Do Athiests have morals?

[1robin]

Maybe they just aren't very good arguments then.

Good or bad your responses seem to not be related to them at all. It is beginning to seem intentional so if you want to have a serious discussion I would respond in coherent ways to what I state. If they are no good you have yet to even hint at showing it. You seem to be having an independent discussion
so far that does not require me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Morality can exist independent of god. For example it could be moral to go against god. In fact in terms of Christianity specifically there are several cases where I would assume that to be true.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You seem to be having an independent discussion
so far that does not require me.

No, I just object to a discussion entirely on your terms.

 

[1robin]

No, I just object to a discussion entirely on your terms.

They are not my terms. They are logically necessary terms that have been granted from Socrates to Zacharias. I am hanging around in reality and logical inevitabilities. Since you do not wish to join me there is no discussion to be held. Nu-uh is not an argument.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nu-uh is not an argument.

There are many different ways to debate a topic.

 

[Laika]

Given this thread is 18 pages, I can be pretty sure someone has said this already. "Yes" Atheist do have morals. But the morals of the atheist depend on the kind of Atheist as well as the person. Most Atheists (in liberal societies) will probably accept a judaeo-christian morality as consistent with the concept of 'free will' and the responsibilities it entails as ethical absolutes. It is part of the cultural heritage of living in a society which has historically only very recently tolerated agnostics or atheists as part of free expression.
The trouble starts when Atheists reject not only God, but morality from religious sources. This where philosophical debates get much more complicated and it really depends on the Atheist. Often this is based on the argument that morals from religion are 'immoral' because they are contrary to man's "true" nature and therefore have revolutionary aspects to it like Marx or Nietzsche. In arguing this however, there is an assertion that some form of moral truth does exist.

Whilst attacking atheism for moral nihilism is true only in so far as it reject religious morality, nihilism is paradoxical in asserting that the lack of objective truth as a basis for morality constitutes an objective truth. You can only destroy one moral claim by making another opposing claim. Monotheists believe there is only one god, and reject all the others. In doing so, they reject all the other gods morals as well and as also 'nihilistic'. In much the same way, Atheists go one step further and remove god from the equation so man can decide what is moral for him or herself.

 

[1robin]

There are many different ways to debate a topic.

Yeah, a wrong way and a correct way. However there are not many places in common for that debate to take place. The criteria I listed are the primary grounds on which meaningful debate occurs. If they are all denied by one of those in a debate then they do not intend to serious engage the subject. As one last ditch effort I will define how morality has been classically interpreted. I will quote the Roman version but the same dynamic has been true in all civilized cultures. Morality is used in two ways. Only the first is relevant here. The second is not even technically objectively true.


1. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

This concept was used to develop the various common law offences.[1]

Another way to describe the underlying conceptual difference between "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" is "iussum quia iustum" and "iustum quia iussum," namely something that is commanded (iussum) because it is just (iustum) and something that is just (iustum) because it is commanded (iussum).
Malum in se - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one is impossible without God. Human beings simply have no ability what so ever to create this type of morality and this is the only one relevant in a theological forum.

2. Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson:[3]

Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).

"Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one humanity can invent. It does not exist objectively because we invented it as an opinion which bears no relationship to any objective fact. It is a contrivance and is more accurately referred to as ethics. This one is irrelevant in a theological forum.


Nothing you have said has had any bearing on what I have claimed so far. However at least this issue is excusable. I am talking about the first issue (actual morality) and you seem to be responding with what is true of the second issue (ethics or preference). It is a mistaken response that has no relevance but at least it is an excusable mistake. Now I have made more of an effort to define and clarify than is justifiable. If you do not have anything meaningful to respond with I will leave it here.

 

[Shad]

Atheists form a moral code by using axioms. Just as believers use religious axioms to do so.

 

[ArtieE]

I never say atheists lack morality. I say atheism lacks a foundation for objective morality.

So does theism.

 

[ArtieE]

1. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature

And when you say "inherently wrong by nature" what you are actually saying is that nature by way of evolution and natural selection evolved a code of conduct beneficial for the survival of a social species. What is "inherently wrong by nature" is not to follow this code because that lessens the chances of survival.

 

[1robin]

So does theism.

As scholars have known since Socrates the only way objective moral truth exists is if God does. In several hundreds our of professional debates I have seen only one atheist suggested the objective moral facts exist but God does not (the rest all knew that to be impossible). However even he (Sam Harris) when forced into the corner of having to give the source for those objective moral duties admitted he merely assumed them to exist.

