'No such thing as a good atheist'.

[ions]

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.

Lol. Cheers I wish you well too.

 

[Sees]

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).

Theist and atheist morals are just as logical as one another because it's about being human, not about theology.

Primitive people would have figured out shortly that you are happier when others around you are happy. That happiness brings more productivity, support, courage, perseverance and in general allows better survival through cooperation.

Sympathy, compassion, sharing, caring, etc. arise naturally from this and makes for a stronger group/tribe/culture...people with propensity for these qualities survive better in the toughest of times and pass happy, cooperative genes on to new generations. Moral genes and moral lessons continue to pass down for future success.

Love is God, is Truth, all stems from this because it keeps our species alive and thriving.

Some people seem to want to be intentionally blind to this for some reason. Golden Rule explains it pretty simply as it is.

 

[ions]

Primitive people would have figured out shortly that you are happier when others around you are happy. That happiness brings more productivity, support, courage, perseverance and in general allows better survival through cooperation.

I am afraid this sounds like wishful sentimentalism. Happiness also leads to laziness, inertia, hedonism, etc., while difficulties and challenges arise one to inventiveness, productivity, resourcefulness, etc.. It's simply not clear that happiness would lead to better survival. Also, I don't see why there is a need for dopamines to be intermediary chemicals to drive us. Why not directly have 'perseverance' chemicals. We can be like robots, food is all we need to expand and multiply. Maybe we're not quite there yet, and in a distant future our civilization will be much more utilitarian :|
In any case, in the atheistic world view, wouldn't we have to conclude our current day aesthetic morals are just a hindrance to suit our unevolved biology?

Love is God, is Truth, all stems from this because it keeps our species alive and thriving.

I am sorry, but this is too vague for me. Love for what. My neighbour or my neighbour's wife?

 

[Koldo]

I am afraid this sounds like wishful sentimentalism. Happiness also leads to laziness, inertia, hedonism, etc., while difficulties and challenges arise one to inventiveness, productivity, resourcefulness, etc.. It's simply not clear that happiness would lead to better survival. Also, I don't see why there is a need for dopamines to be intermediary chemicals to drive us. Why not directly have 'perseverance' chemicals. We can be like robots, food is all we need to expand and multiply. Maybe we're not quite there yet, and in a distant future our civilization will be much more utilitarian :|
In any case, in the atheistic world view, wouldn't we have to conclude our current day aesthetic morals are just a hindrance to suit our unevolved biology?

A hindrance? Why do you think so?

 

[Sees]

I am afraid this sounds like wishful sentimentalism. Happiness also leads to laziness, inertia, hedonism, etc., while difficulties and challenges arise one to inventiveness, productivity, resourcefulness, etc.. It's simply not clear that happiness would lead to better survival. Also, I don't see why there is a need for dopamines to be intermediary chemicals to drive us. Why not directly have 'perseverance' chemicals. We can be like robots, food is all we need to expand and multiply. Maybe we're not quite there yet, and in a distant future our civilization will be much more utilitarian :|
In any case, in the atheistic world view, wouldn't we have to conclude our current day aesthetic morals are just a hindrance to suit our unevolved biology?



I am sorry, but this is too vague for me. Love for what. My neighbour or my neighbour's wife?

We can just look at and understand who we are...doesn't matter why mother nature and/or divine/greater intelligence made us like this instead of a different way.

We got to this point by having big hearts and big minds - not claws, super speed, great sense of smell and hearing, or ability to swoop down on prey.

Our biggest urges are happiness and survival. Common sense and little bit of observation tells you whether laziness and greed are good ways to fulfill them. Teamwork and strength in numbers is logically beneficial but you also can get perversion that leads to tyrants and slavery or what not.

Fundamentally morality is being human, human-being is morality. It gets life done and makes it meaningful and enjoyable. Just about all traditions of religion and philosophy point to this because it's not really that difficult to comprehend. Theist or atheist alike they talk about the Good, Love, Compassionate-Wisdom, Harmony, Virtue, Peace as the highest ideals and foundation that everything else builds from.

I am a theist my self but don't discuss it much because our theology and beliefs about metaphysics, supernatural, etc. are not the most important issues. Any divine mind that would have creates us would want us to focus on doing life right first and foremost and not how well we comprehend scriptures or perceive the mystical. Everybody now likes to imagine their deity created life as some type of quiz-show and your answers are more important than what you really do with your life.

Even little kids understand the basis of morality before they get confused and bewildered with all the other nonsense. People over-thinking it.

Why does a persons dog love them?

 

[idav]

I am afraid this sounds like wishful sentimentalism. Happiness also leads to laziness, inertia, hedonism, etc., while difficulties and challenges arise one to inventiveness, productivity, resourcefulness, etc.. It's simply not clear that happiness would lead to better survival. Also, I don't see why there is a need for dopamines to be intermediary chemicals to drive us. Why not directly have 'perseverance' chemicals. We can be like robots, food is all we need to expand and multiply. Maybe we're not quite there yet, and in a distant future our civilization will be much more utilitarian :|
In any case, in the atheistic world view, wouldn't we have to conclude our current day aesthetic morals are just a hindrance to suit our unevolved biology?

The opposite can be said to be true. Sadness leads to lack of motivation, a happy person has reason to act. Also trying to keep it is a motivator. Content isnt the same as retarded, hopefully not. Content is about not constantly wanting more especially when it is in excess. A person can be motivated to make lots and lots of money but to what end?

 

[ions]

A hindrance? Why do you think so?

Evolution's sole objective is multiply/survive. These other intermediaries are just a round about way to achieve it, a wiggly line, when a straight edge can do. Perhaps we'll evolve into the Borg (if you remember star trek).

