Ask an atheist!

[karisma]

You are sidestepping the main discussion. YOU said there are NO MORAL ABSOLUTES.

How then can you say murdering or cannibalism is "ridiculous". If someone decides it is right for them how do YOU tell them it is wrong?

Please answer that question directly. Thanks.

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question-

Demonstrate how morals must be absolute to be worthwhile?

 

[Yekcidmij]

It is circular reasoning.

Well, the reasoning I gave was not circular and trumpeting a statement like this doesn't make it circular.


I see I will have to live up to my comment earlier and show how you also reason in a circle and do so every day without realizing it. I will define the principle of induction as Webster's Dictionary does: inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances. Example 1: The sun was burning yesterday and it burns right now, so it will burn tomorrow too. Example 2: My car will remain a car when I start it up next time and it will not melt into a puddle of hot liquid because that doesn't happen on a normal basis. Example 3: There was a past, there is a present, so there will be a future.

Now in all those examples I used the principle of induction to arrive at a conclusion.

We all use this principle every day. We just assume it and we cannot live without assuming it. Now, justify your use of the principle of induction. (Your answer will be circular reasoning).

Assuming God exists (which we have no objective evidence of)

Really? How would you know? Have you surveyed all the evidence?

Why do you assume He doesn't exist?

he could be “good”, or maybe only partly “good”/partly “bad,” or even all “bad.”

What's your standard of good and bad?

He is the only one saying he is good. If he was lying, we would have no way of knowing. A God that was only partly good or even all bad would explain “the problem of evil” as well.

What makes someone a liar? Again, what is your standard of good and evil?

You are answering my question in a way to lead us to your personal beliefs.

This is a genetic fallacy. Just because I happen to believe them doesn't mean they are true or false. Time to find another argument.

You also already had the answer to your personal beliefs before you even started asking questions.

Not really. Unless you want to claim you know what goes on in my head.

There is no reason to assume that that inherent feeling of ‘wrongness’ comes from an external source, especially a supernatural source that has no evidence to support it.

What would you consider valid evidence? Maybe I do have some. Why can't I believe in immaterial things? You do so I can too.

There is also no reason to assume that that feeling is “built” into us, which implies a creator.

Maybe you do have a better reason, I can't rule out that possibility. So where do morals come from?

That’s begging the question.

Which part?

The simplest answer is usually the best (law of parsimony),

Are you appealing to something absolute like a universal law?

and it seems most logical to believe it comes from nothing more than a sense of empathy.

You would have to show that I'm simply being empathetic, which you don't bother to do in your post. The fact is that my beliefs are aimed at believing the truth and not being simply empathetic. Now wether or not I believe the truth is, of course, up for a fair debate.

You claim to be using logic in your statement. How do you justify you use and belief in logic? Where does logic come from?

Human beings live in a natural world, and have the same basic needs and desires for food, warmth, and acceptance.

Ok. And? I'm not sure what this proves. Maybe you are hinting at something and I'm just missing it.

The average person does not wish to have harm upon her because it is painful (physically or emotionally).

OK. And this proves the following: people do not wish to have harm come upon them. A simple factoid does not disprove objective morality. What about those beliefs of yours that have nothing to do with pain? If you are going to say you don't have such beliefs I will be happy to show you that you do.

 

[andross77]

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question-

Demonstrate how morals must be absolute to be worthwhile?

hehe, that's funny. should i respond with, "I ASKED YOU FIRST!"

If morals are not absolute chaos ensues. I have been typing this the last 20 posts and you don't seem to understand.

Here is why morals must be absolute to be "worthwhile": (fictional story coming) i'm poor. so i steal my dad's gun. then i walk down the street at 2am and find your parents house. i break in through a window and start rummaging around for valuables. Your parents wake up and come downstairs to stop me. They pick up a phone to call the police. I don't want to get caught so i shoot them both.

Now because morals aren't absolute, you can't tell me what i did was wrong and you have no reason to feel anger at me. I was just doing what i felt was necessary to get myself some money.

