Atheist morality.

[BuffaloJack]

I see you don't care. Feel free to live in ignorance. Someone interested in truth might actually ask instead of assuming they already know better.

What? All you did is state your opinion that you disagree. I'm looking for actual justification. Can you back up what you say?

This is what I see often from atheists on this subject. You press them for actual justification, and they just start attacking.

 

[Cute Tink]

What? All you did is state your opinion that you disagree. I'm looking for actual justification. Can you back up what you say?

This is what I see often from atheists on this subject. You press them for actual justification, and they just start attacking.

Considering that I wasn't challenging anything other than an unjustified opinion I didn't feel the need to elaborate.

I base much of my morality on the concept of harm vs help. If something harms an unwilling party then I tend to believe that it is wrong. If something helps another party then I generally believe it is right.

I also have a gut response to certain actions. If something just feels wrong then I wouldn't do it and probably won't agree with it either.

This is how I usually respond to posts that ask questions instead of those that make unwarranted assumptions about me.

 

[Chany]

I never claimed atheists have no use for morals. I claimed they can't really justify the idea that any act is more or less moral than any other act.


By Christian philosophy, God *is* good, so it would, by definition, not be arbitrary.

One act causes more well-being than another act. Which act is more moral?

Why is God good? Do you mean good as in "morally good"? If so, then were does God get his morals from? Do you mean good is "the good"? Why is God the objective? What makes the objective "God" good?

 

[BuffaloJack]

Considering that I wasn't challenging anything other than an unjustified opinion

How was it "unjustified"? I gave you the justification. By atheist philosophy, your morals arose completely by random accident (evolution), making them, by definition, arbitrary.

I base much of my morality on the concept of harm vs help. If something harms an unwilling party then I tend to believe that it is wrong. If something helps another party then I generally believe it is right.

Sure, but I'm asking you to justify that. WHY is helping "right"? WHY is harming "wrong"? Some atheists, like Stalin, for example, had no problem harming whomever stood in his way. Why is he wrong and you right?

 

[BuffaloJack]

One act causes more well-being than another act. Which act is more moral?

But why is this supposed "well-being" the moral thing to do?

Why is God good? Do you mean good as in "morally good"? If so, then were does God get his morals from? Do you mean good is "the good"? Why is God the objective? What makes the objective "God" good?

God *is* good. I'm not saying He has good qualities, I'm not saying He does good things, I'm saying He *IS* good. Notice Jesus' comment, "no one is good but God." You err by thinking God and good are independent from each other.

 

[durangodawood]

How was it "unjustified"? I gave you the justification. By atheist philosophy, your morals arose completely by random accident (evolution), making them, by definition, arbitrary.

Evolution descibes a process thats neither random, nor accidental.

On the contrary, evolution is guided by fitness to the real conditions of living. And thats a perfect basis for morality.

 

[Cute Tink]

How was it "unjustified"? I gave you the justification. By atheist philosophy, your morals arose completely by random accident (evolution), making them, by definition, arbitrary.

It's unjustified because there is no "atheist philosophy" and your assumption that morals arose by accident is a misconception.

Morals differ between different societies. They develop according to the needs and beliefs of a culture. Generally speaking that which is seen to benefit society most and cause the least harm is considered moral by that society and vice versa.

How a society comes to those conclusions is not random, chance or accident.

I also consider it unjustified because it seems rather based in stereotypes and misunderstandings, not actual information or reasoning.

 

[BuffaloJack]

Evolution descibes a process that neither random, nor accidental.

On the contrary, evolution is guided by fitness to the real conditions of living. And thats a perfect basis for morality.

And where do evolutionary changes supposedly come from? Random, accidental mutations. *Arbitrary*

 

[Cute Tink]

Sure, but I'm asking you to justify that. WHY is helping "right"? WHY is harming "wrong"? Some atheists, like Stalin, for example, had no problem harming whomever stood in his way. Why is he wrong and you right?

Because foremost I believe that harming others is wrong. As I said, I get gut feelings that help me decide.

That is why I would say Stalin is wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

And where do evolutionary changes supposedly come from? Random, accidental mutations. *Arbitrary*

Changes that last (the results of evolution) are suited to the real conditions of living. Not arbitrary.

 

[Chany]

How was it "unjustified"? I gave you the justification. By atheist philosophy, your morals arose completely by random accident (evolution), making them, by definition, arbitrary.

Evolution is not random accident. The only random part of that is mutation, and even then I could argue for chaos theory to make it non-random. The fact that whatever biological makeup we have, including our ability to empathize and relate to others when they are hurt, is not random. It has stood against natural and sexual selection. It clearly serves a biological purpose and gave humans an edge.

Second, I would not consider the biological capability to empathy and the base behaviors that arise out of them morality. Morality is the system of right and wrongs brought out by logic and reason. Biology serves as a base, in that it provides the groundwork with which we work with. What makes us happy and what makes us sad is biological mechanisms. Morality is the study of what actions, events, pasts, and mixtures of these makes us happy and so on.

 

[Chany]

But why is this supposed "well-being" the moral thing to do?


