Typically with less intransigence and conflict. After all for atheists it is what they think is right. And with the faithful it is what God has commanded is right.
Morality exists without your God.
- Thread starter Askthepizzaguy
- Start date
Typically with less intransigence and conflict. After all for atheists it is what they think is right. And with the faithful it is what God has commanded is right.
AdamGM
Warlord
What defines those are wrong? They are certainly not wrong in nature (where they apply).
So it's OK to lock on to an idea because you convince yourself that it's what someone else wants you to do, and then impose it on others by force?
AdamGM
Warlord
Is it OK to do the same because it's what you want to do? More fundamental to the question, why is that wrong than?
Lord Gay
Emperor
If I may jump in having skipped the previous pages, I see a fundamental difference Adam in how theists and atheists deal with morality.
Atheists generally hold the views they do based on personal experiences, the experiences of others, exposure to real-world problems, writings by others, and contemplation and reflection on all this. This data leads to beliefs of things holding certain values ranging between "good" and "bad". Because these views are based on supporting evidence, discussions with other atheists will lead to a comparison of such evidence and attempts to see if one holds info that the other doesn't, while attempting to appeal to "big picture" goals that may allow one position to be "better" than another. This doesn't mean all discussions eventually lead to one agreeing with the other, but at least by basing views on evidence which can be knocked down and/or disproven, "better" ideas may generally spread so that "bad" ideas may eventually die out.
Theists to me seem to involve adherence to an interpretation of what the people think their divine source(s) want. The key difference is that religion and divine desires are set in stone; they are not meant to be questioned and certainly not to be changed on a whim. If a deity wants you to hate the color red, then that's what you must do. Logic, reason, and changing times and situations do not apply. In other words, a view that may have been "good" for a society at one point may later become "bad", but followers of a faith cannot update their religion's views. Further complicating this is that not only are there different religions with different core values, but each religion also has various splinter factions with varying views on their faith. Further still, individuals may have different interpretations than others, leading to unyielding and unchanging views that cannot be argued against, cannot be defended other than "because my deity wants it", and IMHO leads to serious impediments and barriers to the growth and development of a culture.
I have spent some time thinking on philosophy, and while I haven't read writings by any philosophers, I wonder if one is ever justified in using "objective" in relation to a position. I sometimes think that calls of a value being objective are merely attempts by individuals to lend credence to their very much subjective opinions. I wonder if it is an attempt to "win" a discussion by claiming that my view is inherently better than yours, a hollow argument that should be dismissed.
You asked Cutlass if it's okay for atheists to enforce their views on others. One of my primary complaints with Christians in the US today is not so much the views they hold, but that they wish to enforce them on others. It is the imposition on others that I object to, and I don't see how atheists would be justified in doing it to Christians (payback possibly, but not justified).
Pure freedom can only exist with a single isolated individual. The more people you add to the mix, the more each person's freedom must be slightly curtailed to attempt to ensure equal freedom for all. This assumes that every individual has equal worth and thus nobody is entitled to more than another. If you argue that A deserves more than B, then one could argue that B deserves more than A. The best position in my view is that all have equal rights.
From there, you take the most basic thing people dislike, being hurt or killed, and say that nobody may do that to another. I'll give up my freedom to hurt and kill you if you'll give up your freedom to hurt and kill me. Without people running around killing each other, you have a more stable society.
People can accomplish more when they are happy, notably coming up with new and improved ways of doing things, such as inventions. Increased happiness leads to increased arts, entertainment and creativity (my opinion), which leads to a civilization that can more readily weather cultural setbacks (disasters, wars) and lead to improved quality of life. Since at our most basic level we like pleasure and dislike pain, this seems the best road to take for the equal treatment and advancement of a people.
This all relies on certain subjective assumptions, such as equality being good, happiness being good, and freedom being good. One could argue that tyranny and dictatorship are better models, depending on what you value and what your ultimate goal is. Slavery for example would be more likely to get people to do an undesirable task, such as one which involves a high death rate.
