Do Athiests have morals?

[1robin]

It’s the same issue. What good is your “system” of objective morality if we can’t figure out what those objective morals are? It’s useless then.

Your going to tie your own noose this way. If you wrongly suggest my moral system is useless
because we do not know which moral values are the true ones. How much more useless is yours which has no true ones to try and find. I did not say you cannot find emphatic and simplistic moral commands in the bible or the principles by which to establish legal theory on. I said it is a more problematic undertaking than establishing the nature of morality. The bible does give hundreds of things we should not do, hundreds we should, and the principles to derive most of the rest. Whatever the fault are for adapting objective morals designed for a person to a society they still have every advantage in every category over the illusory byproduct of evolution.

Under my system, we can at least attempt to reason our way to the most moral answer, whereas with yours, we’re supposed to take an order from some divine authority but we have no way to determine what the resulting “objective truth” should actually be. Which is obvious from the fact that there are thousands of different Christian denominations that all differ slightly from each other on what these “objective moral truths” are.

Yes we can sit around reasoning to a preference and then see what preference best meets the origin preference. How do you know which is the "most" moral since there exists no objective target? You must add a preferred target for your preference. I have given you reasons why applying biblical morality would have allowed hundreds of millions to have lived instead of dying and it took all of 5 minutes. How much better does a rival system have to be. If the bible was followed almost no STD's would exist, abortion would not be practiced for convenience, 90% of wars would have never began, etc...... I have never seen a completion with a wider margin of victory.

BTW 90% of Christians agree on 90% of the issues and most of the disagreements are not moral (though some are). There are the power of the Pope, Church incorporation, music in Church, whether statues are idols, interpretations of inspiration, etc.....

How exactly do you think you’re in a different boat than the rest of us then?

Because we have a right that exists that we can potentially find instead of invent. The fact the most generous demographic on earth are conservative Christians and we dominate to private charity environment is also evidence.


"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

How so? Without god we can definitely care about morality, and we do. Anyone who cares about morality shares basically the same goals, or they wouldn’t care about morality.

I have never made any point about how much any group cares about morality. I did ask why the goals you prefer should bind me and possibly cause me to forfeit my life or freedom if I disobey them?

And again, if we can’t even figure out what those objective goals we’re supposed to have if god exists, then what good does it do us? You’re still stuck reasoning your way through, like the rest of us.

Who said we cannot simply read the hundreds of emphatic moral demands (no adultery, no sex outside of marriage, no bestiality, as best I can tell no homosexuality, no lying, no stealing, no worshiping false idols, no human sacrifice, no wars of conquest, don't covet your neighbors property, etc..... (where do you get we can't identify moral commands, and even if we could not we have the principles to define them, life has sanctity, humans have sovereignty, man has equality before God, etc......... The total data set of what defines what we should do without God is (nothing but preference).

Who says you’re losing your life??

Laws either deprive offenders of money, freedom, or their life. Your preference just is not sufficient grounds for taking these from anyone with another preference since there is no fact of the matter. It is no matter how you dress it up might makes right.

Sure we do. I just mentioned some of them. Is it in your best interest to be murdered?

Is what is best for me the foundation of your laws? What about a psychopath who thinks his own torture is in his best interest? What about Hitler who think exterminating the weak in in the Strong's interest? My goal is to stop abortion, stop homosexual behavior, stop an over inflated government from granting amnesty to those who broke the law, to crush violent Islam by whatever means necessary, protect Israel, get rid of Iran's nuclear activity even if it takes nuclear weapons to do it, impeach Obama, and stop Obama care. Mine all of our own oil no matter how many rare minnows die in the process, etc...... You still believe we can make identical laws?

Are you telling me that the only reason you care about morality at all is to please god? Really?

Nope.

Like I said, human beings have evolved and grown throughout our history as new knowledge came our way, which is reflected in the fact that our sense of morality has actually changed over time, although with some constants remaining in place. I find this much more beneficial to mankind than remaining stuck with some ancient and unchanging moral code that is far removed from the times we currently live in. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it’s beneficial to mankind to burn witches, to stone adulterers, unruly children and gay people, or to keep human beings as slaves.