God *is* good. I'm not saying He has good qualities, I'm not saying He does good things, I'm saying He *IS* good. Notice Jesus' comment, "no one is good but God." You err by thinking God and good are independent from each other.

First, as I will point out, there are some first principles that can never be logically proven.

Second, what other base really is there? Morality, as the end of the day, is what actions make sentient and/or sapient beings more well off and what makes them less well off.

To God, why are God and good one and the same? Good is a quality of something, it is not a being, whether physical or metaphysical. What makes the good the good?

 

[Cute Tink]

God *is* good. I'm not saying He has good qualities, I'm not saying He does good things, I'm saying He *IS* good. Notice Jesus' comment, "no one is good but God." You err by thinking God and good are independent from each other.

But WHY is God good? Saying he is good because he says he is, is not justification.

 

[Autumnleaf]

But WHY is God good? Saying he is good because he says he is, is not justification.

Its not about justification. Its about definition. Was Osama a terrorist or a freedom fighter or something else?

 

[loveofourlord]

Its not about justification. Its about definition. Was Osama a terrorist or a freedom fighter or something else?

Except defining something as something doesn't make it that.

Defining god as good, is no more a explanation for anything nor proving that he is. We still use value judgements, Jesus and the thing he did were good and helped the world, and he's god, I worship him because he's good by his actions.

I have problems with trying to define god as good, or as WLC I think it is uses, "God has to be good, or he wouldn't be worth worshipping." while I agree with this statement, that doesn't mean that the god WLC is good because he's worshiped, that doesn't logically follow.

Also How can something be good, by being the greatest being, good isn't a property, it's a value assigned to something by a outside force, not something intrinsicly good or bad. It's the actions, and the results of those actions that make something good or bad. When you make hardline statements about something being good or bad you hurt others, becuase it's no longer about humans and god, but rules and regulations.

As I've heard put and I like, "Your losing your humanity for the sake of your soul." and are betting on that your not losing your soul.

 

[stevevw]

It seems that societies concept of morals can be dictated by what is the acceptable thing to do. This can be influenced by things like political correctness. Legislation such as the right to not be discriminated on lifestyle or sexual preferences can sway how we allow certain things. Even things like censorship laws can have a bearing on things that are allowed or disallowed. So if sex or violence is allowed on our TVs and into our living rooms then this can have an effect. Sure you can switch off the media but it is not just that. By allowing this it then filters through everything and will affect peoples attitudes and behaviors. I would say these standards are a reflection of what society as a whole thinks is OK.

It seems as time has gone on we have become more daring and accepting. To me its like a small chipping away at certain standards that were once unacceptable and are now seen as OK. So like with sexual attitudes we can see that more provocative dress is acceptable now. We also see younger people dressing this way and we can see that we are allowing the young to act more adult like. This may have been based on the idea that we should treat them with more respect and allow them more freedoms or responsibility. Perhaps we may have thought they were more adult than they are. But now we begin to see that there is an increase in sexual activity of young. We have also seen perhaps an increase in sex in media and especially through the internet. I think the computer age and easy access to porn over the net has really made a big difference. There is perhaps increases in sexual perversion and especially with pedophilia.

To me all this can stem from a lack of clear moral guidance. Because we dont have any criteria as to what is acceptable and what is not it will always be the thin edge of the wedge and grow into allowing just about anything because we didn't have any guidance in the first place. So what can start out as peoples rights to express themselves can turn into allowing some things that will cross the line of what is acceptable. But we have to allow that because that is part of the freedoms we want to promote. People dont like being told what to do and they want the freedoms to do whatever. This has been a growing trend probably going back to the revolutions of the 60s. It also seems to be the same with drugs and the experimentation of mind altering chemicals to change our perception of things. I'm not sure where its heading but it seems to be a high cost we are paying for these so called freedoms.

 

[Nithavela]

It seems as time has gone on we have become more daring and accepting. To me its like a small chipping away at certain standards that were once unacceptable and are now seen as OK.

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the harlot, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

 

[Robban]

Someone was talking about this earlier and I brought up that the atheists I know seem to take a moral stand according to what is politically correct wherever they live. Am I missing something? Is there a moral standard around the world that atheists go by or is it true that their moral fiber is determined by prevailing political winds?

When did this "Pidgeon hole" society begin?

 

[KCfromNC]

But that's the whole point, that's exactly the problem. Atheism allows *anything* to be moral. Atheism allows *anything* to be immoral. It's up to your own atheist opinion to do whatever you want with no justification to judge the actions of anyone else as moral or immoral. That's the whole point of "arbitrary".

And yet somehow atheists are underrepresented in prison populations. Guess that they do a better job with their arbitrary morality than Christians do following their god's arbitrary morality.

All this theory about how maybe atheists might not make good moral choices is a wonderful game, but reality seems to trump it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I never claimed atheists have no use for morals. I claimed they can't really justify the idea that any act is more or less moral than any other act.

"I'm sure you think that. Thanks for sharing."

By Christian philosophy, God *is* good, so it would, by definition, not be arbitrary.

Defining god(s) to be good *is* arbitrary. You've giving up on trying to hold those god(s) to any standard other than "gods do what gods do".