People need to agree on ultimate goals before one can argue the best way to reach them. With different ultimate goals, then people are on completely different paths, and it would be hard to argue one action as "better" than another.
(Note: written past my bedtime)
Atheists generally hold the views they do based on personal experiences, the experiences of others, exposure to real-world problems, writings by others, and contemplation and reflection on all this. This data leads to beliefs of things holding certain values ranging between "good" and "bad". Because these views are based on supporting evidence, discussions with other atheists will lead to a comparison of such evidence and attempts to see if one holds info that the other doesn't, while attempting to appeal to "big picture" goals that may allow one position to be "better" than another. This doesn't mean all discussions eventually lead to one agreeing with the other, but at least by basing views on evidence which can be knocked down and/or disproven, "better" ideas may generally spread so that "bad" ideas may eventually die out.
Theists to me seem to involve adherence to an interpretation of what the people think their divine source(s) want. The key difference is that religion and divine desires are set in stone; they are not meant to be questioned and certainly not to be changed on a whim. If a deity wants you to hate the color red, then that's what you must do. Logic, reason, and changing times and situations do not apply. In other words, a view that may have been "good" for a society at one point may later become "bad", but followers of a faith cannot update their religion's views. Further complicating this is that not only are there different religions with different core values, but each religion also has various splinter factions with varying views on their faith. Further still, individuals may have different interpretations than others, leading to unyielding and unchanging views that cannot be argued against, cannot be defended other than "because my deity wants it", and IMHO leads to serious impediments and barriers to the growth and development of a culture.
I have spent some time thinking on philosophy, and while I haven't read writings by any philosophers, I wonder if one is ever justified in using "objective" in relation to a position. I sometimes think that calls of a value being objective are merely attempts by individuals to lend credence to their very much subjective opinions. I wonder if it is an attempt to "win" a discussion by claiming that my view is inherently better than yours, a hollow argument that should be dismissed.
You asked Cutlass if it's okay for atheists to enforce their views on others. One of my primary complaints with Christians in the US today is not so much the views they hold, but that they wish to enforce them on others. It is the imposition on others that I object to, and I don't see how atheists would be justified in doing it to Christians (payback possibly, but not justified).
Pure freedom can only exist with a single isolated individual. The more people you add to the mix, the more each person's freedom must be slightly curtailed to attempt to ensure equal freedom for all. This assumes that every individual has equal worth and thus nobody is entitled to more than another. If you argue that A deserves more than B, then one could argue that B deserves more than A. The best position in my view is that all have equal rights.
From there, you take the most basic thing people dislike, being hurt or killed, and say that nobody may do that to another. I'll give up my freedom to hurt and kill you if you'll give up your freedom to hurt and kill me. Without people running around killing each other, you have a more stable society.
People can accomplish more when they are happy, notably coming up with new and improved ways of doing things, such as inventions. Increased happiness leads to increased arts, entertainment and creativity (my opinion), which leads to a civilization that can more readily weather cultural setbacks (disasters, wars) and lead to improved quality of life. Since at our most basic level we like pleasure and dislike pain, this seems the best road to take for the equal treatment and advancement of a people.
This all relies on certain subjective assumptions, such as equality being good, happiness being good, and freedom being good. One could argue that tyranny and dictatorship are better models, depending on what you value and what your ultimate goal is. Slavery for example would be more likely to get people to do an undesirable task, such as one which involves a high death rate.
People need to agree on ultimate goals before one can argue the best way to reach them. With different ultimate goals, then people are on completely different paths, and it would be hard to argue one action as "better" than another.
(Note: written past my bedtime)
AdamGM
Warlord
This is also how Christians come to their worldviews
Referring to this as data seems a bit suspect. Where is it?
Or, compared to adherence to whatever the individual wants in my example.
The existence of objective truths is just the logical out-workings of believing in a deity. It is a reality apart from myself.
