing it on, if someone feels pleasure in you cutting out their clitoris then DO by all means, if they like it more when you treat them with respect and as a fellow human, then DO by all means!, but if you want to have good morals, dont do anything that makes someone feel bad, and as a human being i think you know what it looks lie when someone feels bad.
So if you wanna be good, then make your ''target'' feel good, if you wanna be bad then make your ''target'' feel bad, BUT its a better feeling to make someone feel good.

Quote from: "JoElite"Response to the one making the Thread: Morals arnt absolute, as you know its common morals in Iraq to wrestle down 5 year old girls and cut out their clitoris, which is fcking sick, here in Sweden we would drag those fuckers into jail and then the whole country would stand in line to rape them..
basically morals are what we have been told that they are, BUT if you want to make sure your actions are good, then watch the response of the human your doing it on, if someone feels pleasure in you cutting out their clitoris then DO by all means, if they like it more when you treat them with respect and as a fellow human, then DO by all means!, but if you want to have good morals, dont do anything that makes someone feel bad, and as a human being i think you know what it looks lie when someone feels bad.
So if you wanna be good, then make your ''target'' feel good, if you wanna be bad then make your ''target'' feel bad, BUT its a better feeling to make someone feel good.

I’ve heard of all sorts of sadistic people who were convinced somehow that what they are doing to a person is what the person wants or deserves and look for whatever hint they want to interpret as the target wanting it to carry out what the sadistic then see as a moral act. It’s that subjective for the twisted some.  
If I said that if someone wanted me to cut off their finger, does that mean that I’ll do it? Even if they begged me to?
I myself have a problem with doing immoral things to people I see as weaker, it doesn’t matter what they seem to want or need, it just doesn’t sit right with me.  If I feel an immoral person can “take it”, however, the retribution is much easier (hey, I’m only human.)

QuoteI’ve heard of all sorts of sadistic people who were convinced somehow that what they are doing to a person is what the person wants or deserves and look for whatever hint they want to interpret as the target wanting it to carry out what the sadistic then see as a moral act. It’s that subjective for the twisted some.  
If I said that if someone wanted me to cut off their finger, does that mean that I’ll do it? Even if they begged me to?
I myself have a problem with doing immoral things to people I see as weaker, it doesn’t matter what they seem to want or need, it just doesn’t sit right with me.  If I feel an immoral person can “take it”, however, the retribution is much easier (hey, I’m only human.)

The thing is, that a sadist likes to see humans suffer, lets say someone came up to me BEGGING me to cut off his finger ( which is VERY unlikely ) Lets say he cries, begs me to cut it off..
Would i be a sadist to cut it of then? No ofc not... If i want humans to feel good then in this case i would cut it off, however this is to unlikely to base your argument upon...
lets say feelings, if someone feels good inside if i am rude to another human, well just do the maths, How can i avoid to make anyone sad to the fullest, i would say-  No i'm do not want to be rude to that person.
Which would hurt less humans .. You see? be your own judge, its worked for me and 80% of Sweden, why wouldnt it work for everyone?[/size]

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Objective morals (such as the law) are extremely important, because otherwise many of us would just fall back into tribal behavior. The best we can do is achieve a rather delicate balance.

This is great.  Thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far to the discussion.

xSilverPhinx â€" So, am I mistaken in thinking  that you are arguing that, regardless of the fact that we cannot identify a single objective moral standard as a feature of the universe, we nevertheless should behave as if there were one, because it would result in greater stability or a greater “quality of life” for everyone?  On what basis do we choose among the possible moral systems to come up with a standard that should apply to everyone?  Metaethically speaking, why would this method be more moral than allowing for different systems that could be more responsive to the different needs of various populations?

Quote from: "JoElite"So if you wanna be good, then make your ''target'' feel good, if you wanna be bad then make your ''target'' feel bad, BUT its a better feeling to make someone feel good.

Why is "feeling good" the object of morality?  Why is it not something like "self-improvement," just as an example (and noting that such a concept, if it were put forward, it would have to be rigorously defined and extrapolated upon)?  Further, if causing your "target" to "feel good" is moral: what if I had a machine that I could connect directly to the pleasure centers of your brain and stimulate that feeling of "goodness"?  Would it be moral for me to hook you up to that, crank up the power, and induce a feeling of pleasure, or contentment, or whatever, greater than that which you have ever known?  Why?

Quote from: "JoElite"No ofc not... If i want humans to feel good then in this case i would cut it off, however this is to unlikely to base your argument upon...

1) Why would maiming a person for life be moral in this case?  Wouldn't it likely deprive them of other pleasures or satisfactions later on, and wouldn't you, by cutting off the finger, be the agent of that deprivation?

