Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Revoltingest]

How about we pretend you are not telling me something I have already taken into deep consideration, so that you can tell me more about my moral beliefs.

I only speculate about non-absoute & non-objective origins of beliefs & values.
It applies to all of us.

 

[Underhill]

It sounds like you're saying it's okay for atheists to actually be self-righteous, even though they don't believe the word "righteous" is a thing.

Righteous depends on your definition. I, along with most every atheist I know, do believe in right or wrong. The golden rule is the single most logical rule to model a life after with or without religion.

I feel obliged to point out your double standard.

If you find one, feel free.

I'd also ask you how you so confidently say, "rape is wrong, of course".

So you honestly thing just because someone doesn't believe in a god, they automatically have no morals? Seriously?

As someone who spent almost 20 years as a devout christian and another 22 as an atheist, I can tell you that in my experience the difference in morality is academic at best. Each philosophy has it's positives and negatives. But overall, I would say the difference is non existent.

At their worst, I would say atheist tend to live more cluttered lives, while christians tend to live much neater, but much more frustrated existences. (These are generalities so not always true, but none the less I think it's usually accurate.) Atheist may be more likely to engage in a risky behavior but the lack of frustration means less explosive, major break downs.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I only speculate about non-absoute & non-objective origins of beliefs & values.

I am not going to use the word absolute, but if our actions (or lack of actions) have an impact on the world around us then clearly the morality that guides those actions have an objective element, especially since there will be a reaction.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not going to use the word absolute, but if our actions (or lack of actions) have an impact on the world around us then clearly the morality that guides those actions have an objective element, especially since there will be a reaction.

For example, I would never call my mother a bad name, as that would hurt her, and in turn hurt me.

I agree that we can test the effects of various practices.
Just not the morality of our basic values, ie, premises.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I agree that we can test the effects of various practices.
Just not the morality of our basic values, ie, premises.

I don't see why we can't test them.

Go out and poke a little kid with a sharp stick, then write down how it made you feel. Better do this at least 30 times so we can get reliable results.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I agree that we can test the effects of various practices.
Just not the morality of our basic values, ie, premises.

I think what is going on here, is I am accepting the human core as a homogeneous base. You know compassion, reason, that stuff our brain does, our brain which is extremely similar to everyone else's brain.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see why we can't test them.

Go out and poke a little kid with a sharp stick, then write down how it made you feel. Better do this at least 30 times so we can get reliable results.

In some cultures, to attack, plunder, torture & conquer was (is) good.
They liked the results of their actions.
There's the problem with applying testing to values...
....it always confirms the values already held by the ones testing.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think what is going on here, is I am accepting the human core as a homogeneous base. You know compassion, reason, that stuff our brain does, our brain which is extremely similar to everyone else's brain.

All this would show is that there is consensus about a value.
Consensus is not truth, inerrant or objective.

 

[viole]

If you've never claimed that a thing is inherently right or wrong, how do you use the term, "objectively good" in a meaningful sense?

I never claimed that God exists either, obviously. So, does that prevent me from asking Christians about the qualities of God?

Rejecting X, does not entail that we cannot have a meaningful discussion about X. Actually, it is even necessary. For how can I reject anything if I do not know what that anything is from someone who holds X to be true?

So, is stoning people to death for not holding the Sabbath, something that is inherently right, if inherent right things existed?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jeremiahcp]

In some cultures, to attack, plunder, torture & conquer was (is) good.
They liked the results of their actions.
There's the problem with applying testing to values...
....it always confirms the values already held by the ones testing.

Correlation does not necessitate causation. This is not evidence that relativism is the cause of moral views, there could be several unknown variables at work here. I never said base human moral vales can't be twisted. I am not auguring that they are entirely objective, just that there may be an objective element.

This is essentially the Nature Vs Nurture argument, just about morality.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

All this would show is that there is consensus about a value.
Consensus is not truth, inerrant or objective.

No, not consensus, as I listed reason in there, and what is generally agreed is not always fully rotational.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correlation does not necessitate causation. This is not evidence that relativism is the cause of moral views, there could be several unknown variables at work here. I never said base human moral vales can't be twisted. I am not auguring that they are entirely objective, just that there may be an objective element.

This is essentially the Nature Vs Nurture argument, just about morality.

I'm not blaming moral relativism.
I only say that it's the best explanation for how morality works.

Btw, I agree that we can use objective knowledge in forming morals.
But reasoning with it is still always rooted in values of the culture.
And culture knows no absolutes.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, not consensus, as I listed reason in there, and what is generally agreed is not always fully rotational.

Reason requires premises.
What universal source is there for premises?

Various cultures don't agree.
Religions don't agree.
Even adherents of the same faith cannot agree.
Your approach reminds me of Ayn Rand's arguments for a universal morality.
But even she picked premises that she liked, & discarded others.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm not blaming moral relativism.
I only say that it's the best explanation for how morality works.

Btw, I agree that we can use objective knowledge in forming morals.
But reasoning with it is still always rooted in values of the culture.
And culture knows no absolutes.

"I only say that it's the best explanation for how morality works."

That is what they say about God.

If all moral views come from one's culture then where did the moral views of the culture come from? It had to have a start from somewhere and I'd place my bet on people. So where did these morals came from in the first place? Could it be the human brain? Could there be central tendencies that possibly evolved into the human mind? Tendencies that perhaps are not so strong they can't be broken but strong enough to move humans in a general moral path.

Considering humans are a social animal that depend on each other for survival the ability to compromise and work productively with each other would be a very beneficial evolutionary mutation(s) (maybe the reason for emotions?).

