Atheism/Morality

[Bodhitharta]

Atheists confuse social and communal agreements with Morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyttBAnam_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkhhNiceCgA

 

[funyun]

Atheists confuse social and communal agreements with Morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyttBAnam_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkhhNiceCgA

No, you confuse pragmatic and existential ethics with your perception of communal agreements vs. morality.

 

[Skaloop]

Atheists confuse social and communal agreements with Morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyttBAnam_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkhhNiceCgA

First off, thanks for at least using videos that are of a reasonable length.

Regarding the first video, my acceptance of evolution plays no part at all in how I derive my morality, so I don't really see the link between the two.

In the second one, right of the bat you are not giving an accurate portrayal of how atheists generally define and adopt their morals. You also conflate morality with biblical teachings of right and wrong. You use homosexuality as an example because that is an issue where we generally disagree, and go on to say that because we don't consider homosexuality to be immoral, we cannot have morals. But consider something like murder. I consider that immoral, just as you do. But I have not based that judgment on the teachings of the Bible. So clearly, an atheist can have morals, and is not, as you suggest, either amoral or immoral. If I believe unlawful killing is morally wrong, am I amoral or immoral?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Atheists confuse social and communal agreements with Morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyttBAnam_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkhhNiceCgA

It is not too terribly bad for a first draft.
But the speaker could use a brother acting as the devil's advocate. There are a few areas where the speaker makes some simple mistakes and other spots where the premise or argument is just left hanging there for a predictable Atheism response.
Shoring those weak points up would help the intended purpose of the video, IMO.

BTW - the usernames there and here are the same.
Am I to assume that this CF username is the same person as the speaker in the video?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

First off, thanks for at least using videos that are of a reasonable length.

Regarding the first video, my acceptance of evolution plays no part at all in how I derive my morality, so I don't really see the link between the two.

In the second one, right of the bat you are not giving an accurate portrayal of how atheists generally define and adopt their morals.

Sorry, but you will have to battle with your fellow Atheists whom wish to sit on the unifying qualifier of "Atheist" as nothing more than a lack of belief in a god.

There is going to be some difficulty in someone trying to box in how Atheism arives at any given standard. But if that is true and leaving the unifying factor of Atheism being a specific "lack", then you're simply not qualified to speak for all Atheists - despite being one.

You could speak for only yourself, use anectdotal references, or even band together as a group of like-minded Atheists who share similar opinions on other issues, but making assertions "for Atheists" will not fly as long as there are Atheists insisting that there is but one simple qualifier.

You also conflate morality with biblical teachings of right and wrong. You use homosexuality as an example because that is an issue where we generally disagree, and go on to say that because we don't consider homosexuality to be immoral, we cannot have morals.

Your use of "we" must no doubt be a generalized reference to Atheists who have certain 'other traits' - an example being those who might frequent a Christian forum. But there are, in fact, a great more Atheists in the world who agree with Christians on a multitude of points - homosexuality being one of those. A word of advice, I would not use the term conflate right before doing the same in your post - it just looks bad.

Obviously, I don't fully agree with the over-generalized example in the video. But knowing what I know, I assumed the use was referring to the version of Atheism that is more anti-religious as opposed to speaking for 'all' Atheists. That required a bit of my 'reading into' what was being said, but I find my inference a bit more accurate.

But consider something like murder. I consider that immoral, just as you do. But I have not based that judgment on the teachings of the Bible. So clearly, an atheist can have morals, and is not, as you suggest, either amoral or immoral. If I believe unlawful killing is morally wrong, am I amoral or immoral?

Objectively, it would simply mean that an Atheist can arrive at the same conclusion as Christian belief would on a given topic, but based on a possible variable for the rational. It doesn't make it moral unless you are referring to social morals and the conclusion matching that localized standard. You may be forgetting that Christian belief is set in a standard that would be described more as an absolute than how a non-believer may arrive at a conclusion.

And not to be confused as in conflict with the objective point - the spiritual point would be:
Sharing the same conclusions with Christianity on any given topic may carry benefits to your self and others, but if you don't have the Lord in your heart, it would ultimately be vanity regarding your eternal soul.

 

[JGG]

Atheists confuse social and communal agreements with Morality.

It would help immensely if we could:

(1) Objectively differentiate between social and communal agreements and morality. (Right now, the only thing that seems to separate them is the phrase "`cause God says so.")

(2) Objectively define morality.

(3) Objectively measure morality.

 

[JGG]

Objectively, it would simply mean that an Atheist can arrive at the same conclusion as Christian belief would on a given topic, but based on a possible variable for the rational. It doesn't make it moral unless you are referring to social morals and the conclusion matching that localized standard. You may be forgetting that Christian belief is set in a standard that would be described more as an absolute than how a non-believer may arrive at a conclusion.

I disagree, without an objective means of measuring morals, Christianity cannot conclude that its morals are any more "absolute" than a localized standard. In truth, what is the difference in the absolutes derived from "Christian Morals" and "Cleveland, Ohio Morals?" Most Christians have very different morals from other Christians (as I would assume is true of Clevelanders). Christians are a group of people with certain general morals (as I would assume is true of Clevelanders). Christians have a slightly different moral base than Hindus (as I would assume is true with Clevelanders, and Bostoners). Realisitically, how are they really absolute?