2) The liklihood of this scenario is in some sense irrelevant.  If you are positing a moral system to be universally applied, it must apply in every case, and thought experiments like this are used to test the soundness of ideas.

Quote from: "JoElite"lets say feelings, if someone feels good inside if i am rude to another human, well just do the maths, How can i avoid to make anyone sad to the fullest, i would say- No i'm do not want to be rude to that person.
Which would hurt less humans .. You see? be your own judge, its worked for me and 80% of Sweden, why wouldnt it work for everyone?

In your hypothetical scenario, how do you propose that we "do the maths"?  By what standard should we measure the level of "sadness" between two people, especially given that we don't have direct, 3rd person access to such states?  Further, two people may very likely have entirely different levels of emotional response to the same scenario based on their differing (even slightly) brain structures and bodily systems.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Objective morals (such as the law) are extremely important, because otherwise many of us would just fall back into tribal behavior. The best we can do is achieve a rather delicate balance.

This is great.  Thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far to the discussion.
xSilverPhinx â€" So, am I mistaken in thinking  that you are arguing that, regardless of the fact that we cannot identify a single objective moral standard as a feature of the universe, we nevertheless should behave as if there were one, because it would result in greater stability or a greater “quality of life” for everyone?  On what basis do we choose among the possible moral systems to come up with a standard that should apply to everyone?  Metaethically speaking, why would this method be more moral than allowing for different systems that could be more responsive to the different needs of various populations?

Yes, I guess it’s basically that.
For instance: rules against stealing. People have a right to live and survive, right? Well if it were suddenly ok for the group of people who can’t sustain their families start to steal in order to survive, then what’s to keep from all of them doing that? Why wouldn’t a person who thinks they could make more money from stealing not quit their honest job and steal instead? Is it ok to steal (I’m asking this question in reference to whom, because obviously for the thief it’s ok, but for the victim and society it’s not)?

It’s easy to empathize with the desperate who steal in order to survive, but why have we learned not to tolerate it anyways? We value an honest living above stealing (most of us, anyways), even if the thief’s family is starving. We, as the groups that don’t need to steal in order to survive and prize the stability of society so that we can reap the benefits, would much rather turn a blind eye to the starving families of thieves rather than allow them to steal,  and because of that it’s immoral in the eyes of the law.

I think that the prime aims of most objective morals is to protect and maintain stability of the structure of society rather than the individuals or groups that are in them and that’s maybe why not all people or groups will ever have equal quality of life living within the same society. Objective rules serve mainly to avoid throwing societies into chaos. It’s presupposed that individuals and groups will benefit from that. Objective morality also lies on the fact that what benefits individuals and groups will also benefit society, but they’re not the main reason for laws, IMO.

Maybe in the future society will almost reach a breaking point and then it will become objectively immoral to accumulate too much wealth and mandatory redistribution of money and assets will be enforced, who knows?

QuoteWhy is "feeling good" the object of morality?  Why is it not something like "self-improvement,"

Good point, personally im looking for self improvement as you say here, but the majority of human being are selfish, its a part of our survival to in some sence value our selves more then others, i would have to claim that if we didnt feel good about making someone els feel good then nobody would even try to make someone els feel  good, but i agree. Self improvment is way better, but not everyone seeks it, thats why im basing this on feeling good

Quote1) Why would maiming a person for life be moral in this case?  Wouldn't it likely deprive them of other pleasures or satisfactions later on, and wouldn't you, by cutting off the finger, be the agent of that deprivation?

Yes yes, but if someone feels pleasure in loosing bodyparts, then who am i to deny them that pleasure ( AGAIN this is unlikely, its kinda childish to abse our arguments on something that probably would never happen )

Quote2) The liklihood of this scenario is in some sense irrelevant.  If you are positing a moral system to be universally applied, it must apply in every case, and thought experiments like this are used to test the soundness of ideas.

Yes it plays a big part, some peoples find pleasure in feeling pain, some peoples dont.. Thats why its easy to make a decision in those cases.
But to take a case that isnt likely to happen makes it much harder, since ive only tried out this on reality.
but if the finger was in some way torturing him then it would be moral to remove it yes.. But if someone wants me to remove his finger for fun... Then i have no idea what i would do.. but basically thats unlikely.

QuoteIn your hypothetical scenario, how do you propose that we "do the maths"?

if you know yourself well enough then youll know how you would feel in both cases, if you were someone that begged someone els to be rude.. how sad would you be if he decided NOT to be rude.. And the other way around, how would you feel  if someone came up to you and just said you were stupid without any reason.
To know yourself is the best key to unlocking true morality.
You have good arguments but im still gonna stick with, Treat others as you would like to be treated. ( make em feel good, )