Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[Astrid]

So why did you mention the human living by means of his ability to think, as a moral fact, when it has nothing to do with morality?

What did I deny?

Your first point and your second point appear to have nothing to do with each other. You lost me on that one bro.

Maybe we just see his poorly expressed post differently.

Moral facts are of course about how morality relates to reality.
Thinking is required in making moral decisions...


One thing you for sure got wrong, I'm nobody's "bro".

 

[Astrid]

I see, different definition of moral facts. I had thought that you meant something that ought to be done. Thank you for explaining.

Try looking up what moral facts are.

 

[durangodawood]

No one has a backstop aside from their own best conscience.

Even Christians decide to submit to the morals outlined in the Bible, and that decision is revocable. The deciding conscience sits in the highest seat.

So... do Christians have any ethical or moral backstops?

 

[Larniavc]

What they can not explain is why its in them.

Silly goose; it’s well known why ‘it’ is in them. Empathy is an evolved mechanism that is part of being a successful species.

Many animals display empathy. It’s nothing mysterious.

Crack open any basic psychology text book.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Try looking up what moral facts are.

I have. What exactly are you expecting me to find?

 

[Larniavc]

If you don't know what a moral and ethical backstop is, you might find it difficult to participate in this thread.

The point seems to be that you are unable to define the moral backstop you question whether atheist’s possess.

Very much like asking if atheists have a frontdown.

 

[Astrid]

I have. What exactly are you expecting me to find?

Did you find there are different defi itions?

 

[Abaxvahl]

You might find that there are not " different definitions "

The person I was responding to defined it as "a fact relevant to man's life," which differs from the other definitions I found. This alone proves there are multiple definitions, which is why I said what I said in response.

 

[Astrid]

The person I was responding to defined it as "a fact relevant to man's life," which differs from the other definitions I found. This alone proves there are multiple definitions, which is why I said what I said in response.

Oh? Could you provide one that is different other than
in choice of words to say the same thing?

 

[Abaxvahl]

Oh? Could you provide one that is different other than
in choice of words to say the same thing?

Two were given above, a fact relevant to man's life/survival (which is I took from his defining it, more like the facts of a recipe to make a specific cake, if you want to do it certain things have to be done, he calls this a moral fact), and then the definition I referenced but will quote in full "a descriptive moral judgment that is true for all individuals" which describes "an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior."

I do not think either of these definitions are saying the same thing.

 

[Astrid]

Two were given above, a fact relevant to man's life/survival (which is I took from his defining it, more like the facts of a recipe to make a specific cake, if you want to do it certain things have to be done, he calls this a moral fact), and then the definition I referenced but will quote in full "a descriptive moral judgment that is true for all individuals" which describes "an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior."

I do not think either of these definitions are saying the same thing.

You might check to see if he was referring to something so trite
as baking a cake.

Could you condense "moral fact" to a one line definition?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

All you can do? Surely you have the capacity to admit that
thousands of cultures around the world existed at the time
in question, and you simply made it up that only the Jews
were down on child abuse.

Citing wiki and "a friend" only underlines the obvious
falsity of your claim.

Atheists-
You did not refer to some tiny group of people who happen to
be atheists, "philosophers, scientism(ists)?"
You spoke of atheists, again as with world cultures, taking a
tiny slice and pretending it's the whole.
Some of us call that negative stereotyping, and find it to
be a moral fact that it's wrong, immoral.

I don't think the Bible even addresses child abuse. Does it?

The claim that Christianity made child abuse " disliked"
rings hollow, for one, I dont think Jews are Christians,
for another, you again make the claim that all other
cultures thought it was ok..

Now you are tossing in " secular" people worldwide yet more
people to malign.


What Chridtian values you are promoting with such
calumny and falsehood is not clear to me. Perhaps you can explain.

Why is wiki not accepted?

I admit I do not know Confucius outlook... just trying to give an opinion.

I find that a lot of atheists follow scientism.