I don't really know, but I think your explanation leaves too large of a gap, while it may be good enough for you, it is not good enough for me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Atheists such as myself say that moral absolutes don't exist because a moral absolute would mean universal condemnation of 'absolute morally wrong' behavior, and that just doesn't exist. The fact that there are people who do not view rape as morally incorrect behavior means it's not absolute in the universal sense.

Does the lack of moral absolutes mean morality is therefore arbitrary? Of course not. Atheists have a number of meta-ethical systems which describe their criteria for judging moral behavior. Such as utilitarian consequentialism, which analyzes the consequence of actions to determine help v harm.
[Incidentally because you didn't specify human on human rape, I don't consider non-human animals raping eachother or even non-human animals raping humans to be morally wrong behavior for them, as they don't have the intellectual framework to analyze the consequences of their actions and are thus, blameless, only when considering the harm rape does to adult humans by other adult humans do we determine moral fault.]
This is in contrast to dogmatism and divine command theory which only holds that what you're told is moral authority. Which I object to for a number of reasons:

First and foremost, I don't believe god(s) exist, which means the moral instruction Christians receive is just as human based as mine and therefore not divine. But more importantly,
I'm not an authoritarian, I don't believe command, instruction or law, divine or otherwise, is sufficient to establish moral judgement. If a powerful person or entity claims to have my best interest at heart, and that's why I should have faith in their instruction, I would not take it at its word and. Instead, I would analyze the consequence of the instruction I'm given to determine help vs harm. Thus I could never equate what is morally good to being what is commanded by a god or gods.
I don't believe Christians (or any religious person) have objective morality, with no subjective input. Moral instruction from their religion must be filtered through a number people's interpretations. The subjective view of the deity, the author of the scripture, the translator of the scripture, the reader and religious organization's input (if not non-denominational). All these filters add individual and subjective meaning.
I don't believe Christians (or any religious person) doesn't have moral autonomy. This is shown by brain scanning studies which show consulting one's personal moral compass is the same as considering 'What would Jesus do,' meaning religious people superimpose their own moral judgement on their religion and that they are informing their moral judgement, not the other way around.
Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs
Creating God in one's own image - Not Exactly Rocket Science
Dear God, please confirm what I already believe

Further, here's a handy video series talking about atheistic morality which goes at length and far more eloquently than I can:

 

[Cephus]

Okay, is it objectively (always) wrong or subjectively (conditionally, therefore sometimes) wrong?

If it is always wrong, why do most skeptics say absolutes don't exist? (And isn't their statement an absolute statement?)

It depends on how you define rape. If you mean forced sexual contact against the will of the victim, then it is always wrong because that force is always wrong. If you do, as a lot of modern feminists try, to define rape as "he looked at me funny!", that's a different matter. But you asked about my opinion. Clearly, worldwide, absolutes don't exist. In lots of Middle Eastern countries, rape is not only legal, but acceptable, at least in the eyes of those involved. There isn't any moral precept you can point to that is held universally across all cultures and throughout time. It just doesn't exist.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Reason requires premises.
What universal source is there for premises?

Various cultures don't agree.
Religions don't agree.
Even adherents of the same faith cannot agree.
Your approach reminds me of Ayn Rand's arguments for a universal morality.
But even she picked premises that she liked, & discarded others.

Compassion seems like a good base. Oh yes people can make moral choices using reason and emotion together. I call it the two minds of morality, reason and emotion.

 

[Revoltingest]

"I only say that it's the best explanation for how morality works."
That is what they say about God.

Of course they do.
It's the explanation they need, ie, they want absolute invariant inerrant truth.
It comforts them....makes their world secure & meaningful.
But if one doesn't need such comfort, & looks coldly at human
history & its variety, one finds no universal truth or morality.

If all moral views come from one's culture then where did the moral views of the culture come from? It had to had a start from somewhere and I'd place my bet on people. So where did these morals came from in the first place? Could it be the human brain? Could there be central tendencies that possibly evolved into the human mind? Tendencies that perhaps are not so strong they can't be broken but strong enough to move humans in a general moral path.

Considering humans are a social animal that depend on each other for survival the ability to compromise and work productively with each other would be a very beneficial evolutionary mutation(s) (maybe the reason for emotions?).

I don't really know, but I think your explanation leaves too large of a gap, while it may be good enough for you, it is not good enough for me.

Humans & their many societies are ever changing, evolving
responses to their environment & other cultures & challenges.
As I see it....
It all happens as it does, not as it should.
There is no should.

 

[Revoltingest]

Compassion seems like a good base. Oh yes people can make moral choices using reason and emotion together. I call it the two minds of morality, reason and emotion.

We could agree that (in general) all have compassion, but for whom? How much?
When is it abandoned to express hatred & sadism?

Do you personally possess the singular objectively true morality?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Of course they do.
It's the explanation they need, ie, they want absolute invariant inerrant truth.
It comforts them....makes their world secure & meaningful.
But if one doesn't need such comfort, & looks coldly at human
history & its variety, one finds no universal truth or morality.

Humans & their many societies are ever changing, evolving
responses to their environment & other cultures & challenges.
As I see it....
It all happens as it does, not as it should.
There is no should.

"one finds no universal truth or morality."

I think you need to look harder at history. I like to focus on American history, and there does appear to be a progression there. Ofc, on both sides here, that is a subjective interpretation.

You know, I think with the right research this is something we could actually test if we gave it enough thought.

But, ya I reject your claim of total moral relativism, I think it is an incomplete model that leaves too much unexplained. I think there is more going on than just relative morality. You say a "response to their environment" but what dictates the nature of these responses? I find it very hard to believe that there is no innate component to human behavior. Your model leaves too many unanswered questions, and does not make much sense.

You can repeat it a few more times if you want, but I am moving on.