Do you now see why morals must be absolute or else they are worthless?

Also, and this was probably stated before in the thread, by saying morals aren't absolute you are making an absolute claim. Morals by the laws of logic and "circular reasoning" must either be absolute or non-existant. Those are the ONLY two options. Since we all know at least a rough outline of a moral code (that's why you and i both agree that killing and raping is wrong), there must be a moral code, it must be absolute, and there must be a Moral Code Giver.

Now answer my question please.

 

[karisma]

This is an interesting debate. I wish I could put more time into making more lucid posts but I have finals this week and ... bleh...

Well, the reasoning I gave was not circular and trumpeting a statement like this doesn't make it circular.


I see I will have to live up to my comment earlier and show how you also reason in a circle and do so every day without realizing it. I will define the principle of induction as Webster's Dictionary does: inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances. Example 1: The sun was burning yesterday and it burns right now, so it will burn tomorrow too. Example 2: My car will remain a car when I start it up next time and it will not melt into a puddle of hot liquid because that doesn't happen on a normal basis. Example 3: There was a past, there is a present, so there will be a future.

Now in all those examples I used the principle of induction to arrive at a conclusion.

We all use this principle every day. We just assume it and we cannot live without assuming it. Now, justify your use of the principle of induction. (Your answer will be circular reasoning).

You are entirely missing the point here. You have no way of knowing if god is truly “good” or not when the only one making the claim is god himself. I argue that the existence of so many “bad” things in the world show (well, God doesn’t exist, but again, assuming he does) that if such a god existed, he is not good, or only partially good.

Really? How would you know? Have you surveyed all the evidence?

Why do you assume He doesn't exist?

Why do you assume He does?

What's your standard of good and bad?

It's subjective, but actions that are considered moral or amoral by my society and culture.

What would you consider valid evidence? Maybe I do have some. Why can't I believe in immaterial things? You do so I can too.

Show me the evidence then. I was a Christian for almost 20 years before deconverting. But I'm willing to change my mind in a second if you can prove Bible God exists.

And I said supernatural. Not immaterial.

Maybe you do have a better reason, I can't rule out that possibility. So where do morals come from?

I already said, morals come from your own intelligence, reasoning, and feeling of empathy.

Are you appealing to something absolute like a universal law?

It's not absolute. But it's often the case.

You claim to be using logic in your statement. How do you justify you use and belief in logic? Where does logic come from?

All of these things come from my own super powerful brain matter. Duh

You still haven't shown how or why these things need to come from an external source.
More importantly, prove that your external source, God, exists!

 

[karisma]

If morals are not absolute chaos ensues.

Prove it.

Here is why morals must be absolute to be "worthwhile": (fictional story coming) i'm poor. so i steal my dad's gun. then i walk down the street at 2am and find your parents house. i break in through a window and start rummaging around for valuables. Your parents wake up and come downstairs to stop me. They pick up a phone to call the police. I don't want to get caught so i shoot them both.

Now because morals aren't absolute, you can't tell me what i did was wrong and you have no reason to feel anger at me. I was just doing what i felt was necessary to get myself some money.

Do you now see why morals must be absolute or else they are worthless?

That's moral relativism, not moral absolutism.

Let me give you an example. A moral absolutist would say on principle, it's never ok to kill. A moral relativist would say, "Depending on the situation...." See? You are a moral relativist and you didn't even know it!

Also, and this was probably stated before in the thread, by saying morals aren't absolute you are making an absolute claim.

An absolute claim, but not an absolute claim about a moral objective. It's comparing apples and oranges.

Since we all know at least a rough outline of a moral code (that's why you and i both agree that killing and raping is wrong), there must be a moral code, it must be absolute, and there must be a Moral Code Giver.

Morals are not consistent across times and cultures.

Prove their must be a moral code giver, and that it can't be reasoned intellectually and situationally.
If you think morals come from God, you need to prove God even exists.

