Do Athiests have morals?

[ArtieE]

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.

How evolution and natural selection works in our society:

1. We help others.
2. Others help us.
3. Helping others increases our chances of survival.
4. According to evolution and natural selection the fittest and one most likely to survive is the one who helps others.

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.

Except of course that I just explained that a fit person in a social setting is a person who helps others. If you go out and start killing people you deem weak for the benefit of the group you will be deemed unfit to live in the group and probably declared insane or a criminal and locked up.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

So many people believe in reincarnation. Have you dismissed the possibility? If so is your dismissal unjustifiable?

 

[1robin]

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.

Hello Viole. In a discussion with a person or group that cannot seem to get the subtler but undeniable elements of a claim the usual result is to appeal the most absurd or extraordinary examples. I have been doing just that. It is kind of difficult since secularists can't even grant the most extraordinary wrongs are actually wrong so we are a left with few alternatives.

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.

That is another issue. I never said that we cannot sit around and look at nature and come up with rules for behavior. I said that doing so does not produce objective moral truth as it is pure opinion, that no society has ever done so (Hitler's Germany got as close to doing so as any have), and that if a single objective moral truth does exists it requires God. It is remarkable how often I get this type of unrelated response to my claims. We can deny objective moral truth, we can deny God, we can even invent rules by guessing and call it morality. I have never denied that. But that morality is not related to any objective moral truth what so ever. Oh and I have also said that would be among the worst possible foundations for morality if any society actually use it.

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.

It is truly a marvel that what I say is misunderstood so badly. That is not my position it is the position of those who think we can invent objective morality. My position is the we are not a source of objective moral truth and can't be. Food is a bad analogy here because what tastes good is merely a subjective thing related to humanity.

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

So why what, I did not see anything that you are referring to by saying "So"?

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

We probably disagree because you contrive what you think is right or wrong based on preference and opinion, and I take morality from what I think to be an objective source that has given me not only a conscience but also the Holy Spirit who's purpose is to guide us into truth. We have completely different sources. I don't know your position on the death penalty, I am for the day after pill, promiscuity before marriage cannot be defended virginity is merely a corollary here, I am for voluntary termination of ones own life I have no idea how you feel about it, I am not opposed to gay marriage it's self. I am theologically opposed to the orientation and made secular arguments against any justification for acting sexually on that orientation as inherently detrimental. If we disagree it is probably because I theoretically use the moral locus of the universe as my moral source and you use opinion and preference. In most cases a secular evaluation supports my views but in others there is no secular argument that can be made. Not that a secular argument is determinative.

Etc, if morality is objective?

What? If a thing is objectively true it can still be rejected and denied. The Earth is objectively non-flat as a whole but that has no effect on people believing it is.

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.

There is no force on earth that apparently can stop others from responding to ontological arguments with epistemological responses. The nature of morality has nothing to do with ho we come to know it.

So much for (divine inspired) objective morality.

So much for it? You did not say anything that had any impact on it. The universality of the knowledge of a thing has nothing what so ever to do with the actual nature of the thing. And I did not even make any claim to the actual nature of morality. I gave the conditions necessary for the nature of morality. With God it is objectively factual, without it is merely a contrivance based in opinion and preference and has no relationship to the factual truth of the matter because without God there is no factual nature to be in line with. If you think the universal agreement about a thing determines what a thing is then evolution is doomed before hand. It is claimed to be everything from red in tooth and claw to some idealized and arbitrarily sanitized foundation that can do no wrong.

Ciao

- viole

Wow, there was some serious disconnect in this one.

 

[Nakosis]

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 agree. Since I don't believe God provides a moral standard for man, this maybe leaves us in what seems to be an uncomfortable position. We can't really justify the standards we use in our judgement of right and wrong.

We can of course decide upon a standard and agree to up hold it/enforce it and that is what I think we do, do. I'm fine with acknowledging the standards used by man is not objective.

 

[Cephus]

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.

Why? That's all you ever provide, why should you expect better from anyone else?