This is just intellectually dishonest. There is no verse telling anyone outside Israel and no one what ever for more than 2000 years to do anything to witches, stone anyone, or to keep slaves.

Your comparing the worst things (IOW the things that you do not prefer) from the bible even if they have never applied outside Israel, and have not applied to anyone in thousands of years, to some cherry picked, sanitized, white washed version of naturalism your simply basing on a theory. No bias there at all.

Humans care about morality because it’s in our best interest to do so. This is why we make any attempt at all in coming up with systems of morality.

Where is the why who cares about morality coming from? That is not a factor in any argument I have ever even heard of.

The only part of evolution being used is the part where it produced us – social beings who care about morality because we really have no choice but to care about it if we want to live together in any kind of harmony with each other. Evolution could have produced beings that don’t care about it and so we wouldn’t. We also probably wouldn’t be around for very long.

Tell that to the Spartan's the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Roman's, the Persian's, the Nazi's, the Communists, the Muslims who if they had enough power would have forced everyone to live as they do or die. Our history is one of non-cooperation.

Some people are born who do not care about morality. They are in the vast minority and are treated as abnormal by those of us who care about morality. Why do you think that is?

Psychopaths do care about morality, just not yours. I have no dog in this caring about morality race.

Ethics does serve a powerful purpose. We have ethics because we care about moral principles.

How many times can you say a sentence in one post about why anyone cares about morality?

If you kill a thousand people, you are not acting in the best interest of those people or yourself. Those of us who care about morality will not tolerate such immoral behavior. You like to reference Hitler all the time … what happened to him?

Pick one! Either ethics is the result of evolution or it isn't. If it is then whatever anyone does is just as consistent with evolution as anything else. If you start cherry picking your no longer using evolution as a basis in reality.

What if we examine your scenario in light of Biblical teachings or god’s “objective morality” as you would call it. How do I determine whether murdering a thousand people is objectively moral or not? What if I read in the Bible that god told his people to kill a murdering tribe and so I decided it would be morally right to kill a thousand people because I think it’s something god would want from me. How do I know if I am objectively right or wrong in doing so?

You will not find a single verse in the new covenant (the one that actually applies since Christ) that is even in the same universe as your statement.

 

[1robin]

But you think we should go with the opinion of some deity whose life is so far removed from the lives us human beings have to muddle through here on earth?

You mean the one who built us, knows infinitely more about us the our accumulated knowledge of ourselves, knows the true goal of our lives, knows every detail of the ramifications of every potential act and life, etc....... Yeah that is one terrible source.

In my opinion the only people qualified to be determining moral truths or the closest thing to it, are those of us who have to live our lives in this world we find ourselves in.

That is why preachers and biblical authors suggest that when an atheist denies God he substitutes himself for his own God. IMO the moral authority would be the being who knows everything and who is more "here" than we are besides being everywhere else as well. Who knows the ultimate outcomes of all decisions and in who's nature any objective moral fact is grounded. This was the original problem. The denial of the actual moral authority of the universe and substituting of one of the worst moral authorities possible, us. If our bloody history cannot convince you of that then nothing can.

What? Then dynamite doesn’t produce the goal of constructing a thing.

Yes it does. It is good at creating a pile of rubble. It creates holes, martyrdom, even ponds. If we have no objective goals then we can pick a goal and find something that meets it without having done anything good or right.

They work for the reasons Ruse mentioned in that paragraph.

There is no behavior that does not work towards some goal. No matter what happens or someone does I can say it works if I simply adapt a goal to what it produced.

Again, the fact that people talk about morality at all means we care about the well-being of thinking creatures.

I am going to start deleting the who and why we care about morality. I have no idea why that matters or where it came from.

It produces a basis that is unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something? How so?

Because the processes involved are not sentient. They have no goals, no intent, no moral knowledge of any kind. They are just artifacts that simply exist. They are not even true in countless events in history. Cows do not cooperate to feed us they are forced.

Gravity isn’t moral because it doesn’t care about the rightness or wrongness of an action. Human beings do.

But what you say we human beings get moral inclinations from is as amoral as gravity. Natural selection is not an intentional mechanism. It just is, like gravity.

What? How do you get that?