You never addressed my question. You also presumed that the end goal must work towards equality, freedom, etc. Where do you obtain these fundamental ideals? From nature?
Considering how vocal 'the New Atheism' is, you should have equal issue to the imposition of this group of people as you do to Christians.
Introducing the concept of freedom just makes it even more complicated. According to the chairman of the Reason Project, Dr. Sam Harris has said more than once that free will is completely illusory. How you can ever judge anyone's actions is beyond my understanding (to my knowledge he hasn't updated his numerous statements on the matter).
This doesn't quite answer my question either. This thread is about the existence of morality apart from a god.
What you are telling me is that "these things are good and help us".
If an atheist were to disagree with your ideals, why are you more right? This question is different for an atheist to answer than a theist because a theist starts from a position of "objective truth exists". You are starting from a position of "this is just my opinion".
How an atheist proves that this is even possible is my question
classical_hero
In whom I trust
So God is evil for punishing evil doers? So often I see you complain that God is not doing enough to stop evil from happening and yet when he acts, you complain that he is evil for doing so. :crazyeyes:
Lord Gay
Emperor
Perhaps I should have said information.
An abstract reality that cannot be contacted, clarified or verified, and thus not justified.
From nurture as opposed to nature. It is life experience that shapes our views. While biology may influence us to an extent, I don't believe it is the determining factor; I don't see us as pre-programmed biological computers, helpless to our code.
As I said, the end goal I suggest is my own subjective opinion, based on subjective values.
I'm unaware of 'New Atheists' advocating impositions on others. I'm unaware of 'atheist values' being enforced by law.
Being vocal is not an issue, passing laws is.
I disagree with such a view. Perhaps from a very high vantage point one could suggest that, in terms of general societal interaction, but on a basic level I believe people are accountable for their actions, and can be judged on their actions with the belief that they control them.
I wouldn't necessarily claim to be more right. As I said, we would need to see what our ultimate goals are before choosing the best course of action.
How? By simply examining the situation and indicating relevant factors.How an atheist proves that this is even possible is my question
Two atheists are in an empty room. They agree on a common goal of having dinner, but there is no food. What to do? They both agree that getting food is the first step. Now, how to do it? One suggests going to the store. One suggests ordering in. Which is better? You consider relevant factors. Do they have to get up early? Ordering in might be best. Is money a concern? Going to the store might be best. What if eating healthy is most important to them? Then maybe going out of town to a health food store, which will take more time and money but give healthy food would be best. None of these is inherently best. There is what's best based on the factors important to them.
Weighing the pros and cons of various options leads to a "best" option.
How many fetuses did He destroy with the flood?
AdamGM
Warlord
That's fine, but it doesn't change anything. This information apparently "leads to beliefs of things holding certain values ranging between "good" and "bad"." That's a bold statement.
Providing an example of a nice dinner is a very pleasant option to deal with
Things change dramatically when you admit that your ideas of right and wrong are purely subjective, and someone else has a different idea on happiness/suffering or life/death for example.
AdamGM
Warlord
JollyRoger, do you believe that all this death is (or would be) really wrong?
I do not see how one can read the Old Testament and consider God a beacon of morality.
AdamGM
Warlord
Killing off most of the poulation would seem wrong if I did it, why not God? If I compare Israel to a whore in need of a good old fashioned gang rape, I would be considered not very nice, yet God does that several times in the OT. Don't get me started on the first borns killed so God can show off his power. At least Zeus and his gang provide a little comedy along the way.
AdamGM
Warlord
Where do you get your moral standards from?
Not from some mythical jackass killing people willy nilly. That is my starting point of what not to do.
AdamGM
Warlord
Are you going to answer the question?
I would start with what seems fairly universal - even parts of the Bible go with it - thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. When you see a mythical being violating those, then that would not be a model for the rest of the build.
AdamGM
Warlord
that doesn't answer 'from where'
Are you suggesting from God? If so, why?
Similar threads
