'No such thing as a good atheist'.

[Koldo]

There is no meaning to the universe. It just is.

Then the meaning we attribute to the universe is not enough to say there is meaning to it...

That's a way to look at it.

really? On what basis would one determine what is objectively good?

1) Determining what is objectively good is not necessary for the existence of objective good.

2) On what basis would a theist determine what is objectively good?

3) I have mentioned a method to Sunstone. If one believes it is possible to know reality through our senses, it wouldn't be unfeasible to say that we can know what is moral through our moral compass. If there is a major agreement between humans on the morality of any action being good, it could be said to that such action is moral.

If such an objective morality existed everyone would have to agree with it. Either that or deny reality.

No, that is incorrect.
If objective morality exists then it exists completely independent from whether everyone agrees with it. Will the gravity cease to exist if someone doesn't agree with its existence?

 

[Sunstone]

3) I have mentioned a method to Sunstone. If one believes it is possible to know reality through our senses, it wouldn't be unfeasible to say that we can know what is moral through our moral compass.

Whether it is "feasible" or not has little or nothing to do with whether it does indeed happen to be the case that we can know of an objective morality through our alleged possession of a "moral compass". For one thing, you have not demonstrated the existence of this moral compass, let alone that it bears the same or similar relationship to an objective morality as do the senses to a, perhaps, objective reality.

Second, even if you did demonstrate that much, you would not have absolutely demonstrated that an objective morality exists, because the senses cannot absolutely demonstrate that an objective reality exists.

Third, feasibility does not necessarily imply actuality. It is feasible for me to be a dog owner. That does not necessarily mean I own a dog.

 

[steeltoes]

I am amazed so many people are not understanding, or perhaps not even reading, the article.

The author is a gnat. It is human to apply meaning to everything we experience, meaning is a human construct invented to make sense of everything we are dealing with, atheists and theists alike, he is just too stupid to figure that out.

 

[Koldo]

Whether it is "feasible" or not has little or nothing to do with whether it does indeed happen to be the case that we can know of an objective morality through our alleged possession of a "moral compass". For one thing, you have not demonstrated the existence of this moral compass, let alone that it bears the same or similar relationship to an objective morality as do the senses to a, perhaps, objective reality.

This would only be necessary if i wanted to convince you about the existence of objective morality.

Second, even if you did demonstrate that much, you would not have absolutely demonstrated that an objective morality exists, because the senses cannot absolutely demonstrate that an objective reality exists.

Is this a problem though?

Third, feasibility does not necessarily imply actuality. It is feasible for me to be a dog owner. That does not necessarily mean I own a dog.

That's correct. The intent was to show possibility. Not certainty.

 

[Levite]

That's not what he is saying. Read the article.

I did read the article. He said it right up front, at the start:

...Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless....
These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value. A good atheist -- that is, a consistent atheist -- recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him "good" in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality....

The notion that rejection of the supernatural and embrasure of belief in a material, measurable, and impersonal universe must equal a belief that the actions are inherently meaningless and valueless is absurd. There is simply nothing to support such an assertion, and I have met many atheists who find meaning in lots of different things, and have very careful and exacting (and largely positive) values. Also, the notion that meaning and value only come from a completely and certainly objective morality is equally absurd. Many systems of ethics take into account uncertainty or a lack of complete objectivity-- in some sense, the inability to be certain of complete objectivity is one of the driving forces in non-religious philosophy of many kinds, including ethics.

If you believe the author of this piece is implying something different based on something else in the piece, please quote it.

 

[Penumbra]

An opinion piece in the Huff Post I stumbled across.

Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist | Pastor Rick Henderson

Please discuss!

I'm just mildly surprised that something that would have made a mediocre and forgettable post on this forum would be published on the Huffington post.

It's so simplistic and unoriginal that I would have just read it and not bothered to post if this was an OP here.

 

[Sunstone]

In the good pastor Henderson's view:

[A good atheist's] only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him "good" in the moral sense is nonsensical.

I take that to mean that Henderson believes that subjective judgments of good or bad are necessarily amoral. That is, they cannot properly be termed "moral judgments", and only objective judgments (whatever kind of mythical creature those are) can be termed "moral judgments".

If he does indeed believe that, then it seems a peculiar thing to believe, much like believing that milk chocolate cannot taste sweet to us unless it can be demonstrated that sweetness is a an intrinsic property of milk chocolate, and not a subjective impression of it.

 

[Uberpod]

I tried to add a few responses to that article and they never come back from moderation ??

 

[nazz]

I did read the article. He said it right up front, at the start:



The notion that rejection of the supernatural and embrasure of belief in a material, measurable, and impersonal universe must equal a belief that the actions are inherently meaningless and valueless is absurd. There is simply nothing to support such an assertion, and I have met many atheists who find meaning in lots of different things, and have very careful and exacting (and largely positive) values. Also, the notion that meaning and value only come from a completely and certainly objective morality is equally absurd. Many systems of ethics take into account uncertainty or a lack of complete objectivity-- in some sense, the inability to be certain of complete objectivity is one of the driving forces in non-religious philosophy of many kinds, including ethics.

If you believe the author of this piece is implying something different based on something else in the piece, please quote it.

Well I would use the exact same quote which I think means something much different than what you think it means.

 

[ions]

I have to admit, I don't see what is wrong the original Huff article. Some points may be arguable, but the overall message makes sense to me.

The article does not claim that an atheist can't act morally, or that a theist can't act immorally. It simply is positing that there is no logical explanation for moral behaviour in an atheistic worldview. Logical is key here. We would not be able to explain the evolutionary basis for certain moral perspectives. Ultimately, wouldn't the atheist concede that eventually we would evolve to accept rape and killing disabled/elderly as a more advanced form of civilization?