You can debate whether objective moral truths exist.
You can debate whether God exists.
If objective moral truth does exist there is no possible escape that God must be the foundation for them. To claim otherwise is to illustrate that you are either not thinking it through, you have assumed something without justification, or you are not familiar with moral theory.

 

[Midnight Rain]

As scholars have known since Socrates the only way objective moral truth exists is if God does. In several hundreds our of professional debates I have seen only one atheist suggested the objective moral facts exist but God does not (the rest all knew that to be impossible). However even he (Sam Harris) when forced into the corner of having to give the source for those objective moral duties admitted he merely assumed them to exist.

You can debate whether objective moral truths exist.
You can debate whether God exists.
If objective moral truth does exist there is no possible escape that God must be the foundation for them. To claim otherwise is to illustrate that you are either not thinking it through, you have assumed something without justification, or you are not familiar with moral theory.

Fun fact Socrates was accused of atheism. And his eventual moral conclusions were never based from theistic origins but from humanistic ones.

 

[1robin]

And when you say "inherently wrong by nature" what you are actually saying is that nature by way of evolution and natural selection evolved a code of conduct beneficial for the survival of a social species. What is "inherently wrong by nature" is not to follow this code because that lessens the chances of survival.

You know very well that is not what I meant. It is not just contradictory to my world view, even if it was true it would not ground morality in objective fact because it is impossible. Why are you suggesting that I meant something you know very well I did not mean?

1. I did not suggest anything. Those are not my words.
2. Those words were put forward by Roman moral theorists.
3. Those words were set forth long before science had put forward any evolutionary theory.

So you know that is not what I meant, you should have known that is not what I said, you also should have known that that is not even what the Romans meant.

What they meant by nature is a principle which is ontologically factual. Nature is astronomically larger than evolution and evolution cannot possibly ever produce an objective moral fact.

On top of all these mistakes, actually following survivalist principles would produce acts like executing the infirm, the insane, or anyone who is a burden on society. It would justify killing every human on earth that competes with my tribe for resources. It in fact would produce exactly what Hitler did. Hitler's moral ideals were justified in his own words by evolutionary principles and despite the fact that he contradicted God's true morality he actually was very consistent with principles easily derived from social Darwinism.

 

[1robin]

Fun fact Socrates was accused of atheism. And his eventual moral conclusions were never based from theistic origins but from humanistic ones.

I think you are mistaken but this is not what I claimed anyway. I said the concepts involved were known to Socrates (actually known by people far earlier than him).

1. He knew the only way objective moral facts exists is if a transcendent standard does.
2. He knew that if that source did not exist then morality was merely opinion and preference that does not correspond in any way to fact.

I am going to give a few facts about Socrates but he is not the issue and I don't know which one of the two positions above he believed was the fact but he knew that one or the other had to be the case. However whatever he believed was not the issue. The inevitability of those propositions was.


1. Socrates believed in the soul which is a supernatural proposition.
2. He was not accused of being an atheist he was accused of "impiety". Not properly respecting Athenian God's.
3. Not enough is known about Socrates to make any certain judgments on whether he believed in a God or not. That is why I did not say whether he did or not. My point was merely to suggest the inevitability of the nature of morality given God(s) or given no God(s) has been known since Socrates time and actually before.

 

[Cephus]

As scholars have known since Socrates the only way objective moral truth exists is if God does.

That's where you're wrong. Objective moral truth, assuming it exists at all, doesn't require *YOUR* God to exist, only *A* god. Your god is not proven in any way, shape or form just because you want to assert that some objective moral truth is real. And since you still haven't demonstrated that to be true, it's all academic anyhow.

 

[ArtieE]

As scholars have known since Socrates the only way objective moral truth exists is if God does.

Theism is the belief in the existence of god(s) no more no less. Nothing to do with "objective moral truth". There is no requirement for a theist to believe that the god(s) he believes in possesses any "objective moral truth".

If objective moral truth does exist there is no possible escape that God must be the foundation for them. To claim otherwise is to illustrate that you are either not thinking it through, you have assumed something without justification, or you are not familiar with moral theory.

Evolution and natural selection is an automatic objective process.
We have a survival instinct as a result of this objective process.
Survival instinct says survival/life objectively good death objectively bad.
Hence evolution and natural selection is the objective foundation to what we see as good or bad.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I think you are mistaken but this is not what I claimed anyway. I said the concepts involved were known to Socrates (actually known by people far earlier than him).

1. He knew the only way objective moral facts exists is if a transcendent standard does.
2. He knew that if that source did not exist then morality was merely opinion and preference that does not correspond in any way to fact.

