Atheism is amoral

[HenryM]

Physical sensations don't require philosophy.

Neither does morality.

 

[HenryM]

I was just trying to figure out why...

Maybe you can't figure it out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe you can't figure it out.

That's why I asked.

 

[bhsmte]

Or maybe you are just painfully aware that your fundamental worldview is void of morality, so you avoid simple question. Let's not pretend. You believe in existence from nothing, by chance, to nothing.

I love mind readers. Do you have any good picks for the NFL this weekend?

 

[bhsmte]

It was more magical than your friend standing on the other side of the world, far from being there with you, and the next moment you pick up a phone and hear her voice in your ear.

Anyway, what's with condescending attitude?

I like magic.

 

[Rajni]

Neither does morality.

Evidently it does, given that what's considered moral varies from culture to culture.

 

[bhsmte]

Hilarious thread.

 

[Arcangl86]

Neither does morality.

There is no such thing as intrinsic morality.

 

[HenryM]

Evidently it does, given that what's considered moral varies from culture to culture.

It's not evidently. Every human is different in some ways, yet it's not a result of an idea. It's God's complex creation.

Basically all cultures share the same foundational morality. Most Muslims are peaceful and didn't kill anyone even though they are universally and explicitely commanded to kill "infidels" to please their god.

Or, for example, in what culture is considered delightful and exquisite to kill fellow humans and neighbours? Or to eat a human? Or to do unspeakable things to babies? Or to do all three and more? Even if such cultures exist they would be exceptions.

If morality depended on our ideas, differences in morality between cultures would be huge.

God, as Creator, is provider of morality, or moral base if you will. Including variations that exist in His complex creation. That's why He could give ten commandments to one small tribe in a desert four thousand years ago and we can still hear them as spoken to us, from whatever corner of the world we get to hear them. Even most atheists are in tune with six, and can hear them speaking to them.

 

[HenryM]

There is no such thing as intrinsic morality.

As a Christian, you know that we are all born sinful. That means that we have some quality of morality that can be graded, and when graded it's lacking. However, whatever it is that we have, it's intrinsic.

 

[Belk]

All atheists here that actually revealed what they believe about existence, and didn't hide it as if under their tails, confirmed that they all believe in life from nothing, by chance, back into nothing. Such foundational principle of existence doesn't provide any morality.

Ah, so you are not here to dialog but to harangue?

 

[bhsmte]

It's not evidently. Every human is different in some ways, yet it's not a result of an idea. It's God's complex creation.

Basically all cultures share the same foundational morality. Most Muslims are peaceful and didn't kill anyone even though they are universally and explicitely commanded to kill "infidels" to please their god.

Or, for example, in what culture is considered delightful and exquisite to kill fellow humans and neighbours? Or to eat a human? Or to do unspeakable things to babies? Or to do all three and more? Even if such cultures exist they would be exceptions.

If morality depended on our ideas, differences in morality between cultures would be huge.

God, as Creator, is provider of morality, or moral base if you will. Including variations that exist in His complex creation. That's why He could give ten commandments to one small tribe in a desert four thousand years ago and we can still hear them as spoken to us, from whatever corner of the world we get to hear them. Even most atheists are in tune with six, and can hear them speaking to them.

And more opinion.

 

[quatona]

Well, you might be unto something.

Yes, either this...or you are intentionally misrepresenting my posts.

 

[HenryM]

Yes, either this...or you are intentionally misrepresenting my posts.

You said: "If your behaviour here reflects this supposedly great morality of yours I think the world is better off without it."

You are judge of one's character and human quality, to the point of termination "in favor of the world", based on couple of sentences, yet you accuse others of assuming what you, as self-labeled atheist, believe as an atheist?

You didn't provide clarification after you were asked a simple question. And at the same time you don't like what can be concluded that you believe as an self-labeled atheist. If one says that he or she is a Christian, a number of beliefs can be concluded that that person has. Same for an atheist.

You don't get to be excused from other people understanding how you view existence just because you label yourself by a negative. You denying existence of God pulls a consequence of other beliefs you also have, generally, as an atheist. Feel free to clarify your variation, if there is one.

But more to the point, you said "this supposedly great morality of yours".

Where did I in this whole thread said I have great morality? Tell me, good reader? You, among other things, accuse me of not being good reader, so you must be a good reader. So tell me where did I said that I have great morality.

Just couple of posts above I wrote that we are all sinners and we are all morally lacking. And I also wrote in one of the posts that a Christian is sinner just like every other human, and that it's even testified in the Bible itself.

 

[quatona]

You said: "If your behaviour here reflects this supposedly great morality of yours I think the world is better off without it."

You are judge of one's character and human quality

Yes, I gave you my opinion about your behaviour.

to the point of termination "in favor of the world",

You just made that termination-thing up. Either due to reading comprehension problems or due to intentional mispresentation.

You didn't provide clarification after you were asked a simple question.

...because I came here to correct you on your false claims about atheism, not to answer unrelated questions that you came up with in order to distract from your false claims.

And at the same time you don't like what can be concluded that you believe as an self-labeled atheist.

It´s not so much a question of what I like or don´t like - the problem with your assertions about atheism is that they can not be concluded. They simply don´t follow.
You could for example start to try to make your case by explaining how the non-existence of a God requires there to have been nothingness at some point. I would be interested to hear how you arrive at that "conclusion".