According to the Bible the people in the last days will be secular and some idolaters. And they will invade and trample the holy land and set up the abomination that causes desolation in the holy of holies in the temple. They will be wicked. There will be a new Jezebel...

 

[Astrid]

Two were given above, a fact relevant to man's life/survival (which is I took from his defining it, more like the facts of a recipe to make a specific cake, if you want to do it certain things have to be done, he calls this a moral fact), and then the definition I referenced but will quote in full "a descriptive moral judgment that is true for all individuals" which describes "an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior."

I do not think either of these definitions are saying the same thing.

You might like this article. What are Moral Facts?

Note where it says something about linking morality to reality.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I find that a lot of atheists follow scientism.

I don't find that at all.

 

[Astrid]

Why is wiki not accepted?

I admit I do not know Confucius outlook... just trying to give an opinion.

I find that a lot of atheists follow scientism.

According to the Bible the people in the last days will be secular and some idolaters. And they will invade and trample the holy land and set up the abomination that causes desolation in the holy of holies in the temple. They will be wicked. There will be a new Jezebel...

Nothing wrong with wiki. The fault is in generalizing from
a very limited range of observations to a sweeping statement about
all cultures. Like what you do for atheists and "secularusts"
Negative stereotyping is a nice example to bring up in
the understanding of moral facts.
It is obviously and objectively a cmoral wrong.

If you are offering OPINIONS, do not state then as facts.

"Scientism" is for dimwits. I've my doubts you ever found
anyone so afflicted. To suggest it is in any way typical or characteridtic
of atheists is just heaping calumny, yet again.

t see yiu continue the claim that "secular " people are
into child abuse and now double down to the effect that
we are minions of Satan.


Please note that nobody improves their moral
stance by bearing false witness against others.

Your paradigms on morality and the accuracy of the Bible
are built on sand.

 

[Abaxvahl]

You might like this article. What are Moral Facts?

Note where it says something about linking morality to reality.

I did like the article, it was an interesting read. I disagreed with some things (for example pain being intrinsically bad) and agreed with other things (his examples of moral truths for instance). Thank you for sharing it.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Could you condense "moral fact" to a one line definition?

Not sure how it could get more summarized than what was given, but I'll attempt "a descriptive moral judgment on what is a good or bad knowing choice that is true for all human persons always." Like "breaking the Sabbath is bad" or "praying always is good."

 

[Astrid]

Not sure how it could get more summarized than what was given, but I'll attempt "a descriptive moral judgment on what is a good or bad knowing choice that is true for all human persons always." Like "breaking the Sabbath is bad" or "praying always is good."

Hmm.

Your examples are not valid. There's no objective
basis. It is a subjective opinion that they apply to anyone.

On the "pain is bad' btw, the reasonable person would
recognize that it is a waste of words to go into how
a little pain warns of danger, quote " no pain no gain",
describe how extreme pain is no fun and quite distracting.

Some of the ten commanents reflect moral facts.
Theft, lies, murder, say.

And reasonable people recognize that moral facts are not
moral absolutes.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Hmm.

Your examples are not valid. There's no objective
basis. It is a subjective opinion that they apply to anyone.

On the "pain is bad' btw, the reasonable person would
recognize that it is a waste of words to go into how
a little pain warns of danger, quote " no pain no gain",
describe how extreme pain is no fun and quite distracting.

Some of the ten commanents reflect moral facts.
Theft, lies, murder, say.

And reasonable people recognize that moral facts are not
moral absolutes.

Whether they apply to all or not just returns to the whole thing of whether or not Christianity is true for me.

With pain that is not my point, I simply think any existence is good, so there is no such thing as "bad just for existing" as the article you linked said. Nothing whatsoever is bad just for existing.

I agree that moral facts are not moral absolutes.

 

[Astrid]

Whether they apply to all or not just returns to the whole thing of whether or not Christianity is true for me.

With pain that is not my point, I simply think any existence is good, so there is no such thing as "bad just for existing" as the article you linked said. Nothing whatsoever is bad just for existing.

I agree that moral facts are not moral absolutes.

"True for you" is not exactly a universal.