Do Athiests have morals?

[Midnight Rain]

I agree with this but do not know to what purpose it was given.

It was a tangent a while back where it was about objective morals being given by a god but then the definitions of said god....it seems rather unimportant to the thread.

So Socrates was a bad choice on my part as an example of someone who represents my point that God grounds objective morality but he is an example of my point that without him no one can site what the source of objective morality could be.

I was not as much in error as I had thought.

For the purposes of objective morality and that there is no way to see where they come from yes he matches rather well.

You like it so much please question away. I will use it as a learning opportunity.

First question. We do one at a time each post.
What is morality?

As I said you go with your Greek stuff then we can get into the science stuff. and science stuff will result in my posting countless lines of reasoning, philosophical necessities, logical fallacies, and lines of evidence.

Science has not defined the universe as externally created or self created. Science has not have a uniformly accepted creation of the universe which makes it mucky. Science, in an end, does not make a claim either way on this part. Some theoretical conjecture based on some basic understanding of things beyond us maybe but I can also too use science to find the opposite to yours or to assist yours. Science in general is not good with any claims of creation or otherwise.

It can mean that but no it does not always mean that. I think the way I used it is makes it true.

I do not agree. I agree that it is "possible" philosophically but not determined philosophically.

I thought you said you were in a humanity program. That at least explained why you think nothing can produce something. If you have a scientific background then I am just left baffled. Something from nothing is not scientific it is fantasy.

I did. I had a BA in humanities and history before realizing that historian degree's are rather useless and I went back and got a practical degree as a Medical/Laboratory Scientist. I took a year off and started this year back to get my degree in Chemical Engineering. Though its not too late for me to change into the Microbiology program or even the Pharmacist program. Not that any of it mattered but I also enrolled for a summer semester at a preforming arts school as well where I continued my study in folk instruments.

I've been lucky to have opportunities in several different fields of education and I don't think I would take back a single one to exchange it for a strait shot at my current degree. I have the unfortunate displeasure of being interested in just about everything. I've thought of continuing my education in coding as well but I haven't had the time.

But back on topic your definition of god would also be "something from nothing" as well would it not? If not then how is it fundamentally different?

That is all we see. Wait a minute do you mean bringing into existence creation or causal creation as in new arrangements of preexisting things. They both are identical in methodology but each might require different language. I did not merely mean bringing into existence though that is one of the things I did mean. I meant any effect. No matter how you slice up the universe it does not contain it's own cause or explanation. Whatever segment you are left with must be explained by an external cause.

And what caused that external cause? And so forth. The external cause is simply the answer to our current question. The next set of questions we can't even begin to answer because they are external to what we know.

Let me give you another time honored philosophical maxim to use your Greek on.

Everything has either an explanation of it's existence (whether a new entity or a new effect of any kind) either within it's self or external to it's self. Everything but God falls into the latter category. Saying it just exists as a brute fact does not jive with that nor does it actually say anything. It is a way to avoid an explanation not provide one. I admit to using it but I only use to indicate it has no natural dependence not that it has none at all.

From the Greek, specifically Aristotle, he postulated he uncased cause but did not go further into any sort of defining qualities. And I can agree that something must have been that cause. The "first cause" did have to exist in some sort of manor of speaking. However the ontological aspect of it was simply the philosophically necessity for an exception to the rule. How that exception functions is never touched on by the Greeks and is only really touched on in the light of Monotheistic creator god such as Christianity or Islam. A few others as well but as far as the historically held philosophical arguments are concerned the ontology of "becoming" is usually Christian in nature.

Yes, personal means capable of deciding (usually in space time0 but not in God's case. IOW if God was not personal the universe would either have always existed or never have.

Deism, again not my belief but devils advocate, would be an impersonal creator god. How things unfold would happen as they would in an impersonal way while still have creation.

Since you seem a little sensitive let me apologize if I said that too emphatically. I was talking specifically about your "all is one and one is all" thing. That is the primary thing that makes pantheism - pantheism and IMO it adds nothing meaningful to anything. It is a semantic redundancy.

Man I can hardly stand not tearing into the self creation stuff, but I will stand by what I said. Give me your best Socratic methodology stuff and then we will get back to science. BTW which post of mine offended you? I want to see what I said.

It didn't actually offend me but it was when we were discussing why we seem to come to better terms on this thread as a foil to the disrespect we had for each other's viewpoints in the homosexuality thread. I just didn't see the use in going back into it and beating a dead horse.

 

[LuisDantas]

I really do not see how but your free to think it.

It is simply not possible for me to take an argument that relies on the existence of God very seriously. That is how things are.