But more to the point, you said "this supposedly great morality of yours".

Where did I in this whole thread said I have great morality?

You didn´t. You were singling out atheists, which somewhat made me assume that your statements did not include theists. Thanks for clarifying. I stand corrected: You don´t think Christians have a superiour morality.

I´m looking forward to hearing how you managed to "conclude" these interesting things about atheism that you submitted in your OP.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Or maybe you are just painfully aware that your fundamental worldview is void of morality

That presumes that all there is to my worldview is atheism... when in fact atheism has very little to do with my worldview.

so you avoid simple question. Let's not pretend. You believe in existence from nothing, by chance, to nothing.

I just don't have belief in any deities due to there being insufficient evidence for me to be convinced of the existence of any.

"You believe in existence from nothing": You are probably trying to reference the Big Bang here, but that didn't start with "nothing". It was all the energy and matter in the universe crammed into a very small area, which then expanded. I have no idea where it came from, and I am not going to assert or deny that some deity is responsible while we still aren't able to investigate. So, I exist in a state of not knowing where that mass and energy came from, or even if asking that is valid.

"By chance": Nah, I view the formation of life as an inevitability on planets with suitable conditions for it, as long as those conditions are maintained for a long enough time. Just like how a river will eventually carve out a canyon if given enough time.

"To nothing": A reference to not believing in an afterlife? I used to, and plenty of atheists do. Belief in an afterlife has nothing to do with belief in a deity, and they aren't mutually inclusive. That is, deities could exist, but there isn't an afterlife, or an afterlife could exist, but there aren't any deities. Viewing those things as interconnected is a restriction of your own personal belief system.

 

[HenryM]

...how the non-existence of a God requires there to have been nothingness at some point. I would be interested to hear how you arrive at that "conclusion".

I didn't say only nothingness, but nothingness and chance.

Do you believe, in your worldview as an atheist, that something other than chance, some consciousness with plan, purpose and power, was involved in creation of universe and life in it?

As for nothingness, that "conclusion" is generally accepted main scientific conclusion, or one of few. One recent scientific source says that before big bang there was: maybe nothing, maybe other universe or some form of sea of universes. Seems to me, if one is an honest atheist, "nothing" is good and legitimate option. And those others options involve previous universes, so what was there before those previous universes got to exist?

But that to aside, is it not true that main generally accepted scientific conclusion is that life came from non-life, through various processes that lasted billions of years after bing bang?

That would mean that consciousness came from nothing, from non-life. Life came from non-life.

And, it came by chance, because there was no some prior master consciousness with plan and purpose that executed it all.

And life goes back to nothing, to non-life, while this whole universe is going back to either absolutely nothing or basically nothing, dying. And way before the universe dies off, Earth will be destroyed by Sun, going back to not-existing.

 

[bhsmte]

That presumes that all there is to my worldview is atheism... when in fact atheism has very little to do with my worldview.


I just don't have belief in any deities due to there being insufficient evidence for me to be convinced of the existence of any.

"You believe in existence from nothing": You are probably trying to reference the Big Bang here, but that didn't start with "nothing". It was all the energy and matter in the universe crammed into a very small area, which then expanded. I have no idea where it came from, and I am not going to assert or deny that some deity is responsible while we still aren't able to investigate. So, I exist in a state of not knowing where that mass and energy came from, or even if asking that is valid.

"By chance": Nah, I view the formation of life as an inevitability on planets with suitable conditions for it, as long as those conditions are maintained for a long enough time. Just like how a river will eventually carve out a canyon if given enough time.

"To nothing": A reference to not believing in an afterlife? I used to, and plenty of atheists do. Belief in an afterlife has nothing to do with belief in a deity, and they aren't mutually inclusive. That is, deities could exist, but there isn't an afterlife, or an afterlife could exist, but there aren't any deities. Viewing those things as interconnected is a restriction of your own personal belief system.

But Sarah, he really, really, really needs to convince himself, you can have no morals, because you are not Christian.

 

[Rajni]

If morality depended on our ideas, differences in morality between cultures would be huge.

Even the slightest difference points to morality being based on ideas.

Otherwise, why posit that atheism is amoral?

 

[bhsmte]

First, I didn't say only nothingness, but nothingness and chance.

Do you believe, in your worldview as an atheist, that something other than chance, some consciousness with plan, purpose and power, was involved in creation of universe and life in it?

As for nothingness, that "conclusion" is generally accepted main scientific conclusion, or one of few. One recent scientific source says that before big bang there was: maybe nothing, maybe other universe or some form of sea of universes. Seems to me, if one is an honest atheist, "nothing" is good and legitimate option. And those others options involve previous universes, so what was there before those previous universes got to exist?

But that to aside, is it not true that main generally accepted scientific conclusion is that life came from non-life, through various processes that lasted billions of years after bing bang?

That would mean that consciousness came from nothing, from non-life. Life came from non-life.

And, it came by chance, because there was no some prior master consciousness with plan and purpose that executed it all.

And life goes back to nothing, to non-life, while this whole universe is going back to either absolutely nothing or basically nothing, dying. And way before the universe dies off, Earth will be destroyed by Sun, going back to not-existing.

Prove it.