 

[Augustus]

We can of course decide upon a standard and agree to up hold it/enforce it and that is what I think we do, do. I'm fine with acknowledging the standards used by man is not objective.

I always find it quite funny when you see an atheist/religious morality debate and you get the classic 'well if there is no objective morality then you can have anal sex with your mother whilst fisting a horse and no one can say it's wrong' type argument made as if it is the most profound point in history.

Yeah, you can just say its wrong. It's not a problem that there is no 'objective' basis for it.

 

[1robin]

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

I think you definitely need to start over if you think I am mistaken.

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?

Evolution does not contain a single moral property or foundation. It is primarily the mutation of genes which result in genetic change. Natural selection merely selects which changes have survival advantage and will be preserved. And it is merely a theory, One which I will grant but it is not a process which has a single moral component. Why are you so obedient to a process that does not care about anything and would just as soon care if humanity ended today as continued? It is just plain weird.

Anything ethical you derive from this is an opinion and a guess. It an assumption piled on an assumption and judging by what you come away with it is a completely unjustifiable assumption. The issue is whether what you have derived from nature is justifiable. Does it actually reflect nature? So lets see.

1. We help others. Instead of looking at a theory that supposedly represents reality and guessing at what it demonstrates. Lets look at reality and see what it actually is composed of. I agree it includes us helping each other but it also includes us doing every conceivable harm to each other. Why are you suggesting good things are evolutionarily valid but the mountains of horrific things are inconstant with nature which is described and is red in tooth and claw. If nature is it then nature has justified slavery, war, genocide, etc... because it includes these things. Only with God are these things a violating of a transcendent standard which should be followed. As every single scientists you can find and they will respond that natural law nor nature as a whole can possibly ever tell us how things should be, only how they are. So whatever is, is what evolution justifies without God and you (if your honest) will have to take the good and bad. You can't white wash a thing and cherry pick from it and claim your still dealing with reality
2. Yes others help us in nature and others hurt us in nature. Using only part of reality but claim your using reality as is, is false. See the above.
3. This is so disingenuous. Yes at times helping others benefits us, so does hurting others. That is what nature is full of. Completely contradictory events.
4. This is merely a restatement of the previous mistake.


Nature is full of contradictions. History is full of contradictions. It is full of actions that we may like to think are benevolent and it is full of actions we may like to think of malevolent. However if we are to base how we act (and since without God there is no way to know which ones are which) we must accept it al or do what we actually do and completely ignore nature when establishing moral codes.

I do not know why, but it just hit me how weird it would be to think a cold immoral natural process is a basis for merely ethics alone. It does not care what is right, it does not contain what is right, it does not care about you, it justifies the gains of one creature at the expense of another, justifies eradicating those who are weak enough to weaken society as a whole. It contains the best of stuff and the worst of stuff and lacks any objective means in determining which is which. I can kill and be justified by evolution as Hitler did, I can save and be justified by evolution. And evolution lacks any means what so ever to tell anyone which one is actually the good. It does not care if you or anyone live, it would be just as content if every species on earth was wiped out and in fact it is responsible for wiping countless entire species out. It is among the worst possible foundations for ethics and can't possibly be a foundation for objective moral truth and no society has used it that way, thank God.

No I am not with you so far , because you are not with reality so far. Your putting a white mask on a black face and telling me that is the real face.

Artie I cannot make it any clearer than this. Your simply making massive mistakes here.

 

[1robin]

So many people believe in reincarnation. Have you dismissed the possibility? If so is your dismissal unjustifiable?

Of course not. Even though I have experienced God and believe I know the fact of the matter I do not dismiss Atheism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.. offhand. I always supply reasons why I think they are untrue. Reincarnation for example defeats it's actual purpose for occurring. It is a self defeating concept. yet I do not merely throw it in the trash.

 

[Sapiens]

I think you definitely need to start over if you think I am mistaken.



Evolution does not contain a single moral property or foundation. It is primarily the mutation of genes which result in genetic change. Natural selection merely selects which changes have survival advantage and will be preserved. And it is merely a theory, One which I will grant but it is not a process which has a single moral component. Why are you so obedient to a process that does not care about anything and would just as soon care if humanity ended today as continued? It is just plain weird.

