Do atheists believe in objective morality?

[SonOfTheWest]

Objection to objective rules makes for boundless borders even to say your structured reasoning for living!

Yeah because that's clearer.......

 

[allhart]

Yeah because that's clearer.......

I know none of it makes any sense to me either in essence lol. If we don't have any moral frame work to bound morality....indirectly pushing meaningful substance out the window puts in jeopardy our meaning to exist!

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I know none of it makes any sense to me either in essence lol. If we don't have any moral frame work to bound morality....indirectly pushing meaningful substance out the window puts in jeopardy our meaning to exist!

If you are meaning what I think you do. I find the idea laughable. Human beings create meaning for their lives all the time.

 

[allhart]

If you are meaning what I think you do. I find the idea laughable. Human beings create meaning for their lives all the time.

When people put stalk into life at the moment to what end and about the meaning to its end? Is it the pay check or for the good of society?
Prospectively we live in America about 75 yrs.....Which if numbered is 27375 day ,now minus your days lived to how many you have left, but not guaranteed. In this life all we have is death to look forward to, but the good news is God offers us life!

 

[sandwiches]

When people put stalk into life at the moment to what end and about the meaning to its end? Is it the pay check or for the good of society?
Prospectively we live in America about 75 yrs.....Which if numbered is 27375 day ,now minus your days lived to how many you have left, but not guaranteed. In this life all we have is death to look forward to, but the good news is God offers us life!

I'm not a child. I don't need a treat or reward to do good in my lifetime. I do good because that's the right thing to do.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Objection to objective rules makes for boundless borders even to say your structured reasoning for living!

While there is some truth to what you say here, it's not fully true.

It is enough to have some idea of a good (or ultimate ethical purpose) that one is trying to accomplish. If someone rejects the idea of objective rules, they may still come to accept the idea of useful means, which are human constructed rules designed to achieve that good. Those rules might not be "objective" in the sense of being chiselled in stone for all time, but are useful in some modern context for achieving good results.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

There is absolute truths...

There are some "truths" that one might call "absolute" or "objective". But these "truth" are mostly systematic statements in logic or mathematics. There are no such objective truths in rules or morals.

... and by u not being able to discern moral objective truth in the Bible is perplexing and concerning to say the least.

Your inability to discern the subjectivity of the Bible is perplexing and concerning. Your evasions to questions and insistence on claims as evidence on the other hand is insulting!

In the last time, I have tried hard not to resort to such mirror tactics, but perhaps you will see the flaw in your position (the beam in your eye) in this way.
If you are perplexed that I don´t see your truth.... EXPLAIN IT TO ME! If you cannot explain it... FIND A WAY TO EXPLAIN IT! If you absolutely cannot find a way to explain it... ACCEPT THAT YOU MIGHT BE WRONG!

An example of an objective truth: the sum of angles in a plane triangle is always half of a full circle (180°). If you don´t see that, I can show that to you... prove it without a doubt. (Though I´d have to do some little drawing for that. Geometry is a lot less fun without graphics.)

You can chose to believe anything your heart desires but it doesn't make it true.

Sometimes it doesn´t, as in my triangle example. Sometimes it does, for example when I state "Chocolade icecream is the best!"

This is my view. But now let´s take a look at yours. If you really believe that "chosing to believe anything your heart desires doesn´t make it true"... then how do you explain your "objective truth"? Why - rational, objective reasons please! - did you chose to believe the Bible instead of the Qu'ran or "Mein Kampf"? Why do you think your choice means your made the right choice?

Objection to objective rules makes for boundless borders even to say your structured reasoning for living!

That is demonstrably incorrect. I already gave an example when I started to write a sentence in German. (Which you ignored, to my dismay.)
There are subjective rules, like "Chocolade icecream is best!" It may be for me... and you might hate it.
There are intersubjective rules, like languages or traffic rules or law systems or sports... in fact 99% of what governs human life.
And then there are objective rules, which are limited to very specific topics, like mathematics.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Perhaps the best way to explain the non-objective nature of moralities is to compare it with language:

language is an intersubjective construct, just like morality - and just as there is no One True Language etched in stone for all time, there is no One True Morality.
There is nothing in the sounds or the shape of the letters forming the word "dog" that points to the canine animal. The only reason why we associate one with the other is because the vast community of English-speakers uses this word to communicate this concept. They might just as well have used the word "koira", or "Hund", "canis" or "kutya" - none of them is objectively linked to the animal; only our agreement to call it thus in each of these languages establishes this link.
That doesn't render languages as such random and unpredictable - far from it. They *must* be relatively predictable in order to make meaningful interaction possible. If I suddenly decided that I'd from now on call dogs "phites" - no one would understand me without further explanations.

Now, moralities, like languages, are intersubjective cultural constructs. There is nothing inherently immoral about exposed female breasts, for example - in themselves, they are just as neutral as an exposed female nose or exposed female hair (both of which are just as tabooized by some cultures as the aforementioned breasts). It is a culture's common agreement that attaches a moral dimension to that.

Of course, there still is a measuring stick for both languages and moralities: meaningful and productive interaction must be possible.

 

[tanzanos]

The worlds most moral society used to be the animistic San tribe of the Kalahari. These people never committed murder, rape, never stole and always shared what they had. When the white man arrived they used to issue a licence to hunt them as animals. This was a popular weekend pastime. The San had no idea of Christianity yet they were more moral than the best of us! Let us in humbleness learn from such societies.
Also Scientific Adam was from a tribe directly related to the San. We all owe our very existence to these people.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Just a little detour: aren't we all, by definition, directly related to the "Scientific (or is that genetic?) Adam"?
The term implies that he's a common ancestor of pretty much every human alive today.