I was just pointing out that if morality has anything to do with you then it purely a matter of faith.

Then you failed utterly, to the point of apparently not even noticing that you did.

Why? Because assuming that existence as I can perceive it is not a complete illusion is a matter of pragmatism, not of "faith".

If I had said that God exists then that is a claim to faith. That is why I didn't say that. I say if God exists then and only then is objective morality true.

Nonsense.

That statement is not a matter of faith.

Yes, it is. And of a rather crude, unadvisable variety of faith at that.

It is true whether or not God exists or even whether or not we are minds in vat somewhere.

It isn't true at all.

No it was to show the differences I pointed out above.

And it failed, completely.

I guess I got tired of it not being seen that your or anyone elses thoughts are not enough to ground moral truths. So I made the situation even more absurd just to show the dynamic of the inherent problem.

You are doomed to fail, and to keep getting tired by attempting to, then.

I agree and I have spent many hours telling non-Christians that very think. If a thing can not be seen as is the usual remedy is to magnify it. Since you did not see the impossibility of our opinions producing moral truths I magnified the issue.

It... it was supposed to convince me?

So despite your admitting that you do live by faith

That is an odd, unclear expression, but either way I did not admit such a thing, as noted above.

Good thing too, since by your description it appears that I do not.

you deny my ability to have convinced you of the same.

Of course. What did you expect?

I agree our faith claims can at times meet requirements for adopting the conclusions but they are still faith based.

"Our"?

 

[LuisDantas]

If that's what it takes to keep them in check, I'd rather see them put down like the rabid dogs they obviously are.

I sympathise. I wonder how many such people actually exist, and how many of them became that way because their religious environment expects them to be that degenerate.

 

[ArtieE]

I did not say we lack a survival instinct. I said it such a pathetic basis for moral systems that no government in history has ever used it. In fact entire sections of morality go squarely against survival instincts. Add to that our greatest achievements in moral actions have been recognized as sacrificing of self to help others.

Yes of course. Evolution and natural selection works on populations. The more who survive the better so naturally actions that may end in the death of one but save the lives of many will have been selected for. Like bees give up their lives for the hive. Just instinct. It's behavior that ensures the survival of the group at the expense of one. That's a good evolutionary trade-off. Bees give their lives for the hive, soldiers give their lives for their country. Same instinct.

No, not one single law is rooted in instinct.

Survival instinct -> to survive good to die bad -> murder immoral and illegal because it causes unlawful death... can't make the connection any clearer for you than that.

 

[Cephus]

I sympathise. I wonder how many such people actually exist, and how many of them became that way because their religious environment expects them to be that degenerate.

I'm sure a lot of them are just saying it, they are just as moral as anyone else and for the same reason, their religion has just taught them lies and they're playing along.

 

[Nakosis]

This post doesn't contain any useful arguments or statements relevant to my points just some irrelevant personal comments. It's an interesting post from a psychological point of view though. It starts off with a paragraph intended to give the impression that you know something about evolution I don't. The next paragraph tries to reduce everything I have explained to be just my personal opinion and the last paragraph tries to convey that you are more evolved than me. The classic defense of a person who has no proper intelligent arguments of his own and is reduced to trying to belittle the other party. How transparent...

Missed it completely.

The last statement especially was not to belittle but to show what could be concluded from your argument. As I said in the beginning, I don't think your argument is fully thought out.

If I really said something wrong about evolution it shouldn't be hard to point out.

 

[ArtieE]

Objective moral truth is the difference between it being true or merely a contrivance conjured by human opinion which is completely unrelated to any actual fact of the matter. It is the difference between losing a son stopping a Hitler who was actually wrong, instead of losing him to stop a Hitler who was merely acting out of fashion.

The allies didn't stop Hitler because they had read in the Bible that the god in the Bible has a monopoly on "objective morality" and what Hitler was doing was "objectively wrong" according to this god. They stopped Hitler in self defense because evolution and natural selection evolved a survival instinct which makes us value lives and try to avoid dying and Hitler was invading countries and taking lives.

 

[ArtieE]

If I really said something wrong about evolution it shouldn't be hard to point out.

OK. Say something you think is right about evolution and I shall point out what's wrong.

 

[1robin]

It is simply not possible for me to take an argument that relies on the existence of God very seriously. That is how things are.

How things are is not the meaningful criteria in that case. It is how things should be that matters. The evidence for at least the biblical God is so overwhelming that it has convinced 1 out of every 3 people on earth, that a general belief in God is held by over 2 out of every 3 people on earth, and this includes many or most of the most brilliant scholars in every relevant subject. Now while you can dismiss that you cannot do so on any reasonable basis so your doing something you should do. I am not suggest that to lack Christian faith is unreasonable (though it may very well be) I am saying to suggest you can't even take the possibility seriously is simply absurd.