Anything ethical you derive from this is an opinion and a guess. It an assumption piled on an assumption and judging by what you come away with it is a completely unjustifiable assumption. The issue is whether what you have derived from nature is justifiable. Does it actually reflect nature? So lets see.

1. We help others. Instead of looking at a theory that supposedly represents reality and guessing at what it demonstrates. Lets look at reality and see what it actually is composed of. I agree it includes us helping each other but it also includes us doing every conceivable harm to each other. Why are you suggesting good things are evolutionarily valid but the mountains of horrific things are inconstant with nature which is described and is red in tooth and claw. If nature is it then nature has justified slavery, war, genocide, etc... because it includes these things. Only with God are these things a violating of a transcendent standard which should be followed. As every single scientists you can find and they will respond that natural law nor nature as a whole can possibly ever tell us how things should be, only how they are. So whatever is, is what evolution justifies without God and you (if your honest) will have to take the good and bad. You can't white wash a thing and cherry pick from it and claim your still dealing with reality
2. Yes others help us in nature and others hurt us in nature. Using only part of reality but claim your using reality as is, is false. See the above.
3. This is so disingenuous. Yes at times helping others benefits us, so does hurting others. That is what nature is full of. Completely contradictory events.
4. This is merely a restatement of the previous mistake.


Nature is full of contradictions. History is full of contradictions. It is full of actions that we may like to think are benevolent and it is full of actions we may like to think of malevolent. However if we are to base how we act (and since without God there is no way to know which ones are which) we must accept it al or do what we actually do and completely ignore nature when establishing moral codes.

I do not know why, but it just hit me how weird it would be to think a cold immoral natural process is a basis for merely ethics alone. It does not care what is right, it does not contain what is right, it does not care about you, it justifies the gains of one creature at the expense of another, justifies eradicating those who are weak enough to weaken society as a whole. It contains the best of stuff and the worst of stuff and lacks any objective means in determining which is which. I can kill and be justified by evolution as Hitler did, I can save and be justified by evolution. And evolution lacks any means what so ever to tell anyone which one is actually the good. It does not care if you or anyone live, it would be just as content if every species on earth was wiped out and in fact it is responsible for wiping countless entire species out. It is among the worst possible foundations for ethics and can't possibly be a foundation for objective moral truth and no society has used it that way, thank God.

No I am not with you so far , because you are not with reality so far. Your putting a white mask on a black face and telling me that is the real face.

Artie I cannot make it any clearer than this. Your simply making massive mistakes here.

There is a huge body of work on altruism, kin selection and the evolution of morals. If you care to read it you might change your mind, if you don't care to read it, that's fine ... all that means is that you are wrong and do not care to remediate your errors, your loss, stay ignorant.

 

[1robin]

Why? That's all you ever provide, why should you expect better from anyone else?

Find whatever my last significant post was and demonstrate that
is even remotely true.

 

[1robin]

There is a huge body of work on altruism, kin selection and the evolution of morals. If you care to read it you might change your mind, if you don't care to read it, that's fine ... all that means is that you are wrong and do not care to remediate your errors, your loss, stay ignorant.

I have been researching evolution for over 15 years and all the various and contradictory moral theories it is guessed it justifies. Let me ask you something. In the opinion of a great many scholars Hitler was the closest and human society ever came to using evolution, natural selection, nature as a basis for morality. Can you show how he was mistaken? and how you can know he was mistaken? You can use the paper you mentioned in your response if you wish but I have a pretty good familiarization with the idea.

Keep in mind I do not claim that evolution maybe the best we could do if God does not exists. Actually that is not true, selecting only the best or most benevolent events in nature may be the best we could do. However using nature as a whole to ground morality would produce justice and injustice in like quantities and it lacks any objective way of determining which is which. Who do we appeal to know which is which, Darwin, Huxley, Hitler? Anyway I do not challenge we can invent ethics without God. Just that those ethics are not in any way related to objective moral facts.

Is his name Kin Selection? (that is an unusual name).