Again which part.

I don’t know enough about it to comment.

Apparently you do know enough to suggest mankind is to held accountable. The reason I ask is the naturalism is usually said to lead to determinism and determinism makes accountability a farce.

You’ve repeatedly said that values don’t have to come from god(s)? When?

I did not say this either. You have gotten something I have exhaustively explain dozens of times wrong in two attempts. I said God's commands do not create morality. His nature does. His commands merely reflect that nature. Murder was just as wrong before Mt. Sinai.

Why must any value come from an external source?

How does a Chicken give inherent value to it's self? Where do I get inherent value to give anything. It is like inherent rights. No one has any to grant. They come from God or we do not have them as even Jefferson knew well.

 

[1robin]

That's assuming he possess certain attributes. I would question whether we can always claim God is right in the face of the brutality so evident in parts of the Old Testament. Granted those were different times, but I think the equivalent today would be God ordering the slaughter of all supporters of the Islamic State: man, woman, and child. We have standards of right and wrong that prohibit us from conducting ourselves this way. Does this mean we are wrong now, or that God was wrong then?

On what grounds can we judge God? Divine command theory leaves no other option. I can give moral justification for most of the events in the OT but that is irrelevant since there exists no standard which transcends God to judge him by. The best you can say is you disagree but as God would have sovereignty over you, morality, and every molecule in every possible universe your would be wrong. I hate even the concept of Allah, but if Allah existed I have no ability to say he is wrong. I can say I reject him and will not obey him but no criteria exists to morally judge him. I don't car what standards we have God's trump them and we would all be wrong. If he said for me to kill my neighbors cat, I may not want to, I may refuse to, I may hate him for asking me to, my neighbor may hate me for doing it, we may have laws against it but God would still be right because his authority transcends all authority. His eternal nature makes certain moral principles true no matter who disagrees with them.

 

[pro4life]

IMO, and in the opinion of most scientists, morals are learned behaviors and while they can be derived from religion, they do not have to be. In your first post, you asked if an atheist, or rather intimated, that atheists are amoral. Nothing could be further from the truth, my father was a life- long atheist while my mother is a devout Christian. Made for an Interesting upbringing. Most morals developed over time from ancient civilizations learning how to coexist. Perhaps an historical anthropology course might illuminate you in this.

Explain then why is it immoral to commit incest.

 

[ArtieE]

How much more useless is yours which has no true ones to try and find.

Our moral system is based on our survival instinct. Whatever increases chances of survival for as many as possible is moral.

Yes we can sit around reasoning to a preference and then see what preference best meets the origin preference. How do you know which is the "most" moral since there exists no objective target?

The evolutionary objective target is the survival of as many as possible. The target in the Bible is the happy survival of as many as possible in Heaven. Your target is copied from evolution and is just a fictional extension to provide a stronger incentive for people to behave morally. We provide religion for people who are immoral and can't figure out what is the moral thing to do in every situation and give them simplistic commands like "thou shalt not murder" and tell them to live by the Golden Rule since these simplistic morals cover a lot of general situations.

 

[Muffled]

People don't act "right" because their purpose or goal is different from yours.

Yes, if we can trust that. The brain seems a tricky thing and is capable of subconsciously providing perceptions.

So then I believe you must think if a man has a goal of beating his wife then that must be perfectly right even though I believe it is not.

If I perceive an apple I believe if it is an illusion I will not be able to bite it. The same is true with God, if it were just a product of my mind then I wouldn't be able to experience the things that I do.

 

[Nakosis]

So then I believe you must think if a man has a goal of beating his wife then that must be perfectly right even though I believe it is not.

That kind of depends a lot on circumstances. Sometimes people allow their emotions to control their actions. I rage a person may "beat" their spouse but still see this as immoral. They will regret/feel guilt/try to make amends.

This is different then the honor killings that occurred in a place like Brazil where the husband felt they were morally justified. Morality varies from individual to individual, culture to culture etc. I may happen to agree with you morally but others might not. We may even agree to enforce our morals on others. The reality in this case would be might makes right.

If I perceive an apple I believe if it is an illusion I will not be able to bite it. The same is true with God, if it were just a product of my mind then I wouldn't be able to experience the things that I do.