Even little kids understand the basis of morality before they get confused and bewildered with all the other nonsense.

Sees, I agree with you. I am defending the Huff article the OP linked. A child inherently understanding morality is either divine intuition or evolutionary conditioning. The latter is constantly changing, and seems inefficient for what evolution's ultimate objective is: multiple/survive.

The opposite can be said to be true. Sadness leads to lack of motivation, a happy person has reason to act.

A person acts to obtain anticipated happiness. Depression occurs when one see no potential for happiness, which leads to lack of motivation. In the state happiness, one usually does not feel the need to do much. I guess this can be argued ad infinitum. At the end, the evolutionary view is it's just the right mix of chemicals. But why do we have such an unnecessarily complex mechanism if the objective is simply multiply/survive. We don't need many of the aesthetics we so cherish.

 

[Koldo]

Evolution's sole objective is multiply/survive. These other intermediaries are just a round about way to achieve it, a wiggly line, when a straight edge can do. Perhaps we'll evolve into the Borg (if you remember star trek).

Evolution doesn't have an objective.
Atheists don't substitute 'god' for 'evolution'.

 

[Mycroft]

Depression occurs when one see no potential for happiness,

I don't think this is entirely true. Depression occurs when one has (however tacit) the assumption or expectation of the potential for happiness and then none occurring.

 

[Willamena]

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.

But 'why, or at least how, you are here' isn't what atheists base good behaviour on. It's incidental.

'That we are here' is more significant.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

You may have stumbled upon a big difference between theists and atheists.

Atheists are better able to resist making up explanations when there is insufficient information. They can say, "I don't know."

 

[idav]

You may have stumbled upon a big difference between theists and atheists.

Atheists are better able to resist making up explanations when there is insufficient information. They can say, "I don't know."

If IDK were sufficient we wouldnt need science or philosophy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If IDK were sufficient we wouldnt need science or philosophy.

Nah. We can do science and philosophy just fine while admitting that we don't know stuff. In fact, I'd argue that we can't really investigate life so long as we already know the answers.

Theists tend to cave in to our lust for knowledge. They just suddenly know how we were created or what God wants of us. Atheists tend to be more comfortable living their lives without Final Answers.

Just a tendency. I've certainly met atheists who lust after perfect knowledge.

 

[InfiniteBeloved]

A very empty article by a very blinkered man in my view.

(not empty in the positive, Buddhist way, I'm sorry to say!).

Personally I don't even think it's worthy of the attention it will have got.

It preaches divisiveness, and divisiveness is the pre-cursor to hate.

 

[Sees]

Sees, I agree with you. I am defending the Huff article the OP linked. A child inherently understanding morality is either divine intuition or evolutionary conditioning. The latter is constantly changing, and seems inefficient for what evolution's ultimate objective is: multiple/survive.

What if divine intuition and evolutionary conditioning are only separate and opposing in our minds? Strip away duality and absolutes.

 

[nazz]

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

OK, the author said:

...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....


To which you replied:

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.
​

They are from the perspective of the universe (if it could have one)

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.
​

Undeniable and the author does not deny this. In fact he makes clear that he DOES recognize this fact.

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.
​

I don't see where the author disputes that.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

If IDK were sufficient we wouldnt need science or philosophy.

But that's the point...
Idk may not be sufficient, but it's better than"idk, therefore X"

If I "know"Thor makes lightning, then I never have to actually learn what really makes lightning.
Idk is a place holder, while we seek knowledge. It's acceptance that we have more to learn, and it is INFINITELY more useful than making up a reason because it makes us feel good.

I'll take "idk" over "an unproven deity did it" absolutely any day.

 

[Willamena]

If IDK were sufficient we wouldnt need science or philosophy.

IDK is the conclusion of existentialism. "Existence precedes essence."

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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!

It appears most of the posters on this thread didn't read the article, but in any case, I just want to call attention to a claim the writer makes in the conclusion of his article-

"How do we explain objective meaning and morality that we know are true?"

This is fairly typical for Christian apologists- claim atheism cannot account for objective moral truth (a stretch to begin with, in light of rationalistic ethical systems like deontology and utilitarianism; systems of secular ethics that posit objective moral truths and duties ), and then claim, without further argument, that there is objective truth... Wait, what? We know that morality is true, despite centuries in ethics and moral philosophy that suggest precisely the opposite: These folks have clearly not read a single piece of ethics from the last 3 centuries if they think the matter is as simple as that. For more on this, see here-

Stanford article on moral non-cognitivism (the position that there is no such thing as moral truth or falsity)

 

[InformedIgnorance]

As far as we are aware, there is nothing outside of the minds of conscious entities which refers to morality - I dont think we can assert there exists an objective morality (independent of people's minds), however we can probably construct a range of various objective frameworks for the evaluation of outcomes and behaviours with their primary focus being the determination of moralistic association - it does however require that certain assumptions are used in the construction of the heuristics which inform the construction of the frameworks.

That said, I fail to see the argument where belief in the supernatural would usually provide an objective metric for morality, in most cases theistic and deistic frameworks involve the use of a subjective metric for morality (god's subjectivity). That said, there are times where some mechanism (rather than metric) is used, an unconscious force independent of influence from any consciousness (even god's cannot alter it) only THIS could be suggested to be a truly objective morality (and thus this truly objective morality could even be impartially applied to gods).


That is a bit of a mouthful so to attempt to put it more succinctly:
>> I think if we make assumptions about what constitutes morality (a subjective process), it is possible to create (mainly) objective understandings of morality.
>> The only truly objective morality would be free from the influence of any conscious entity and most examinations of morality are based on precisely the reverse.