 

[ArtieE]

No I am not with you so far

OK. Fair enough. I give up. If you didn't understand those four points there's no point in continuing. Live long and prosper.

 

[Cephus]

Find whatever my last significant post was and demonstrate that
is even remotely true.

I can take any post you've ever posted on religion and demonstrate it. All you do is make unsubstantiated claims, just like lots of other theists around here. You make claims of truth based on your beliefs, not on independent, substantiated, evidence that shows that your beliefs are actually true. This is nothing new, of course, it's how apologetics operates. "I'm right because I'm right" is the cry of the day.

 

[ArtieE]

There is a huge body of work on altruism, kin selection and the evolution of morals. If you care to read it you might change your mind, if you don't care to read it, that's fine ... all that means is that you are wrong and do not care to remediate your errors, your loss, stay ignorant.

Given his posts I don't think it's possible to deprogram him, he's too far gone. I tried my four points just to see if he was capable of recognizing the validity of the logic and reasoning behind them but no go. So any further effort is pointless. Since he doesn't understand that there are logical and rational reasons we should help each other instead of killing each other we must just be glad he's a Christian and believes that a god tells him not to go around killing people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been researching evolution for over 15 years and all the various and contradictory moral theories it is guessed it justifies. Let me ask you something. In the opinion of a great many scholars Hitler was the closest and human society ever came to using evolution, natural selection, nature as a basis for morality. Can you show how he was mistaken? and how you can know he was mistaken? You can use the paper you mentioned in your response if you wish but I have a pretty good familiarization with the idea.

Keep in mind I do not claim that evolution maybe the best we could do if God does not exists. Actually that is not true, selecting only the best or most benevolent events in nature may be the best we could do. However using nature as a whole to ground morality would produce justice and injustice in like quantities and it lacks any objective way of determining which is which. Who do we appeal to know which is which, Darwin, Huxley, Hitler? Anyway I do not challenge we can invent ethics without God. Just that those ethics are not in any way related to objective moral facts.

Is his name Kin Selection? (that is an unusual name).

Not to butt in and nitpick (but I will anyway ), but I'd say Hitler was practicing artificial selection, not natural selection as you state above. And barely that even, given that his main practice was plain old genocide, which isn't really a component of artificial selection either.

And I'm not sure how we could discount nature when coming up with moral codes because we are bound by those laws of nature. We cannot escape them.

 

[1robin]

OK. Fair enough. I give up. If you didn't understand those four points there's no point in continuing. Live long and prosper.

I doubt I will be able to accomplish either unless an after life exists.

 

[1robin]

I can take any post you've ever posted on religion and demonstrate it. All you do is make unsubstantiated claims, just like lots of other theists around here. You make claims of truth based on your beliefs, not on independent, substantiated, evidence that shows that your beliefs are actually true. This is nothing new, of course, it's how apologetics operates. "I'm right because I'm right" is the cry of the day.

I did not say anything unsubstantiated claims. The only thing ever thought was true that is fully substantiated is that we think and there for are. If I had substantiated as my criteria no post would pass it. I said justified. As in not merely declared. Saying no it is not, or oh yeas it is fine if it is followed by an explanation for why it is justifiable and reasonable to believe not or why it is. That is what debates include and require and that is what I complained of not receiving and that is not I do in general. I suppose in over 10,000 posts I have done so a few times but in general I always include the reasons why I think a thing is or is not. Because that is how debates are done. Now if you want to challenge whether I do so in general or not then pick any post in the thread that is significantly long and do so. But if this is merely an emotional rant lets just forget it.

In act this post disproves what you claimed. I said what I have done, explained what I have said, mentioned why it is true, and asked you to challenge it if you wish. That is a debate. If I had instead responded that you were merely full of it and stopped there then and only then would what you have said been true.

 

[leibowde84]

Quick definitions for the unlearned:

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

Your logic/question is flawed. You seem to be claiming that stealing was not considered to be wrong before Moses came down from Mt. Sainai, but you provide no evidence to back this up. In actuality there is evidence to the contrary ... that stealing, even before the existance of Judaism, was thought to be "wrong" or against the inerest of a society. Obviously, this was the case for murder as well, as a society cannot function if murder is not considered to be wrong or unacceptable.