Then you failed utterly, to the point of apparently not even noticing that you did.

That is not an argument. This basically is equal to saying "nuh-uh"

Why? Because assuming that existence as I can perceive it is not a complete illusion is a matter of pragmatism, not of "faith".

Faith is defined as believe in something without proof. It is faith even if it also can be described by pragmatism as well. A semantic shell game is of no use here.

Nonsense.

No that is a statement of one part pure fact, and the second part a conditional necessity. If X then Y and inescapably so. This is also another "nuh-uh" declaration and not an argument.

Yes, it is. And of a rather crude, unadvisable variety of faith at that.

No it is not. One was an objective fact, the later such an inescapable conditional fact that even secular philosophers discussing a general concept of God define God the exact same way.

It isn't true at all.

Look these "no it isn't" declarations are not why people debate things. I already know your so emotionally committed to your preference here that you are unable to budge from the contrary position regardless of the evidence or reasoning. So I have no need of you merely stating you do not agree. I need reasons why your disagreement is true. That is a debate. This other stuff is a 5th grade word fight.

And it failed, completely.

Ok that's it. I will delete these mere declarations from here on in if they are completely devoid of any justification. This is no debate.

That is an odd, unclear expression, but either way I did not admit such a thing, as noted above.

Good thing too, since by your description it appears that I do not.

1. You most certainly did admit you cannot prove anything what so ever beyond the fact you think and therefor exist.
2. The only possible result from that admission is the inescapable fact that everything else you think you know is a matter of faith not proof.
3. Yet that is what you denied not what you affirmed. So everything I said was perfectly correct.

 

[1robin]

Yes of course. Evolution and natural selection works on populations. The more who survive the better so naturally actions that may end in the death of one but save the lives of many will have been selected for.

I do not think your getting it. Let me put it in list form.

Your claim as I see it is that instinct or evolution is the proper root of our moral edicts and actions. Now you suggest the general idea behind that is some weird claim that morality and behavior is based on empathy and natural selection.

1. Natural selection is not a moral process of any kind. It is a cold hard piece of furniture we find in nature. It contains no moral property what so ever and is no more morally relevant than 1 + 1 = 2.
2. The greatest virtues which humanity exhibits and value in many cases exactly defy our survival instincts. And these acts include sacrifice that helps others (not that evolution justifies this action), but also includes acts where both the actor and those acted on all die. We give medals for a guy who wipes out a platoon of the enemy and loses his own life. In fact others give medals for wiping out those who were acting benevolently. In most cases we recognize the greatest moral actions as those which completely defy evolution.
3. BTW evolution justifies my own survival, or at best my tribes survival, not mankind as a whole. Every species on earth acts to protect it's immediate family at the expense of every other creature on earth. We have enslaved the rest of nature and even our fellow human beings in massive quantities to further our immediate needs. That is what evolution justifies. Attempts to sanitize what in reality justifies killing others that are not in our own tribe but compete for resources is absurd and intellectually dishonest.
4. Those who have acted on the principles include Hitler. In fact Hitler is probably the best example of a society based on naturalistic ideals. He used the social Darwinian philosophy that Darwin's bulldog taught by Huxley. I of course condemn Hitler but his actions were very logically derived from nature. I condemn him because almost everyone else uses objective moral principles that do not come from merely looking at nature. Just societies have been those that deny, rise above, and make laws beyond what nature would validate

Anyway I could keep this list up for many posts but I have to stop somewhere. The points is that our behavior has defied evolution far more times than it has obeyed it throughout history, and our laws and legal theories have never been based on evolution with the possible and very temporary exceptions like what I mentioned with Hitler. Hitler is the closest a society ever came to operating by natures law. Thank God enough of us were around that thought nature was a stupid basis for morality to stop him.

Like bees give up their lives for the hive. Just instinct. It's behavior that ensures the survival of the group at the expense of one. That's a good evolutionary trade-off. Bees give their lives for the hive, soldiers give their lives for their country. Same instinct. Survival instinct -> to survive good to die bad -> murder immoral and illegal because it causes unlawful death... can't make the connection any clearer for you than that.