For you, I accept that people can only work within the limitation of their experience. I've experienced otherwise. The thing with illusions is that it remains a reality of perception until something occurs to cause you to doubt your perception.

 

[1robin]

Our moral system is based on our survival instinct. Whatever increases chances of survival for as many as possible is moral.

Then how do we get abortion and homosexuality laws? They are both lethal to survival.

The evolutionary objective target is the survival of as many as possible. The target in the Bible is the happy survival of as many as possible in Heaven. Your target is copied from evolution and is just a fictional extension to provide a stronger incentive for people to behave morally. We provide religion for people who are immoral and can't figure out what is the moral thing to do in every situation and give them simplistic commands like "thou shalt not murder" and tell them to live by the Golden Rule since these simplistic morals cover a lot of general situations.

Evolution does not have a target, only things with intent can have goals. Evolution has tendencies (amoral artifacts of a mechanism). The target of the bible is not to make us happy. It is to make us righteous before God. In many ways that makes us not gratify what would make us happy. You may argue that it's purpose is our eventual happiness but it's primary goal is not happiness in this life, it is salvation. My target is not copied from evolution because evolution has no target to copy, the bible contradicts evolutionary ethics. It does not value survival over a whole range of other things, it champions the weak, it equates natural inequalities, it assigns values to things nature cannot, and it tears down the strong. Trying to account for Christianity by naturalistic methodology is one of the worst arguments in a long string of bad arguments against the bible.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then how do we get abortion and homosexuality laws? They are both lethal to survival.
.

Simple. Neither are lethal to the human race as a whole. In fact research indicates both are helpful to our overall survival and ability to thrive as a species.

 

[McBell]

You mean the one who built us, knows infinitely more about us the our accumulated knowledge of ourselves, knows the true goal of our lives, knows every detail of the ramifications of every potential act and life, etc....... Yeah that is one terrible source.

Now all you need do is show your favoured source exists.

Oops.
No hurry.
Take your time.

 

[McBell]

Explain then why is it immoral to commit incest.

First you need to show it is in fact immoral to commit incest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

On what grounds can we judge God? Divine command theory leaves no other option. I can give moral justification for most of the events in the OT but that is irrelevant since there exists no standard which transcends God to judge him by. The best you can say is you disagree but as God would have sovereignty over you, morality, and every molecule in every possible universe your would be wrong. I hate even the concept of Allah, but if Allah existed I have no ability to say he is wrong. I can say I reject him and will not obey him but no criteria exists to morally judge him. I don't car what standards we have God's trump them and we would all be wrong. If he said for me to kill my neighbors cat, I may not want to, I may refuse to, I may hate him for asking me to, my neighbor may hate me for doing it, we may have laws against it but God would still be right because his authority transcends all authority. His eternal nature makes certain moral principles true no matter who disagrees with them.

When I read this, all I can hear in my head is Christopher Hitchens talking about the immorality of a celestial dictatorship.

 

[ArtieE]

Then how do we get abortion and homosexuality laws? They are both lethal to survival.

What do you think the consequences would be if mothers were forced to give birth to unwanted children? Since you are arguing against abortion you would have to take responsibility for all those children who wouldn't be here if it wasn't for you. Are you ready to take that responsibility?

I don't see how homosexuality is lethal to survival.

Evolution does not have a target, only things with intent can have goals. Evolution has tendencies (amoral artifacts of a mechanism).

"While we do not know what the destination of human evolution is, it appears to express itself as “the survival of the human species." This becomes an underlying principle of human action that shows itself in the smallest details of life. Individual survival, family survival, and national survival are all subcategories of the principle of human survival.2 Within that context rule systems such as legal codes, moral codes, traditions, and customs all are directed towards human survival."
Science and Ethics

What do you think of this article?
"Heaven" Is NOT the Christian's Destination

 

[McBell]

On what grounds can we judge God? Divine command theory leaves no other option. I can give moral justification for most of the events in the OT but that is irrelevant since there exists no standard which transcends God to judge him by. The best you can say is you disagree but as God would have sovereignty over you, morality, and every molecule in every possible universe your would be wrong. I hate even the concept of Allah, but if Allah existed I have no ability to say he is wrong. I can say I reject him and will not obey him but no criteria exists to morally judge him. I don't car what standards we have God's trump them and we would all be wrong. If he said for me to kill my neighbors cat, I may not want to, I may refuse to, I may hate him for asking me to, my neighbor may hate me for doing it, we may have laws against it but God would still be right because his authority transcends all authority. His eternal nature makes certain moral principles true no matter who disagrees with them.

