Atheist morality.

[bhsmte]

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?

If you believe no one group is more moral than another, than why do you seek for others to justify where they get their morality from? If no one is better than another, it would seem to be a moot point.

Stalin? Not unlike Hitler, the man had significant psychological issues and people with those problems, come in all shapes and sizes, believers and non-believers.

 

[Cute Tink]

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?

You have been presented with justifications. You rejected them, because you have labeled them "arbitrary", which is an implication that we are less moral.

And then you ask why we are "more moral" than Stalin. I answered. Why are you more moral than Stalin? You are, after all, adopting the morals as dictated by someone who supposedly killed far, far more people and creatures than Stalin...

 

[Chany]

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

But Gadarene, God is good.

They are one in the same.

Because that solves things like "why is the good what the good is" and "why is God synonymous with God".

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

So if I proclaim myself as "Good" (even though you might disagree) does that justify my claim of morality to you?

Ken

 

[quatona]

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?

Yes, you are missing a couple of things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

Your first mistake is thinking that there is such a thing as "atheist morality" or even "atheist anything".

Atheism is just a word to describe a person's stance on theistic claims.
It only tells you what people do NOT believe.

It doesn't tell you anything else. Not what they do believe and not what moral standards they adhere to.

You'll have to ask individual atheists to know their stance on it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem I see, is that atheists have no real justification for believing any act to be more or less moral than any other act.

This is such a cliché that's been dismantled so many times that I wonder why people still repeat it.

Richard Dawkins expressed it when he stated that the idea that rape is wrong is just as arbitrary as evolving with 5 fingers instead of 6. Which, according to atheist philosophy, makes every moral view equally arbitrary.

1. argument from authority
2. dawkins is just a dude, he doesn't represent anyone
3. there's no such thing as "atheist philosophy".


Morality is a very complex subject. And those who claim that morality only exists within a theistic framework have no clue what morality is. In such a worldview, morality is no more or less then "obedience to a perceived authority", which frankly is the type of morality that psychopaths adhere to.

To summarize it in very simplistic terms, morality is the result of
- empathy
- understanding the consequences of actions
- balancing the pro's and cons of certain types of behaviour
- starting from the position that well-being of sentient beings is good and suffering of sentient beings is bad

Following "the rules" because you feel you are commanded to by a perceived authority is not moral. That's just being obedient.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But that's the whole point, that's exactly the problem. Atheism allows *anything* to be moral.

Atheism doesn't allow or disallow anything at all. Because atheism is ONLY the rejection of theistic claims. It's not the acceptance of something else.

Whatever an atheist's moral convictions are, will by defenition not be derived from that person's atheism.

I'll go a step further... Your theism doesn't define your morality either. Because you don't think slavery is acceptable - eventhough your old testament deity clearly had no problems with it.

Your morals are bigger then your religion. Your morality is superior then the morality of the deity you worship.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As they don't believe in God, no, atheists don't get their morals from the same place. Also, I'm not talking about simply having morals, or about having similar morals. I'm talking about *justifying* one's morals.

I can give a reasoned explanation for every moral value I hold.

Going by what you are writing here, your answer to questions like "why is x moral?" will be "because god said so".

Which is the opposite of a justification. It's also the opposite of morality. It's just obedience to a perceived authority.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

It's very rude to ask a question and then provide the answer yourself through assumption.

Anyhow, harming others is bad because it decreases the overall well-being. We humans are social creatures who depend on the rest of society to prosper ourselves (both in terms of health as in terms of *things* and hapiness). The higher overall well-being of individuals, the higher the total sum of well-being of society. The higher the total sum of well-being of society, the more we can all prosper and shoot for hapiness and *things*.

In a very real sense, my hapiness and well-being is dependend on YOUR hapiness and well-being. It's not rocket science.

I'm talking about coherent philosophies here. In Christian philosophy God, by definition, is good

Is he, really?
Then why doesn't he have any problems with enslaving young virgin girls as spoils of war? Why doesn't he have any problems with slavery in general? Why does he command to stone people to death (which is a reprehensible, barbaric and immoral punishment for ANYONE - no matter their crime).

Do YOU think slavery is morally not a problem?
If you do, then you are morally bankrupt.
If you don't, then your morality is superior to this god you arbitrarily define as "good".

Either way, under "divine command theory", you loose.

Atheist philosophy is incoherent in regards to morals, as you've already clearly demonstrated.

Atheism is a single position on a single issue. It has nothing to do with ethics and everything with a rejection of theistic claims.

It can't be incoherent OR coherent because it simply doesn't deal with the subject.

Your argument is as void as saying that "wearing a blue T-shirt doesn't tell you if murder is wrong". It's completely senseless.

What this is, in fact, is nothing more or less then an attack on those who aren't part of your little religious club. It's about dehumanizing / demonizing atheists. Nothing more.

It's ridiculous.

 

[quatona]

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 not seeing how that is a problem particular to atheists - unless you are positing that an appeal to an undemonstrable authority is a justification of sorts.

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

So, if by some other philosophy, God *is* evil, it would, by definition, not be arbitrary and therefore not require any further justification?
Is that the way philosophical justification works, in your book?

 

[KCfromNC]

I see.

"Harming others is wrong."

- "But WHY is harming others wrong?"

If you really can't think of a reason outside of "my god says so" that harming others is wrong, please keep believing.

 

[Nithavela]

Nobody scares me more than those who say that if not for their God, they would commit every atrocity imaginable, and only their faith is barely holding them back.

 

[KCfromNC]

One of the most misleading statistics ever.

If you actually knew this, you wouldn't have to ask others to explain how misleading they are. Try again.

 

[KCfromNC]

You have been presented with justifications. You rejected them, because you have labeled them "arbitrary", which is an implication that we are less moral.

This whole tangent is a giant game of moving the goalposts. What we'll eventually come to is that the claim is that atheists don't use god to justify their morals. Which is hardly surprising to anyone who knows what the word means, but is also apparently terrifying to anyone who confuses unquestioning obedience to people who claim to talk to god with morality.

 

[keith99]

If you believe no one group is more moral than another, than why do you seek for others to justify where they get their morality from? If no one is better than another, it would seem to be a mute point.

Stalin? Not unlike Hitler, the man had significant psychological issues and people with those problems, come in all shapes and sizes, believers and non-believers.

Moot, not mute.

 

[keith99]

Nobody scares me more than those who say that if not for their God, they would commit every atrocity imaginable, and only their faith is barely holding them back.

I don't know which scares me more there, that they might lose their faith or the a new revelation will tell them to kill.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nobody scares me more than those who say that if not for their God, they would commit every atrocity imaginable, and only their faith is barely holding them back.

No kidding.

 

[Strathos]

Humans are inherently flawed and prone to immorality regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. So we just have to try our best.

 

[JGG]

Humans are inherently flawed and prone to immorality regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. So we just have to try our best.

No, but atheists are less moral because (reason that cannot be refuted by anyone; to be inserted later)!