Bees also kill every queen that is born until the old one is ready to die, kill each other in massive numbers for reasons no one is certain about, kill any bee that returns drunk, and some kill nearby creatures merely because they are near by. You want to like bees, fine. No one else does and no society ever has. Medals are give to both sides for killing the other side. That even if true is horrifically flawed and no basis for anything except a dumb idea. You would have the medals Stalin gave to hurt the US and the medals we gave to hurt the USSR both morally justified. What a morally insane society you would create. Ok to survive good and to die bad. So I should kill every other human on earth if I have the means to do so without the threat of being killed myself, I should do this to theoretically stop any possibility of the bad thing happening you mention. This is going from bad to worse so I will leave you with it here.

Once again BTW not one thing you said answered a single question or request I made. In no law book in the history of man is there a (die bad live good) statement of any kind.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is not an argument. This basically is equal to saying "nuh-uh"

Of course. Did you expect something else?

 

[ArtieE]

The evidence for at least the biblical God is so overwhelming that it has convinced 1 out of every 3 people on earth, that a general belief in God is held by over 2 out of every 3 people on earth, and this includes many or most of the most brilliant scholars in every relevant subject.

An estimated one quarter of the population of the earth believes in reincarnation.Reincarnation Facts and Resources In a survey by the Pew Forum in 2009, 24% of American Christians expressed a belief in reincarnation.[149] In a 1981 Survey in Europe 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics expressed a belief in reincarnation.[150] Reincarnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Am I supposed to believe in reincarnation since the evidence of reincarnation is so overwhelming that so many people believe in it?

 

[1robin]

The allies didn't stop Hitler because they had read in the Bible that the god in the Bible has a monopoly on "objective morality" and what Hitler was doing was "objectively wrong" according to this god. They stopped Hitler in self defense because evolution and natural selection evolved a survival instinct which makes us value lives and try to avoid dying and Hitler was invading countries and taking lives.

In large part we did. My favorite and life long interest is military history. I and my dad combined have collected a small library of just personal letters and testimony of soldiers. You will almost invariably find two motives for the US, British, and large part French soldiers of that era. Either a faith based moral sense of duty, or appeals to objective moral truths which cannot possibly be true with God. This is a little more complex than I have made it. Soldiers were usually motivated by more than one thing. You will find adventure, the quest for glory, boredom, the pay, etc..... as listed at times among motivations, but you will almost always find specifically what I stated above as well. Add to that the justification used by leaders of these nations was also based on objective moral truths normally founded of the Abrahamic God. The self defense issue might be true mostly in France, and partially in England, but not to much in the US. We mainly were operating out of a multifaceted moral duty. Germany never attacked our mainland and was really no threat to it and would not have been for more than a decade. The best way to evaluate this is (since you probably do not have access to personal testimonies in the volumes I do) to look at the recorded statement by leaders of the time justifying the actions of their nation. They exhaustively bear out exactly what I have said. One example of this is famous. When England was at it's lowest point during the Blitz. Churchill was desperate for something to reignite their hope of eventual victory and the righteousness of their fight. He did not find an atheist, he did not look for a social Darwinist, and he did not get a secular theorist, he found one of the most prominent Christians in modern times, C.S. Lewis. He was broad cast into countless homes by the BBC. What he said justifying their efforts and to renew their hope was Christian doctrine so articulate and exact it was collected into one of the premier works in Christian or any other history.

 

[Nakosis]

An estimated one quarter of the population of the earth believes in reincarnation.Reincarnation Facts and Resources In a survey by the Pew Forum in 2009, 24% of American Christians expressed a belief in reincarnation.[149] In a 1981 Survey in Europe 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics expressed a belief in reincarnation.[150] Reincarnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Am I supposed to believe in reincarnation since the evidence of reincarnation is so overwhelming that so many people believe in it?

No, you choose to accept what is true based on the best reasoning and whatever you decide to accept as evidence for that truth the same as everyone else.

All truth, at least anything we accept as truth is subjective.

 

[viole]

The existence of the soul is incidental to my point. My point was that we grant life with sovereignty at some point. Secular people do so by arbitrary means and have no idea when this takes place but despite the ignorance kill of life on an industrial scale. Christians don't know but believe it on a rational basis and do not decide by arbitrary means when this occurs but instead decide not to support the killing of millions in the womb. The soul is a rational basis but is not required. However most people believe we have a soul or something very similar. I bet that that still small voice in you believes that you are not merely a sum of your organic components.

I am not obsessed with anything. I however do use the greatest and clearest example of what I am trying to say and will use them many times.

It does not matter. That was a case where my faith (wrong or right) would have produced millions more lives instead of deaths. That is a gain that faith would have wrought. Cultures have almost always distinguished between things contrary to man's law and things contrary to transcendent truth. Look up the Roman Mallum concepts and you will find the best explanations of this. Almost everyone (even you) act as if some moral duties are facts. I am certain you think at something is actually wrong like virtually everyone else. I hope if you see a child being tortured for fun you think it is wrong, not that it is merely out of fashion currently.