I for one do not give way to god simply because god is god.

"What does God need with a starship?"​

 

[1robin]

Simple. Neither are lethal to the human race as a whole. In fact research indicates both are helpful to our overall survival and ability to thrive as a species.

My compliant about our posts being too long apparently was taken seriously and acted upon. Now this is what I call minimizing. Lets see if we can intentionally retard the growth of this discussion a little more aggressively than the last.

Well I knew it. Whatever happens is evidence evolution is true. I have never seen such a resilient theory. It stretches over whatever is.

No creature on earth is consistently homosexual to begin with. We are the only ones that claim that anomaly. If we were all homosexual then the human race would end in one generation. Abortion the same. The only reason they have not stopped humanity in one generation is because no generation has adopted them across the board. If your theory includes the goal of survival and the most lethal behavior to ultimate survival is proof it is true then it is for all practical purposes (mine) falsifiable.

 

[1robin]

When I read this, all I can hear in my head is Christopher Hitchens talking about the immorality of a celestial dictatorship.

I know what you mean. I do not think Hitchens comments are always appropriate for the analogy but I do appreciate the wit and humor in them. I would have loved to have him arguing on my side. He was a terrible philosopher but he was one of the best crowd movers I have ever seen. He said his toughest opponent was D'Souza, their debates were some of the best.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know what you mean. I do not think Hitchens comments are always appropriate for the analogy but I do appreciate the wit and humor in them. I would have loved to have him arguing on my side. He was a terrible philosopher but he was one of the best crowd movers I have ever seen. He said his toughest opponent was D'Souza, their debates were some of the best.

Those are definitely some of the best debates. The two of them seemed to develop a fondness for each other, despite their diametrically opposing viewpoints.

 

[1robin]

What do you think the consequences would be if mothers were forced to give birth to unwanted children?

Adoption maybe, who knows maybe one would have cured cancer, whatever it would have been would probably have been preferable to death.

Since you are arguing against abortion you would have to take responsibility for all those children who wouldn't be here if it wasn't for you. Are you ready to take that responsibility?

I am not even sure what that means.

I don't see how homosexuality is lethal to survival.

I am not going to have "the talk" with you. That was your parents job. Just kidding, but if you don't get it, I cannot make it any simpler.

"While we do not know what the destination of human evolution is, it appears to express itself as “the survival of the human species." This becomes an underlying principle of human action that shows itself in the smallest details of life. Individual survival, family survival, and national survival are all subcategories of the principle of human survival.2 Within that context rule systems such as legal codes, moral codes, traditions, and customs all are directed towards human survival."
Science and Ethics

How is abortion and human survival consistent? Death and life are usually considered opposites but then again in evolutionville anything goes.

What do you think of this article?
"Heaven" Is NOT the Christian's Destination

I think it is wrong, but even worse it is not something that even if even anyone could know. It is so unknowable that claiming to know it destroys credibility to the point I don't want to even read it. If you really want me to please copy it's best point and if it looks thoughtful I will then read the whole thing. Why did you post that article anyway?

 

[1robin]

Those are definitely some of the best debates. The two of them seemed to develop a fondness for each other, despite their diametrically opposing viewpoints.

I agree. Another interesting one is Hitch verses his twin brother.

One of the best I have ever seen is Sean Carol verses Craig. I may be a little biased but I have grown bored with Craig because no one seems to be able to counter anything he says and he uses the same arguments, but Carol did better than anyone I have ever seen. He was honest, humble, brilliant, and Charismatic. I strongly recommend that one. Even my PhD boss said carol kept up with Craig on that one.

 

[Cephus]

Now all you need do is show your favoured source exists.

Oops.
No hurry.
Take your time.

Yeah, good luck on that.