Now answer my question please.

What question?

 

[telegram]

If morals are not absolute chaos ensues. I have been typing this the last 20 posts and you don't seem to understand.

Here is why morals must be absolute to be "worthwhile": (fictional story coming) i'm poor. so i steal my dad's gun. then i walk down the street at 2am and find your parents house. i break in through a window and start rummaging around for valuables. Your parents wake up and come downstairs to stop me. They pick up a phone to call the police. I don't want to get caught so i shoot them both.

Now because morals aren't absolute, you can't tell me what i did was wrong and you have no reason to feel anger at me. I was just doing what i felt was necessary to get myself some money.

Do you now see why morals must be absolute or else they are worthless?

Also, and this was probably stated before in the thread, by saying morals aren't absolute you are making an absolute claim. Morals by the laws of logic and "circular reasoning" must either be absolute or non-existant. Those are the ONLY two options. Since we all know at least a rough outline of a moral code (that's why you and i both agree that killing and raping is wrong), there must be a moral code, it must be absolute, and there must be a Moral Code Giver.

Well, I think a few things need to be kept in mind when discussing morals. Not everyone's morals are the same firstly. The morals society upholds should be the ones that benefit society. That keep the people who make up society safe and allows them to lead comfortable lives. We can only decide what helps society and what doesn't based on the knowledge and experience we have now. We, as humans, don't know everything there is to know. Tomorrow is a new day, new discoveries could be made, old knowledge could be disproven, etc. We can only go by what we know now, and until we know everything there is to know we can claim that anything is absolute. Truth is relative to the present. We do think rationally about this of course and look back at the world's history and can see how killing innocent people is wrong and does not make for a healthy society. Tomorrow there could be a complete warp in our existence to change that, that is beyond our current comprehension, logical, and rationality. I don't think it's gonna happen, but I can't say it 100% couldn't.

 

[mistyday23]

It has been interesting reading your answers. I am just concerned about where you are headed when you pass away.

 

[Yekcidmij]

This is an interesting debate. I wish I could put more time into making more lucid posts but I have finals this week and ... bleh...

Agh!.....who likes those?

You are entirely missing the point here. You have no way of knowing if god is truly “good” or not when the only one making the claim is god himself. I argue that the existence of so many “bad” things in the world show (well, God doesn’t exist, but again, assuming he does) that if such a god existed, he is not good, or only partially good.

There again, you affirm God doesn't exist. How do you know? And you still seem to appeal to a standard of good and bad. What's your standard for good and bad?

Why do you assume He does?

I notice you didn't answer. See what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you just assume that he doesn't exist, I can just as easily assume that he does and we've gotten nowhere.

It's subjective, but actions that are considered moral or amoral by my society and culture.

Then we have a problem. Because by the standards of Islamic extremist, flying planes into the World Trade Center is good. According to past world leaders, and even some current ones in Africa, genocide is good. So in your model, they cannot be wrong. In your model, Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln along with a host of others would also be considered highly immoral since they went counter to their society and culture. And what exactly makes up a "culture" or "society"? I have decided to define a new culture called "Jimmie" and all humanity will be considered members. Now I declare that it is immoral to go against my culture. How can you say I'm wrong? Who are you going to appeal to? Your culture? At first we weren't a part of the same culture becuase I joined a new one and now your a member of my culture because I defined it so.

What if I violate societies morals, can they torture me mercilessly if the want as long as it's acceptable for the society? Can they execute my family for not paying taxes? Who is "culture" accountable to? Itself? Isn't that the circular reasoning you were complaining about? Becuase if you are going to say culture creates it's own morals and then appeals to itself for the accountability of those morals, then you reason in a circle and according to your own model, you should throw this method of morality out the window.

But I'm willing to change my mind in a second if you can prove Bible God exists.

Like I asked before and you skipped over, what kind of proof do you need? What do you consider valid evidence?

And I said supernatural. Not immaterial.

