Atheist morality.

[PsychoSarah]

I never said you can't have morals, and I never said you can't feel something is immoral. I said you can't justify it.

Sure we can, that justification just isn't based in a deity.

 

[Gadarene]

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

Nope. Natural selection contains random elements like mutation, but mutation is just a component and the process is not random.

 

[Gadarene]

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.

As in I can't simply define my standard as good and have that be my argument, like you did?

Yeah, you got me there, champ. Guess I'll have to go the path of intellectual honesty and integrity instead.

(Incidentally, I know I don't have to defend genocide under my 'arbitrary' moral system, but you keep telling yourself 'what god says' = good - all you have done is make the word 'good' meaningless)

'Minimise harm' might be subjective, but what is considered harmful to the majority of human beings is not. It is only people who are impressed by William Lane Craig levels of wibble that think describing a moral system as purely objective or subjective is reasonable. Moral systems tend to contain both elements in varying degrees.

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

Defining your god as good is the epitome of arbitrariness.

 

[Cute Tink]

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

That post was directed at someone who is expecting justification for my position and I don't see how it is inappropriate to expect the same thing in return.

If he demands justification then he should be ready to justify his position too.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Buffalo,

You see, we have this thing called; a conscious and everyone (believers and non-believers) have to deal with it everyday. We all also have a need to be accepted in society and acting immorally, has negative consequences on this. There is zero evidence, that Christians are any more moral than non-believers, because everyone has to work within their conscious and within society.

 

[Belk]

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.


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?

What atheist philosophy? Atheism is a position on a single question. It does not contain a philosophy or propose a system of ethics. An answer to a single question, that is it. All of the rest of your post is a position you have incorrectly associated with atheism. They are separate.

 

[BuffaloJack]

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.

I see.

"Harming others is wrong."

- "But WHY is harming others wrong?"

"Because I believe that harming others is wrong."



I think we're finished here. Thanks for sharing.

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

I'm talking about coherent philosophies here. In Christian philosophy God, by definition, is good. Atheist philosophy is incoherent in regards to morals, as you've already clearly demonstrated.

 

[Gadarene]

I'm talking about coherent philosophies here. In Christian philosophy God, by definition, is good. Atheist philosophy is incoherent in regards to morals, as you've already clearly demonstrated.

There is no one definitive "atheist philosophy" that applies to all atheists.

We aren't all Dawkinsites.

 

[Cute Tink]

I see.

"Harming others is wrong."

- "But WHY is harming others wrong?"

"Because I believe that harming others is wrong."



I think we're finished here. Thanks for sharing.


I'm talking about coherent philosophies here. In Christian philosophy God, by definition, is good. Atheist philosophy is incoherent in regards to morals, as you've already clearly demonstrated.

"God is good."

- "But WHY is God good?"

"Because I believe that God is good."



I think we're finished here. Thanks for sharing.

Side note, you are clearly buried deep into your prejudices and since you cannot see past them, you are correct, there is not point in discussing with you.

Also, I don't speak for this nonexistent "atheist philosophy" that you have built. I only speak for myself.

 

[BuffaloJack]

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

"The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the RANDOM variation generated by mutation."

"Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation." - no guided direction? *Arbitrary*

"In this respect, mutations are RANDOM—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be." (Direct contradiction of what you just said.)

"Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation, is not correct." - What's that? Directed mutations is "incorrect"? If there's no direction, it sounds an awful lot like random & arbitrary.

"In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful." (Again directly contradicting what you said.)

- All quotes from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

 

[durangodawood]

"The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the RANDOM variation generated by mutation."

"Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation." - no guided direction? *Arbitrary*

"In this respect, mutations are RANDOM—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be." (Direct contradiction of what you just said.)

"Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation, is not correct." - What's that? Directed mutations is "incorrect"? If there's no direction, it sounds an awful lot like random & arbitrary.

"In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful." (Again directly contradicting what you said.)

- All quotes from Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

Yes. There is randomness in the proliferation of genetic options.

But those options get selected based on their suitability to the real conditions of living. So, the "final word" in the process is essentially NOT random.

 

[PsychoSarah]

"The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the RANDOM variation generated by mutation."

"Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation." - no guided direction? *Arbitrary*

"In this respect, mutations are RANDOM—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be." (Direct contradiction of what you just said.)

"Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation, is not correct." - What's that? Directed mutations is "incorrect"? If there's no direction, it sounds an awful lot like random & arbitrary.

"In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful." (Again directly contradicting what you said.)

- All quotes from Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

I applaud your use of unbiased sources and clear general knowledge of evolution

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes. There is randomness in the proliferation of genetic options.

But those options get selected based on their suitability to the real conditions of living. So, the "final word" in the process is essentially NOT random.

Yes and no, it is ability to reproduce more than anything else that is the deciding factor.

 

[BuffaloJack]

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.

One of the most misleading statistics ever. I'm not surprised you'd try and use it.

First, of those surveyed, how many were Christians before going into prison, as opposed to converting after already being incarcerated?

Second, of those claiming to be Christians, how many were ACTUALLY Christians, and not just claiming it? How many actually lived their lives according to Christian principle, as opposed to having their parents take them to a church once when they were six years old? If they claimed to be pink elephants, would you now be arguing that there are too many pink elephants in our prisons?

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

I never said anything about not being able to make moral choices. I asked about justifying their morals. And phony statistics are hardly "reality".

 

[bhsmte]

One of the most misleading statistics ever. I'm not surprised you'd try and use it.

First, of those surveyed, how many were Christians before going into prison, as opposed to converting after already being incarcerated?

Second, of those claiming to be Christians, how many were ACTUALLY Christians, and not just claiming it? How many actually lived their lives according to Christian principle, as opposed to having their parents take them to a church once when they were six years old? If they claimed to be pink elephants, would you now be arguing that there are too many pink elephants in our prisons?


I never said anything about not being able to make moral choices. I asked about justifying their morals. And phony statistics are hardly "reality".

Who would you define as a "real Christian"?

 

[BuffaloJack]

Sure we can, that justification just isn't based in a deity.

Well, that's what you guys keep claiming. Yet, such justification has yet to be presented.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, that's what you guys keep claiming. Yet, such justification has yet to be presented.

How about humans are group animals? Humans don't do so good attempting to survive by themselves, thus we have natural inborn tendencies to do stuff which allows us to live within groups successfully.

That very broad natural tendencies towards moral behavior (or at least, the understanding of what is and isn't moral) is further shaped by our experiences.

 

[BuffaloJack]

Buffalo,

You see, we have this thing called; a conscious and everyone (believers and non-believers) have to deal with it everyday. We all also have a need to be accepted in society and acting immorally, has negative consequences on this. There is zero evidence, that Christians are any more moral than non-believers, because everyone has to work within their conscious and within society.

I never claimed anyone is more moral than anyone else. I said you can't justify your morals. Your justification here is simply "the conscious" [sic], so the justification of morality is just what someone feels. So, again, Stalin felt there was nothing wrong with slaughtering whoever stood in his way. Why are your feelings more moral than his feelings?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, that's what you guys keep claiming. Yet, such justification has yet to be presented.

I already did.

We all have to live within our conscious and we all have to live within society to survive. There is your justification, survival and being able to live a good life.

Both atheists and Christians, are capable of moral behavior and immoral behavior.

 

[Gadarene]

Still waiting to hear how "muh skydaddy done said he's good therefore he's good" ISN'T an utterly arbitrary moral basis.