Morality

[-V-]

How do you explain the long queue of people telling you that you are wrong about what atheists think?

"Long queue"?? Are you actually trying to be serious? it's the same FEW atheists over and over. You can't have a valid argument if it rests on distorting the truth.

Further, their mere say-so isn't a valid argument.

There is no atheist frame work.

Yes there is. That framework is "there is no god" and any necessary conclusions from that premise.

 

[Khalliqa]

Exactly - you don't know what is good or bad within an atheist framework. That's my whole point. Thanks for your support.

Because there is no such thing as an atheist framework, and the thinking that leads you to cherry pick statements for comfort within a faulty conclusion has, unfortunately, also led you to a point devoid of understanding atheism as well as how a society and the individuals within that society develop their sense of morality.



I wish for you better understanding in the future..

 

[-V-]

Because there is no such thing as an atheist framework,

Yes there is - the belief there is no god and any necessary conclusions from that premise.

The thinking that there isn't leads you to a faulty conclusion and a point devoid of understanding.

I wish for your better understanding in the future.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why exactly is a citation needed?

Because I see no reason to think that god(s) are the only possibility for objective morality - or if they're even one to begin with.

Or I could list a number of Christian philosophers that agree as well. But then I might be accused of appealing to authority.

Premise 1: If man is the ultimate authority, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Man is the ultimate authority.
Conclusion: Objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Not sure what this has to do with demonstrating anything about gods being the only possible source of objective morality. If we accept your premises you've ruled out men but that still leaves, to a first order approximation, 100% of the known universe left.

 

[durangodawood]

....Yes there is. That framework is "there is no god" and any necessary conclusions from that premise.

'I dont believe in gods' is more like a single point of reference rather than a "framework".

You have to add in a lot of other beliefs to construct a genuine framework.

 

[KCfromNC]

What I am asserting is that VIA a worldview of atheism, that morality is not objective. Objective in this context would mean that the morality of action X is not determined by opinion, feeling, belief, or even mass consensus.

Including the opinion of a god? Because with that the conclusion would seem to be a bit more universal than just relating to atheist worldviews.

 

[-V-]

'I dont believe in gods' is more like a single point of reference rather than a "framework".

You have to add in a lot of other beliefs to construct a genuine frameowrk.

The only beliefs added are those that are necessary conclusions.

A simple example - can an atheist accept that Jesus is God? No, because in atheism, there are no gods. An atheist would have to believe gods exist in order to believe Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus not being God is a necessary conclusion of atheism, and is part of the atheist framework.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, that doesn't work with atheism.

Atheism can NOT simply "define something" as the objective moral standard.

Why not? You've said believers get to do it when they define god(s) as an objective moral standard. Seems only fair to extend the same courtesy to non-believers.

One clear example - God. If an atheist attempts to define God as the moral standard, they have abandoned atheism.

Yes, an atheist wouldn't expect gods to do anything. Do any of them actually do so?

And you have not yet provided such a standard.

I can pick anything I want and I'd be just as justified as your previous example of believers arbitrarily defining what they think their god wants as moral. So I pick a grasshopper I saw a few days ago before the weather got cold here. I just have to believe I know what it wants and that what it wants is moral and it is as justified as the example you gave for gods.

 

[KCfromNC]

Are you sure that you do not believe God does NOT exist

Which epistemological standard should we use? And can you rephrase this without the double-negative?

 

[KCfromNC]

That framework is "there is no god" and any necessary conclusions from that premise.

That's compatible with being an atheist but not diagnostic.

 

[KCfromNC]

The only beliefs added are those that are necessary conclusions.

A simple example - can an atheist accept that Jesus is God? No, because in atheism, there are no gods. An atheist would have to believe gods exist in order to believe Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus not being God is a necessary conclusion of atheism, and is part of the atheist framework.

You're switching between belief and ontology here. Is that intentional?

 

[Larniavc]

"Long queue"?? Are you actually trying to be serious? it's the same FEW atheists over and over. You can't have a valid argument if it rests on distorting the truth.

Further, their mere say-so isn't a valid argument.

Yes there is. That framework is "there is no god" and any necessary conclusions from that premise.

When I say 'you do not know what I as an atheist thinks' what makes you think you know what I think better than I do?

You are tilting at windmills.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes there is - the belief there is no god and any necessary conclusions from that premise.

The thinking that there isn't leads you to a faulty conclusion and a point devoid of understanding.

I wish for your better understanding in the future.

Now you're just being childish.

Late teen existential angst, is it?

 

[Allandavid]

Straw man fallacy. You're arguing as though I said the existence of empathy is an opinion. I didn't say that. It's the conclusions that you base on empathy that are the opinions.

I said that we had developed the ability to empathise with the pain of others. You said that was an opinion. Go back and read your own words. It isn't an opinion...it is a well researched piece of biological and psychological understanding.

Ridiculous. That's the exact same thing. You FEEL bad for that person. You FEEL bad for what they are experiencing. You FEEL you should help them. It's still based on feelings.

Feelings that are the result of an evolved trait. So what?

These rely on moral judgments like, "free of suffering" is "moral" and, "less desirable" is "immoral", which you have not given any basis to accept as objective standards.

Black-white thinking. Your view seems to be that ALL morality is either 'objective' or 'subjective'. As is often the case in human behaviour, 'one size doesn't fit all'. There are aspects of human morality that are very objective in nature, in that they are tied to outcomes which have limited variability...eg, that humans will seek to avoid/minimise pain is an almost universal truth, so several of our 'rules' for behaviour are tied to this and are unlikely to change much over time. Others are more nuanced in their bases and will flex over time...think of the morality behind slavery, the treatment of women, the plight of the poor, etc.

Your understanding of the basis for morality is as poor as some here about what an atheist is....

 

[Allandavid]

False. It claims there is no god.

Wrong. But don't feel bad...this is the most common error made by those who try to tell atheists what it is they believe, rather than asking...!

 

[Allandavid]

Yes there is - the belief there is no god and any necessary conclusions from that premise.

The thinking that there isn't leads you to a faulty conclusion and a point devoid of understanding.

I wish for your better understanding in the future.

You are so wrong...

 

[Allandavid]

Mr V, compare these two statements...

'I do not believe in the existence of any gods'.

'No gods exist'.

Do you see a difference...?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There are some.

Still waiting for you to correctly identify a single one.

See? I can make the exact same statements.

You sure can. You can type exactly the same words, or make the same sounds come out of your face if you choose to speak them.

But they don't actually mean anything, of course, if you can't follow up and meet your burden of proof.

False. It claims there is no god.

No it doesn't. That's not what atheism is.

You really don't have the slightest clue what it is you're even attempting to argue against.

There's no point to continue further.

No, please. By all means, continue to make an example of yourself.

 

[quatona]

But then you illustrate my whole point

No, I am illustrating your error.

- to have that moral stance be consistent requires belief in a god - a theist framework.

No, it just requires anyone to define something as the arbiter of morals. Just like you do.

You can't make such an argument under an atheistic framework.

Why sure. However, intellectually honest people do not agree with you that defining stuff into existence is the way to go about it.

 

[quatona]

Are you sure that you do not believe God does NOT exist?

Did you read my question carefully?

Yes.