And not to be confused as in conflict with the objective point - the spiritual point would be:
Sharing the same conclusions with Christianity on any given topic may carry benefits to your self and others, but if you don't have the Lord in your heart, it would ultimately be vanity regarding your eternal soul.

In all honesty, as that's completely unfounded, I don't see what difference it makes. It just sounds like a thrown away condemnation of all non-Christians, for the sake of insulting non-Christians.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I disagree, without an objective means of measuring morals, Christianity cannot conclude that its morals are any more "absolute" than a localized standard.

Ah, but my posts was based on the premise that God gave us what can be found in the Bible.
Your post is based on there not being a God and/or that Christian belief is not from God.

Both of us have our premise(s), so I can see where we would disagree.

I would also say that the worldly use of objectively still has the subjective undertone, but I don't think I'm going into that argument - it deserves a thread of its own.

In truth, what is the difference in the absolutes derived from "Christian Morals" and "Cleveland, Ohio Morals?" Most Christians have very different morals from other Christians (as I would assume is true of Clevelanders). Christians are a group of people with certain general morals (as I would assume is true of Clevelanders). Christians have a slightly different moral base than Hindus (as I would assume is true with Clevelanders, and Bostoners). Realisitically, how are they really absolute?

I had thought we had this same discussion only just recently... I believe you are referring to Christians as the qualifier being that they simple called their self a Christian. I wasn't not taking the same liberties, so I believe the context is slightly off.

In all honesty, as that's completely unfounded, I don't see what difference it makes. It just sounds like a thrown away condemnation of all non-Christians, for the sake of insulting non-Christians.

It's not unfounded, it is echoing.
You DO know that Christian faith is based on there being only One way to God and not the more wordly "many paths to heaven", don't you?

 

[JGG]

Ah, but my posts was based on the premise that God gave us what can be found in the Bible.
Your post is based on there not being a God and/or that Christian belief is not from God.

But in that case is the base premise is not that atheists are not moral, its that God exists, and atheists are wrong.

I would also say that the worldly use of objectively still has the subjective undertone

I don't think it matters, as I've already stated, claiming that atheists have no morals is simply asserting that God exists and atheists are wrong. Your reasoning for saying you are moral, while I am not is based on the subjective premise that God exists. Its circular reasoning.

I believe you are referring to Christians as the qualifier being that they simple called their self a Christian.

Actually, it really doesn't matter. Unless you want to define Christians by a grocery list of morals.

It's not unfounded, it is echoing.
You DO know that Christian faith is based on there being only One way to God and not the more wordly "many paths to heaven", don't you?

The concept that it has any objective impact on morality is unfounded.

While I'm here, can you objectively prove that you are moral, and I am not?

 

[Skaloop]

Sorry, but you will have to battle with your fellow Atheists whom wish to sit on the unifying qualifier of "Atheist" as nothing more than a lack of belief in a god.

There is going to be some difficulty in someone trying to box in how Atheism arives at any given standard. But if that is true and leaving the unifying factor of Atheism being a specific "lack", then you're simply not qualified to speak for all Atheists - despite being one.

That's why I said generally, so as not to speak for all. But in what I have heard and read from other atheists, none come to their morality through the process he described.

Your use of "we" must no doubt be a generalized reference to Atheists who have certain 'other traits' - an example being those who might frequent a Christian forum. But there are, in fact, a great more Atheists in the world who agree with Christians on a multitude of points - homosexuality being one of those.

Are you able to back that up with any numbers? I'm honestly curious about the statistics regarding atheists who consider homosexuality immoral (as I am sure some do). And the "we" I used just refers to atheists who don't have any problems with homosexuality.

Obviously, I don't fully agree with the over-generalized example in the video. But knowing what I know, I assumed the use was referring to the version of Atheism that is more anti-religious as opposed to speaking for 'all' Atheists. That required a bit of my 'reading into' what was being said, but I find my inference a bit more accurate.

Really? I watched it again, and I can't see where he's suggesting it is only the "anti-religious" atheists. What did he say that causes you to reach that conclusion?

And at the end, he says that "atheists by default have to be either amoral [...] or immoral." The use of "by default" implies, to me at least, that it applies to any atheist.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

But in that case is the base premise is not that atheists are not moral, its that God exists, and atheists are wrong.

Sorry, but I can't tell if that was a statement or a question. There seems to be a typo or I'm having difficulty understanding the part above.

I don't think it matters, as I've already stated, claiming that atheists have no morals is simply asserting that God exists and atheists are wrong. Your reasoning for saying you are moral, while I am not is based on the subjective premise that God exists. Its circular reasoning.

No. I believe you either didn't read my post correctly or I didn't articulate the thought well enough... And if you didn't catch it, I disagreed with some of the reasoning used in the video.