So you do believe in the immaterial. That's at least a step.

I already said, morals come from your own intelligence, reasoning, and feeling of empathy.

Well, do they come from society or the individual? It doesn't matter anyway, societal ethics degrade to complete relativism anyway. To show how absurd this is I will parrot what I said earlier. I'm creating a new moral system called "Jimmie" and it is immoral for you to go against it. You cannot possibly tell me no, because you are then immoral. See, who are you to push your moral subjectivism on me? I say my morals are not based on empathy and saying they are makes you immoral. How do you plan to tell me you are moral?

And if you create your own morals, then who are you accountable to for what you "ought" to do in a moral sense? Are you accountable to yourself? Circular reasoning. According to your model, toss this view.

It's not absolute. But it's often the case.

Then it's arbitrary and doesn't apply. Why even bring it up.

All of these things come from my own super powerful brain matter. Duh

Definition real quick. Laws of Logic: Identity (a=a), non contradiction ('a' cannot be 'a' and not-'a' in the same sense), excluded middle (either 'a' or 'not-a')

So laws of logic are developed in the brain? Not quite. If humans all of the suddenly ceased to exist, then it would be true that "humans do not exist". And what does that adhere to? The Laws of Logic. If the universe did not exist then it would be the case that the universe didn't exist. What would that fact adhere to? Laws of Logic.

If logic is dependent on our minds, then it is indeed possible that they would change depending on the persons mind, but it will never be the case that you exist and do not exist at the same time in the same sense. It will never be the case that I'm human and not-human. So these laws are not conventional, they don't change, and they are not material in nature. How is this possible in your model/view? How do you justify them? Everything we observe in the world changes, but logic does not, laws of logic remain constant. Why? The principle of induction does not change either. As a matter of fact you must assume it when observing change. Why?

You see by even conversing with me you assume the laws of logic and the principle of induction (and induction you didn't address from my last post, but that's ok) and you assume I use the same ones you do. You want to tell me I'm wrong and you're right, and I want to do the opposite or we would have no purpose in even discussing this. Well, doing so appeals to logic. If logic is dependent on our mind, then I might as well define a new set of laws that say that I can be right and not-right about anything I want. You assume that when you type on the keyboard the electrical reaction will happen that puts the characters in the correct place on the screen thereby assuming the inductive principle.

Now if you are not going to justify these 2 things (laws of logic and induction) according to your own model where you cannot engage in circular reasoning, then you must stop using them. Of course if you still continue to use them without justifying them, then you are unjustified by your own method. What's your justification for their use? Good luck.

You still haven't shown how or why these things need to come from an external source.
More importantly, prove that your external source, God, exists!

One step at a time. I'm getting there.

 

[andross77]

What question?

Wow, you are just sidestepping my points completely. Let's see if you can address my question. If not, there is no point left discussing with you.

Please tell me on what grounds you can tell me that "kicking a puppy" or raping or murdering a person is wrong? I want to know how YOU can tell ME it's wrong since you previously stated that there are no moral absolutes.

That's the qustion you seem to have conveniently forgot. thanks.

 

[karisma]

Wow, you are just sidestepping my points completely. Let's see if you can address my question. If not, there is no point left discussing with you.

Please tell me on what grounds you can tell me that "kicking a puppy" or raping or murdering a person is wrong? I want to know how YOU can tell ME it's wrong since you previously stated that there are no moral absolutes.

That's the qustion you seem to have conveniently forgot. thanks.

Settle down! I already answered your question, a long time ago! Check post #297.

 

[karisma]

There again, you affirm God doesn't exist. How do you know? And you still seem to appeal to a standard of good and bad. What's your standard for good and bad?

There is no objective evidence of the existence of a higher power. If there was, there would be no atheists.

Standard of good and bad is subjective, based on culture and society.

you didn't answer. See what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you just assume that he doesn't exist, I can just as easily assume that he does and we've gotten nowhere.