Every piece of evidence would be an experiential one the same as morality would be. If I can trust my eyes and fingers why can't I trust my moral perceptions?

That was not my claim. I am not here to read anyone the law. My point was very simplistic.

1. Objective morality only exists if God does.
2. We are reasonable to believe objective morality exists.
3. WE are therefor reasonable to believe God exists.

That does not require I provide evidence for which moral edicts are objectively true.

That is enough for me. I am gone. You have a great Christmas.

Oh, the good old torturing children for fun is wrong. Sometimes I wonder if moral realists, not necessarily theists, have only this example of an uncontroversial truth.

Apart from the fact the closer we get to consensus, the easier it is to give naturalistic explanations to a moral claim, I don't think you can make a case for moral objectivity only with confirming evidence. Theories fall apart with only one disconfirming one, usually.

It woud be like making a case for the objective reality of food tastiness just because we mosty agree that chocolate is fine and pigs excrements is not exactly gourmet food.

So, why do we (vehemently) disagree on central points like:

- death penalty
- abortion
- day after pill
- virginity before marriage
- voluntary euthanasia
- stem cells research
- gay marriage

Etc, if morality is objective?

I mean, not even Christians agree on each point. And that is why you guys have denominations, I guess. A nice rich buffet from which you can pick your moral values and declare them objective.

So much for (divine inspired) objective morality.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Augustus]

Morals based on trial and error. Evolutionary genetically passed down feelings of good and bad could be a hindrance as circumstances change. The ability of being able to adapt our morals would be better for survival.

As you mention, Human morality seems to be highly situational, given the 'right' circumstances there is little evil that we are incapable of doing to each other. Moralities might be more accurate than morality.

If there is such a thing as 'objective morality' then it is impossible for us to know what it is due to its complexity. And IF such a thing exists, we could only gain a highly superficial understanding of what its 'rules' would be.

I think science is about as likely to identify an objective moral code is about as it is to prove God's existence.

 

[1robin]

OK. Say something you think is right about evolution and I shall point out what's wrong.

Are you saying that no matter what I said about evolution your going to claim it is wrong? Figures, I guess.

I will make it easier and post something that you won't like so much and so are forced to say it is wrong.

Evolution is referred to as survival of the fittest so often they are virtually interchangeable. So based on survival of the fittest, or attempting to write up rules derived from it would justify, and did justify according to Huxley and Hitler.

Killing those who through some significant weakness are a complete burden on the general health of the group. In that case the fit get fitter and mankind grows stronger.

 

[1robin]

Of course. Did you expect something else?

I won't insult you by suggesting I do not expect anything meaningful from you if that is what you meant. Let me just say I hoped for an argument not a declaration without justification.

 

[1robin]

An estimated one quarter of the population of the earth believes in reincarnation.Reincarnation Facts and Resources In a survey by the Pew Forum in 2009, 24% of American Christians expressed a belief in reincarnation.[149] In a 1981 Survey in Europe 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics expressed a belief in reincarnation.[150] Reincarnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Am I supposed to believe in reincarnation since the evidence of reincarnation is so overwhelming that so many people believe in it?

If I had turned in a study like this while in school my statistics teacher would have failed me. They are defining the Christian belief of being born again or spiritually living after physical death as re-incarnation but our belief is completely different from the traditional Hindu idea of re-incarnation. Not one biblical verse allows for multiple lives, and several specifically it is not so. I can't believe any reputable institution would have equated the two and lumped them together.

I did not make any arguments from popularity. I did not say to believe in anything except the fact that X is popular, not that X was true. In the truth of the matter was not in anyway the subject. I was told that someone simply dismissed the possibility X was true, I said to dismiss something with so much evidence that it has convinced such an overwhelming percentage of humanity and scholars. Now that I remember I in fact anticipated someone would make the same mistake you did and specifically said that it was not saying they should believe x was true just that dismissing the possibility was unjustifiable. It is a little said to know the potential mistake a person may make, to allow for it and specifically show that mistake was a mistake, and to have it made anyway.

 

[ArtieE]

@1robin
Your points are so misunderstood that I have no other choice than to start at the very beginning.

This is how evolution and natural selection works for a social species like us:

1. We help others.
2. Others help us.
3. Helping others increase our general chances of survival.
4. Since helping others increases our chances of survival helping others is selected for by evolution and natural selection. Even if some should die in the process of helping.

Are you with me so far?