The socratics were my favorite and focus of my study when working on a BA for Humanities and Philosophy. The problem that you are running into is the sophist definitions of relativism which we are not actually arguing against. In fact any time we see any reference to objective morality is almost solely in this context.

However it still stands that Socrates was a promoter of objective moral values that could be discovered with right and wrong answers rather than though any sort of relativistic sense that what could be right or wrong was matter of opinion only. It was a matter of fact that could be discovered and discerned using what was later described as the Socratic method.

Now where Socraties begins to vastly change from your opinion in fact to total opposition is about the root cause of these moral truths. Part of why he was accused of impiety or atheism (depending on the translation as there was no word to differentiate between the two in Ancient Greek texts) is that he said that moral truths STAND ALONE despite what any god or goddess says. If all the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece stated that any one action was moral it would NOT actually make it a moral action. He did NOT believe or reason that the root of morality was based in gods but rather an innate law just as a force of nature. Its much as we view the laws of physics today. As much as a color was a color and it wasn't subjective neither was morality but it was not based in gods or goddesses.

I am going to give a few facts about Socrates but he is not the issue and I don't know which one of the two positions above he believed was the fact but he knew that one or the other had to be the case. However whatever he believed was not the issue. The inevitability of those propositions was.


1. Socrates believed in the soul which is a supernatural proposition.
2. He was not accused of being an atheist he was accused of "impiety". Not properly respecting Athenian God's.
3. Not enough is known about Socrates to make any certain judgments on whether he believed in a God or not. That is why I did not say whether he did or not. My point was merely to suggest the inevitability of the nature of morality given God(s) or given no God(s) has been known since Socrates time and actually before.

Actually his idea of a "soul" was the individual's "self". It was his philosophical conclusion that who "he" is was not his body but something else. The accumulated thoughts of his mind as well as his personal non-physical qualities.

Its a very different concept that that of the Christian soul. I tend to agree with him on that but just because he believed in the soul does not mean he was a god fearing man but could have meant it was another one of his beliefs of how the wold was. Though I tend to agree with him on the soul portion.

And again to clarify there was no difference in the word for impiety or atheism. It was written through Plato that he questioned even the existence of the Greek gods (not just the Athenian gods either) though nothing is known directly as the vast majority of what we know comes from Plato. Though plato was his chief student and wonderful writer of the time that was known for recording several different philosophical and even historical truths.

 

[LuisDantas]

As scholars have known since Socrates the only way objective moral truth exists is if God does.

I read that text, and that is not at all what it says. Rather, Socrates (or Plato's version of him) shows that Gods are an insufficient source of definition for morals.

In several hundreds our of professional debates I have seen only one atheist suggested the objective moral facts exist but God does not (the rest all knew that to be impossible).

Surprisingly enough, that is not a very popular stance. It is however mine.

 

[ArtieE]

On top of all these mistakes, actually following survivalist principles would produce acts like executing the infirm, the insane, or anyone who is a burden on society. It would justify killing every human on earth that competes with my tribe for resources.

So you think that if you tried killing every human on earth competing with your tribe for resources that behavior would enhance your chances of survival and be selected for? Really? You don't think you would be more likely to end up dead than those who cooperate with each other instead of killing each other?

 

[1robin]

Theism is the belief in the existence of god(s) no more no less. Nothing to do with "objective moral truth". There is no requirement for a theist to believe that the god(s) he believes in possesses any "objective moral truth".Evolution and natural selection is an automatic objective process.

I did not define theism, what it means was not the issue. Evolution is not and cannot be an objective moral source. The only thing evolution will produce is preferences not moral truths. Don't take my word for it. Take the atheist philosopher of science (Michael Ruse) words: Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense.
God is dead. Long live morality | Michael Ruse | Comment is free | The Guardian

Use evolution to prove that murder is wrong.

We have a survival instinct as a result of this objective process. [/.quote] A survival instinct is not an objective moral truth.

prove that human survival is an objective good.

Survival instinct says survival/life objectively good death objectively bad.

No it does not, no it cannot, it is absolutely impossible.

It can say anything, but it saying it does not one thing to make it true. Do you even understand what objective means. In a moral sense it means free from the opinions of it's adherents. All your giving me and all it is ever possible for you to ever produce without appealing to God is opinions, but that is what objectivity excludes. Your literally founding a world view on what defeats it. Leave atheism alone long enough it ends in paradoxes that literally eat themselves like this, every time.

Hence evolution and natural selection is the objective foundation to what we see as good or bad.

No it is not. Evolution perhaps is an objective historical fact. The abstract things like morals even if we do get them from evolution are not objectively true.