 

[tanzanos]

Just a little detour: aren't we all, by definition, directly related to the "Scientific (or is that genetic?) Adam"?
The term implies that he's a common ancestor of pretty much every human alive today.

Actually he is the common ancestor of all humans alive today. When one thinks how his tribe managed to survive against all odds then I have nothing but gratitude to these relatives of ours.

Until they came into the corrupting influence of the outside world; The San societies were very balanced and moral.

Somehow all this reminds me of the song by the Eagles called "The last resort". How true those words ring every time I listen to the song.

 

[allhart]

While there is some truth to what you say here, it's not fully true.

It is enough to have some idea of a good (or ultimate ethical purpose) that one is trying to accomplish. If someone rejects the idea of objective rules, they may still come to accept the idea of useful means, which are human constructed rules designed to achieve that good. Those rules might not be "objective" in the sense of being chiselled in stone for all time, but are useful in some modern context for achieving good results.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your destiny? Where are you headed? Your meaning? If morality is meaningless then why do we talk of good and evil? What is pain, emotional pain?

I want to make this clear "EVIL" is always raised and asked by a person about a person?

 

[sandwiches]

Your destiny? Where are you headed? Your meaning? If morality is meaningless then why do we talk of good and evil? What is pain, emotional pain?

I want to make this clear "EVIL" is always raised and asked by a person about a person?

I'm not sure if English is not your first language but I have to say that I have a really hard time understanding you. I'm sorry. =\

 

[allhart]

I'm not sure if English is not your first language but I have to say that I have a really hard time understanding you. I'm sorry. =\

I am trying to get people to ask themselves, what is their destiny and what does their life mean? In the end is it your job that defines you? What is it that is important to you at the end of life and did you invest your life or use up your God given ability! (or did they go out and party it all away) See here is some examples: I have invested my man hood into my wife and the gift of strength to enhance the kingdom of heaven! (ever lasting life) Furthermore I don't just do something when it is only self beneficial. I work to live, but for the good of the people a broad and above!

 

[sandwiches]

I am trying to get people to ask themselves, what is their destiny and what does their life mean? In the end is it your job that defines you? What is it that is important to you at the end of life and did you invest your life or use up your God given ability! (or did they go out and party it all away) See here is some examples: I have invested my man hood into my wife and the gift of strength to enhance the kingdom of heaven! (ever lasting life) Furthermore I don't just do something when it is only self beneficial. I work to live, but for the good of the people a broad and above!

I can't speak for anyone else, but it matters to me the most that I live a happy life, make others happy, and hurt the least amount of people on the way. That's all.

So, I do basically what many theists people think or claim you can only do with their religion.

 

[allhart]

I can't speak for anyone else, but it matters to me the most that I live a happy life, make others happy, and hurt the least amount of people on the way. That's all.

So, I do basically what many theists people think or claim you can only do with their religion.

I couldn't imagine going through life of 27375 days to that end have it all be for nothing. To only die!

 

[Mling]

I couldn't imagine going through life of 27375 days to that end have it all be for nothing. To only die!

Why must it be for nothing? Make it be for something.

But whatever happens after death--it happens. It doesn't depend on whether you like it or not. The comfort an idea brings has no influence on whether it's true or not.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I couldn't imagine going through life of 27375 days to that end have it all be for nothing. To only die!

What's so problematic about that? Would life be more meaningful if it was infinite?
I'd say that infinity is the great obliterator of all meaning - nothing could ever be meaningful if it's just an infinitesimal blink in a vast, endless ocean of time. A million years? Virtually nothing compared to infinity. No matter what vast timespan you imagine, compared to infinity is basically amounts to zero.

It's the present that gives meaning to life, building upon previous moments of significance. Is a flower less beautiful because it will fade? Is a novel less well-written because it will inevitably end?

I find the theists' obsession with death to be the result of too little reflection on the matter. But even if we were to conclude that dying is a fearsome prospect - don't you think that your discomfort does not automatically mean that there's an afterlife - especially one that looks just like a pleasant escapist fantasy for people who fear death?

What you wrote here is pretty similar to believing that because you cannot stand the thought of being poor, a large amount of money will miraculously appear in your bank account if you only trust in it.

 

[allhart]

Why must it be for nothing? Make it be for something.

But whatever happens after death--it happens. It doesn't depend on whether you like it or not. The comfort an idea brings has no influence on whether it's true or not.

Life is worthless if not measured, but measured to what end. In other words one's valued worth in destiny is ultimately vain with no new start. To every end there is a new start, but here again how do we make meaning stick to that end that has no new start?

I couldn't get through the day to day problems with out knowing there is a new start to one's end! Not knowing there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Why would we look to mathematical equations if there is no value in it, therefore ;why would we look to the meaning to life if it has no meaning to it, worth or value in it?? Why play out zero when it equals zero?

 

[FallenPaladin]

Why must it be for nothing? Make it be for something.

But whatever happens after death--it happens. It doesn't depend on whether you like it or not. The comfort an idea brings has no influence on whether it's true or not.

You are assuming ideas do not influence reality.

It has been said God's word influences reality. It might be possible for ideas to be more powerful than we think they are.