Not sure what I didn't answer. Like I said, it's been really busy! Buying a new car, selling my old one, finishing finals, getting Xmas presents, going to Xmas parties... I'm already worn out and it's not even Xmas yet! So I'm sorry I don't have time to thoroughly analyze every single sentence the way I would like to be able to, given infinite time. I wish some other atheists would step up and help out! Anyways...

To answer: why I assume he doesn't exist: there is no objective scientific evidence. It's that simple.

Because by the standards of Islamic extremist, flying planes into the World Trade Center is good.

No. You said it yourself. They are extremists.

According to past world leaders, and even some current ones in Africa, genocide is good.

No. Society in general does not feel genocide is right.

And what exactly makes up a "culture" or "society"?

Try Dictionary.com.

I have decided to define a new culture called "Jimmie" and all humanity will be considered members.

See above. One does not just define society on a whim and claim all are members.

What if I violate societies morals, can they torture me mercilessly if the want as long as it's acceptable for the society? Can they execute my family for not paying taxes? Who is "culture" accountable to? Itself? Isn't that the circular reasoning you were complaining about? Becuase if you are going to say culture creates it's own morals and then appeals to itself for the accountability of those morals, then you reason in a circle and according to your own model, you should throw this method of morality out the window.

Technically, yes, they could do all those things. And society has to be accountable to the people/individual. There is no one else to be accountable to.

Like I asked before and you skipped over, what kind of proof do you need? What do you consider valid evidence?

If you want, you can give me the best that you've got, but I'm not going to waste your time trying to have you prove something that has no proof. If there was, faith would not be necessary.

Well, do they come from society or the individual? It doesn't matter anyway, societal ethics degrade to complete relativism anyway.

I wouldn't say "degrade."

To show how absurd this is I will parrot what I said earlier. I'm creating a new moral system called "Jimmie" and it is immoral for you to go against it. You cannot possibly tell me no, because you are then immoral. See, who are you to push your moral subjectivism on me?

This only works if you can get society to go along with it.

And if you create your own morals, then who are you accountable to for what you "ought" to do in a moral sense? Are you accountable to yourself?

Society is accountable to the individual.

Then it's arbitrary and doesn't apply. Why even bring it up.

Whoa there. Things don't need to be true in 100% of cases to be applicable.

What I want to know is this: if morality is absolute, why are morals different for different cultures and different time periods? Is God confused and handing out different moral advice? Because in other cultures and time periods, all of the following have been considered moral: polygamy, human sacrifice, wife beating, self mutilation, war, circumcision, castration, and incest, to name a few.

 

[andross77]

Settle down! I already answered your question, a long time ago! Check post #297.

ok i see. Then what about some tribes in africa or the amazon where Murdering is 100% acceptable in their society and culture? Then would you accept it?

Auca Indians used to be that way in the 1950's.

My point is that if your morals are based on society, you HAVE no concrete morals. You do whatever you feel like (to a point) and as much as you can get away with. So in Las Vegas you would sleep with a prostitute if you felt like it but in a more conservative Southern Baptist town you wouldn't even dream of that.

Is that a correct summation of your morals: it is based on whatever society or culture you live in?

 

[karisma]

ok i see. Then what about some tribes in africa or the amazon where Murdering is 100% acceptable in their society and culture? Then would you accept it?

I wouldn't personally accept it, but then again, I've been raised in a culture with completely different morals.

My point is that if your morals are based on society, you HAVE no concrete morals.

Exactly. Does it open itself up to possible abuses? Yes. Then again, having one single entity with a self claim to perfect morals does too. What if God said it was perfectly moral to drive over little old ladies crossing the street? It would have to be moral, because God supposedly has perfect morals. Is there anything God could say that would not be moral?

Is that a correct summation of your morals: it is based on whatever society or culture you live in?

Mainly, yes.