So, can you please explain why you feel that morality is somehow based on Judaism/Christianity? It just seems so obvious to me to be part of the evolution of society. As thinking, self-aware creatures, wouldn't it be naturaly that we would learn as time passes to structure society better, which would necessitate a differenciation of right and wrong?

 

[1robin]

Not to butt in and nitpick (but I will anyway ), but I'd say Hitler was practicing artificial selection, not natural selection as you state above. And barely that even, given that his main practice was plain old genocide, which isn't really a component of artificial selection either.

And I'm not sure how we could discount nature when coming up with moral codes because we are bound by those laws of nature. We cannot escape them.

You can but in a nit pick all you want as long as what you say is hopefully meaningful, and you generally are. Most others have abandoned the attempt at contending with my two primary points either gracefully or by appealing to personal commentary, so you are welcome to post to me. So lets see what you got here.

1. Not bad, I agree that Hitler did not accept the entirety of natural selection. He only borrowed the parts of nature he liked. My point was only that is as close to a evolutionarily based ethical society in history as far as I know, not that it was a perfectly mirrored interpretation of nature. That was in fact my complaint. Those who use nature to justify behavior pick and chose what they say it justifies when in fact it pretty much justifies any act imaginable. From over predation, and yes species annihilation, to altruism.
2. Evolution has no moral component what so ever. It does not care, it is not even sentient. It is like using physics for morality. Look stuff falls, push everyone over a cliff. The absurdity of blind genetic process for morality for morality has only a few hours ago hit me as to how absurd that is. However even if it was the only possible choice it includes nothing but contradictory events. Animals helping each other, eating each other, only eating when hungry, or over predation and torturing prey, from tribal benefit at the expense of any other factor, to tribal cooperation. Not only is the problem that what determines this stuff is not a moral or even thinking agent, but that is no transcendent standard by which to say we should use this one and make that one illegal. Basically it is not only opinion but arbitrary opinion.
3. Ok how does the operation of gravity contribute to morality, how does 2 + 2 = the way anything should be, how does osmosis or thermodynamics turn into a law? IMO if God does not exist we should sit around and agree to what is most consistent with empathy and admit it is not true but the best we can do and allow for that and never ever ever look to nature to tell us what we should do.
4. It is a well known axiom hat nature can not possible tell us how things should be. Nature merely tells us what is.
5. Let me ask you this. Which creatures evolutionary behavior is supposed to our model? If the animal kingdom as a whole then the homosexuality you defend is not defensible, if Dolphins then rape is moral, if lions then killing our young is good, if apes then tribal violence and factions are what we need, if spiders killing our mates is necessary, and on and on. How about Morlocks?I would dearly hate to see any society that actually used nature as it's moral justification. Thank God virtually none have nor probably ever will.

 

[1robin]

Your logic/question is flawed. You seem to be claiming that stealing was not considered to be wrong before Moses came down from Mt. Sainai, but you provide no evidence to back this up. In actuality there is evidence to the contrary ... that stealing, even before the existance of Judaism, was thought to be "wrong" or against the inerest of a society. Obviously, this was the case for murder as well, as a society cannot function if murder is not considered to be wrong or unacceptable.

So, can you please explain why you feel that morality is somehow based on Judaism/Christianity? It just seems so obvious to me to be part of the evolution of society. As thinking, self-aware creatures, wouldn't it be naturaly that we would learn as time passes to structure society better, which would necessitate a differenciation of right and wrong?

Sorry if I but in here but I have already explained this. None one has said morals did not exist before Moses. I have in fact said the opposite. We have always had a God given conscience and have either denied it or obeyed it. The law was given to Moses and others to confirm that our moral consciences are based in fact and the God ultimately grounds morality. Morality was not invented or claimed to be at Mt Sinai. You can mistakenly think for some reason I am unable to read as many evolution books as you but your unjustified in thinking I do not know more about my own faith.