I wasn't saying that Atheists were not moral on a given topic - I said there is no unifying component between Atheists and morality. In fact, I even said that an Atheist could arrive at a moral conclusion, but the way it may have been arrived at was a variable.

Actually, it really doesn't matter. Unless you want to define Christians by a grocery list of morals.

Well, Christianity does have its teachings.
The person either can be seen as matching or appears to contradict it. To say that nobody can know what Christianity entails or that Christians are even left not knowing if they are walking in the righteousness established would be an assertion that doesn't account for the foundation set.

The concept that it has any objective impact on morality is unfounded.

While I'm here, can you objectively prove that you are moral, and I am not?

Umm... you might want to read my post again. This is more of that arguing something that wasn't in my post.

Peace

 

[JGG]

Sorry, but I can't tell if that was a statement or a question. There seems to be a typo or I'm having difficulty understanding the part above.

It is indeed a typo. Sorry. It should read:

But in that case the base premise is not that atheists are not moral, its that God exists, and atheists are wrong.

No. I believe you either didn't read my post correctly or I didn't articulate the thought well enough... And if you didn't catch it, I disagreed with some of the reasoning used in the video.

No, I caught that (thanks by the way).

I wasn't saying that Atheists were not moral on a given topic - I said there is no unifying component between Atheists and morality. In fact, I even said that an Atheist could arrive at a moral conclusion, but the way it may have been arrived at was a variable.

I understand your point, and it seems reasonable, but I still disagree. It assumes that morals don't all come from the same source. I contend that our morals are simply generalized social norms derived from each individual's desire for self-preservation.

Well, Christianity does have its teachings.

True, but considering various schisms (not to mention Fred Phelps and the KKK) they are hardly unifying, are they? Taking that into consideration, how do we decide which sect of Christianity has "true morality" and which do not?

To say that nobody can know what Christianity entails or that Christians are even left not knowing if they are walking in the righteousness established would be an assertion that doesn't account for the foundation set.

Maybe, but nobody can truly say that they know what that foundation really is. You can claim that you do, but its reasonable to assume that ol' Phelpsy is gonna disagree with you. Your morals are both derived from the same book, but would ultimately be at odds with each other.

(Exodus 21:15) He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

(Exodus 21:17) He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Do you believe that a child who shows disrespect to his parents should be stoned to death?

 

[Bodhitharta]

First off, thanks for at least using videos that are of a reasonable length.

Regarding the first video, my acceptance of evolution plays no part at all in how I derive my morality, so I don't really see the link between the two.

In the second one, right of the bat you are not giving an accurate portrayal of how atheists generally define and adopt their morals. You also conflate morality with biblical teachings of right and wrong. You use homosexuality as an example because that is an issue where we generally disagree, and go on to say that because we don't consider homosexuality to be immoral, we cannot have morals. But consider something like murder. I consider that immoral, just as you do. But I have not based that judgment on the teachings of the Bible. So clearly, an atheist can have morals, and is not, as you suggest, either amoral or immoral. If I believe unlawful killing is morally wrong, am I amoral or immoral?

Believing that killing is wrong is not necessarily a Moral belief because sometimes killing is the morally right thing to do. Oppression and mischief is worse than killing.

 

[Bodhitharta]

It is not too terribly bad for a first draft.
But the speaker could use a brother acting as the devil's advocate. There are a few areas where the speaker makes some simple mistakes and other spots where the premise or argument is just left hanging there for a predictable Atheism response.
Shoring those weak points up would help the intended purpose of the video, IMO.

BTW - the usernames there and here are the same.
Am I to assume that this CF username is the same person as the speaker in the video?

Yes, It is me in the video.

 

[JGG]

Believing that killing is wrong is not necessarily a Moral belief because sometimes killing is the morally right thing to do. Oppression and mischief is worse than killing.

Okay. For instance, when would it be the morally right thing to kill someone?

 

[Bodhitharta]

It would help immensely if we could:

(1) Objectively differentiate between social and communal agreements and morality. (Right now, the only thing that seems to separate them is the phrase "`cause God says so.")

(2) Objectively define morality.

(3) Objectively measure morality.

Cause God says so, is what makes something moral or not.

Just like when you are young and live with your parents their rules reign supreme.

 

[Skaloop]

Believing that killing is wrong is not necessarily a Moral belief because sometimes killing is the morally right thing to do.

Of course. But I said murder, not killing.

Oppression and mischief is worse than killing.

Oppression, maybe. But mischief?

 

[JGG]

Cause God says so, is what makes something moral or not.

Just like when you are young and live with your parents their rules reign supreme.

So stoning children who curse at their parents is completely moral, right? In fact, it would be immoral not to do so.

 

[Bodhitharta]

Okay. For instance, when would it be the morally right thing to kill someone?

Like in the case of Sadaam Hussein or anyone who exerts oppression on the people.

Any member of any terrorist organization that commits a crime against the innocent this includes homegrown terrorist as well.

 

[JGG]

Like in the case of Sadaam Hussein or anyone who exerts oppression on the people.

Any member of any terrorist organization that commits a crime against the innocent this includes homegrown terrorist as well.

So, why is that moral?