Here's a good example of cultural morality (I ride, and this has been hot news in the horse industry lately). In the US, it is perfectly morally acceptable to slaughter cattle, pigs, goats, and sheep by the millions for human consumption. Horses, OTOH, not so much. Eating horse meat in the US is considered very morally unacceptable. Same with dogs and cats, while in other countries, it's perfectly fine to eat them.

In some countries, if you are caught stealing, it's perfectly acceptable to chop off someones' hand for a first offence. Here, not so much.

There are countless examples. These things are purely influenced by society. See also my post to Yekcidmij- "What I want to know is this: if morality is absolute, why are morals different for different cultures and different time periods? Is God confused and handing out different moral advice? Because in other cultures and time periods, all of the following have been considered moral: polygamy, human sacrifice, wife beating, self mutilation, war, circumcision, castration, and incest, to name a few."

 

[Maxwell511]

Why do you enforce "mens rea" or on what grounds do you? If someone has the intent to harm and causes harm against you, how can you, as an atheist that says there are no moral absolutes, call it wrong?

Do you understand? Your claims are a blatant contradiction. Either there ARE moral absolutes or you have no basis on calling anything wrong.

From my perspective it is wrong therefore I can call it wrong.

I can even give you reasons for my belief that it is wrong without reference to God and you agree that I can do this. That is my basis.

Your statement about not being able to make claims without absolutes is wrong. It is a philosophy that is ill informed by reality, which sort of makes it redundant. For example I can state that a metre stick in my hand is a metre long and give good reasons for my belief, is it a metre long for everyone else's potential perspective? No, (see special relativity specifically Lotrenz contraction, or string theory if you wanna go a bit nuts however string theory hasn't come close to standards of scientific truth). Does that mean I can make no judgement on the length of the stick because they are no absolute lengths?

Btw I am very sympathetic to the objective moral stance (as in I am undecided on whether there could be an objective morality) however I would think that these standards are informed from biology and not a deity.

 

[Allegory]

Homework for everyone: Read up on sociobiological psychology.

 

[Maxwell511]

Homework for everyone: Read up on sociobiological psychology.

Over Christmas? You are the worst teacher ever.

Btw what do think of an expectionally simple theory of everything?

 

[Allegory]

Over Christmas? You are the worst teacher ever.

Btw what do think of an expectionally simple theory of everything?

I've got the PDF but haven't managed to get into it yet. I've heard Lee Smolin said it's "interesting" (he says that about just about everything that crosses his desk though, methinks). I've seen some strong criticism for it, but I've also seen some support from big names so I'm going to remain open to it for now. Not like I'm a physics major though so I'm going to have to wait to see how the whole thing plays out from my armchair.

 

[niknak1006]

My little brother is 20 years old he has been a believer in Christ his whole life until this year when he hit some rocky times in his life. For a little while he said he was protestant...he now claims to be agnostic. What is the difference between agnostic and athiest? Why are young adults so quick to claim they don't believe when times get tough?

 

[Maxwell511]

I've got the PDF but haven't managed to get into it yet. I've heard Lee Smolin said it's "interesting" (he says that about just about everything that crosses his desk though, methinks). I've seen some strong criticism for it, but I've also seen some support from big names so I'm going to remain open to it for now. Not like I'm a physics major though so I'm going to have to wait to see how the whole thing plays out from my armchair.

The good thing is though, when the new accelerator in Switzerland is up and running we can better be able to judge the "correctness" of the theory without having to read up on the details from the comfort of our respective armchairs.

Which is soon I believe.

 

[Allegory]

My little brother is 20 years old he has been a believer in Christ his whole life until this year when he hit some rocky times in his life. For a little while he said he was protestant...he now claims to be agnostic. What is the difference between agnostic and athiest? Why are young adults so quick to claim they don't believe when times get tough?

Agnostic is someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not God exists. Atheists, generally speaking, will tell you that there is almost certainly no god. The difference, in my opinion, is subtle and not very important. As for your second question, I have no answer for you. All of the people who would consider themselves "atheist" that I know have always been atheist (this would constitute the majority of the people I know.. I've only recently met religious young people)