 

[Levite]

Well I would use the exact same quote which I think means something much different than what you think it means.

Since the quotes I used were, as far as I could see, fairly straightforward, can you explain how they mean something much different?

 

[Willamena]

I have to admit, I don't see what is wrong the original Huff article. Some points may be arguable, but the overall message makes sense to me.

The article does not claim that an atheist can't act morally, or that a theist can't act immorally. It simply is positing that there is no logical explanation for moral behaviour in an atheistic worldview. Logical is key here. We would not be able to explain the evolutionary basis for certain moral perspectives. Ultimately, wouldn't the atheist concede that eventually we would evolve to accept rape and killing disabled/elderly as a more advanced form of civilization?

Is theistic moral behavior logical?

Re the last question, based on what?

 

[ions]

To generalize, moral behaviour is logical in theistic world: by acting morally we advance ourselves towards God, by letting go of our base natures. The exact definition of what is considered moral may vary (and can be debated separately), but there is a logical reason for it.
In an atheistic world, the foundation of life is evolutionary (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any other naturalist explanation), in which a species which is most efficient with their resources would survive and beat out the competition. Both killing unproductive outlets and propagating DNA would be beneficial (among other illogical conclusions).

 

[Sunstone]

Some points may be arguable, but the overall message makes sense to me.

I feel an almost moral obligation to feed you chicken soup until your complete recovery from whatever feverish virus infection has caused Henderon's article to make sense to you.

It simply is positing that there is no logical explanation for moral behaviour in an atheistic worldview. Logical is key here.

It seems to me Henderson asserts a bit more than that, and perhaps even assumes more than he asserts.

For instance, he seems to assert that moral behavior is either grounded in some objective moral reality, or it cannot be properly termed moral behavior. But that amounts to little more than a semantic claim that the only proper definition of morality is along the lines of "a code of behavior logically grounded in some objective moral reality". In other words, the good pastor Henderson reveals his desire to dictate to everyone and anyone how they must define the word "morality".

And he seems to assume that, if an objective moral reality exists, then at least some human moralities are necessarily grounded in it. However, he offers us no reasoning or evidence to suppose such is the case. He merely asserts his claim in much the same manner I might merely assert my claim that I am the world's greatest lover of attractive women and large domestic animals. Without evidence or reasoning to back them, either claim seems likely to be swallowed whole only by fools, morons, and political pundits.

Ultimately, wouldn't the atheist concede that eventually we would evolve to accept rape and killing disabled/elderly as a more advanced form of civilization?

Are you seriously suggesting that accepting rape and killing disabled/elderly people would necessarily amount to an advancement in civilization? And if so, how are you defining the term "advancement" here?

 

[Sunstone]

To generalize, moral behaviour is logical in theistic world: by acting morally we advance ourselves towards God, by letting go of our base natures. The exact definition of what is considered moral may vary (and can be debated separately), but there is a logical reason for it.
In an atheistic world, the foundation of life is evolutionary (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any other naturalist explanation), in which a species which is most efficient with their resources would survive and beat out the competition. Both killing unproductive outlets and propagating DNA would be beneficial (among other illogical conclusions).

Let us assume for a moment for the sake of discussion that your description of "an atheistic world" is substantially correct (which, actually, I do not believe it is). If we assume it correct, why or on what grounds would you not describe atheistic morals as "logical"?

 

[ions]

Are you seriously suggesting that accepting rape and killing disabled/elderly people would necessarily amount to an advancement in civilization? And if so, how are you defining the term "advancement" here?

In a naturalistic evolutionary sense.

I suppose one could argue in some long twisted way that forming a sense of morality improves a species' chance of survival. But clearly the cockroach has survived without developing morals. There's just too many flaws in the evolutionary theory for a logical person to accept it, including no actual evidence that a living organism can evolve from inert matter. But that's another discussion...

 

[Willamena]

To generalize, moral behaviour is logical in theistic world: by acting morally we advance ourselves towards God, by letting go of our base natures. The exact definition of what is considered moral may vary (and can be debated separately), but there is a logical reason for it.
In an atheistic world, the foundation of life is evolutionary (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any other naturalist explanation), in which a species which is most efficient with their resources would survive and beat out the competition. Both killing unproductive outlets and propagating DNA would be beneficial (among other illogical conclusions).

If having a reason is logic, well atheists do not lack for reasons for good behavior.

Evolution explains biology, not psychology, or social or ethical matters.

 

[ions]

Let us assume for a moment for the sake of discussion that your description of "an atheistic world" is substantially correct (which, actually, I do not believe it is). If we assume it correct, why or on what grounds would you not describe atheistic morals as "logical"?

'Moral' is perhaps bad nomenclature. Yes, in that case the outcome of atheistic worldview would be to accept selfish, greedy acts, such as killing handicap children, raping, etc., as moral.

 

[ions]

Evolution explains biology, not psychology, or social or ethical matters.

A well thought out world view has to be complete. If you deny God as a creator, you must replace it with some explanation of why or at least how you are here. Evolution fillsthis gap. Yes it is biological, but it also uses biology as an explanation for our consciousness, mind, feelings, i.e. all matters psychological, social or ethical.

 

[Sunstone]

There's just too many flaws in the evolutionary theory for a logical person to accept it, including no actual evidence that a living organism can evolve from inert matter.

Alas! You seem to be an astute and well experienced connoisseur of what I've come to regard as obscenely inane ideas. I myself, on the other hand, am anything but an enthusiast for them, ions. Consequently, I'll bow out of conversing further with you. I wish you well, though.