Morality

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In an atheistic view, the only consistent conclusion is that morality doesn't exist.

You're confused.

It is you, not me, who purports to derive their morality from a god.

Therefor it is you, not me, who is without morality if that god doesn't exist.

Kindly do not project your bizarre brand of theistic quasi-nihilism onto me.

 

[miknik5]

This doesn't solve the dilemma, it just shifts it. Culture is made up of men, and while a group of men may come together and say that we are going to determine these actions as good and these actions as bad - there is nothing objective about their decisions. Meaning, the next generation of men may come along and change what is right and what is wrong. Essentially what we have here is a "might makes right" mentality where if enough people agree, they can enforce their beliefs upon others.

But those beliefs are not in any way objective, for they are still determined by each man. 10 men agreeing on something and having the power to force that upon others does not make the belief objective. It just makes a subjective belief enforceable.

There's simply no getting around the fact that if man is the measure of morality, then morality is necessarily subjective. For if man is the measure of morality, then no man has the authority to say that their belief about action X is wrong to the man that believes action X is acceptable.

Personally, I've never understood why atheists even have a problem with this. I would whole-heartedly embrace this if I were.

Were supposed to bring all our works into the LIGHT to discern what is wrought in GOD

THE SOURCE of THAT LIGHT is the unchanging absolute "measure"


Unfortunately not all believe.. not all want to come to THE LIGHT

 

[miknik5]

Someone needs to call Nihilist Virus into this thread, to provide an accurate representation of the "atheist" side for everyone.

John 1 does that already

 

[-V-]

“There is only one necessary conclusion of - not from - atheism. That is a lack of belief in gods. Any consideration beyond that, and you are talking about something other than atheism.”
- Simply false. To prove me wrong, all you have to do is pick anything you like and prove it is immoral beyond personal opinion. Within an atheistic framework, you can not. Therefore, morality being arbitrary IS a necessary conclusion of atheism.

“That is a naked assertion, which I dismiss out of hand.”
- Your assertion that there are no necessary conclusions from atheism is a naked assertion which we can dismiss out of hand.

“That's hardly surprising, since it is irrelevant to atheism.”
- If you can’t follow the discussion, don’t participate. Someone else attempted to define nature as good in an atheistic framework.

“Even granting that this is somehow a problem for an 'atheist framework', as you put it, there is nothing in Christianity that can answer the 'problem' anyway. So, another irrelevant non-point.”
- Answer what problem?

“Yet another example of someone who is not an atheist, speaking for atheists; and getting it wrong.”
- Sure, cuz you say so.

“It is you, not me, who purports to derive their morality from a god. Therefor it is you, not me, who is without morality if that god doesn't exist.”
- If you’re an atheist, then YOU are purporting that morality is not arbitrary without a god. Then as I said before, all you have to do is take anything you want and prove that it is actually immoral beyond personal opinion.

 

[Soyeong]

I'd argue that the best way to be good is to let all religion go and focus on ourselves.

It's one thing to assert that to be the case, but is much more difficult to make the argument that it is the case. How can you even begin to make an argument for the best way to be good without defining what it means to be good? Why do you think we have a moral obligation to let go of religion and focus on ourselves?

People will say Christians have better morality than atheists. But just look at all the arguing in the Minecraft thread. Over a video game, and dare I say it, one that's not even that good in terms of gameplay quality.

What standard can you use to determine whether one group has a better morality than another? How can you verify that your understanding of morality is correct? Having a correct understanding of morality does not necessarily imply that we will live accordingly because we often don't do what we know to be right and fail to live according to our own standard of behavior.

 

[miknik5]

“There is only one necessary conclusion of - not from - atheism. That is a lack of belief in gods. Any consideration beyond that, and you are talking about something other than atheism.”
- Simply false. To prove me wrong, all you have to do is pick anything you like and prove it is immoral beyond personal opinion. Within an atheistic framework, you can not. Therefore, morality being arbitrary IS a necessary conclusion of atheism.

“That is a naked assertion, which I dismiss out of hand.”
- Your assertion that there are no necessary conclusions from atheism is a naked assertion which we can dismiss out of hand.

“That's hardly surprising, since it is irrelevant to atheism.”
- If you can’t follow the discussion, don’t participate. Someone else attempted to define nature as good in an atheistic framework.

“Even granting that this is somehow a problem for an 'atheist framework', as you put it, there is nothing in Christianity that can answer the 'problem' anyway. So, another irrelevant non-point.”
- Answer what problem?

“Yet another example of someone who is not an atheist, speaking for atheists; and getting it wrong.”
- Sure, cuz you say so.

“It is you, not me, who purports to derive their morality from a god. Therefor it is you, not me, who is without morality if that god doesn't exist.”
- If you’re an atheist, then YOU are purporting that morality is not arbitrary without a god. Then as I said before, all you have to do is take anything you want and prove that it is actually immoral beyond personal opinion.

Deserting a child

 

[-V-]

"Deserting a child"
- Well great. Now that you've CLAIMED deserting a child is immoral, all you have to do now is prove it. Also note that my statement is for ATHEISTS. They need to prove it from an atheist framework.

 

[SPF]

Are there any atheists viewing this thread that actually believe in objective morality? If so, could you present a positive case for how objective morals and values can exist if man is the ultimate authority? I've never seen it done.

 

[Soyeong]

I have always thought that true science defeats the whole concept of religion. In science there is no good or evil, just observed facts. In concept only, true science could replace all religion. But obviously in human reality it can never happen, because we are always finding new ways to differentiate ourselves from others. So we are in effect stuck in the rut of persecution, which is a foundation of region. So until there's a better option, I suppose I will continue to walk with God.

Science and religion seek to answer two completely different issues. Science is a very useful tool that can tell us all about how things work that are observable, measurable, and verifiable, but for other issues, such as morality, it is the wrong tool for the job. For example, science can give us knowledge of electricity, but it does tell us anything about what we ought to do with it. Furthermore, science can tell us all about the process of how to generate lighting, but that can simply be information about the process of how Zeus causes lightning, so it doesn't tell us anything about whether or not Zeus is doing that. Saying that we don't know what caused something, so it must be God is just as faulty reasoning as saying that we don't know what caused something, but we know it's not God, which is just as faulty as saying that we know how to do something, therefore God is not causing it to happen. So even if we eventually learned everything that was possible to learn with science, it would still not replace religion. Furthermore, it is false that religion is entirely about finding new ways to differentiate ourselves from others and that all religions are born from persecution. What is the point of continuing to walk with God if you believe that He is just a societal construct?

 

[KCfromNC]

"Wrong. Atheists just don't have an ultimate authority on morality. They still believe it's good and not evil to help an old lady cross the street."
- It's not about WHAT you believe. It's WHY. WHY is it good to help an old lady across the street? From an atheist perspective, the only consistent answer is because it's simply your opinion that it's good. If I say pushing the old lady down in the street is the good thing to do, it's impossible for you to prove your opinion is better than mine within an atheist framework.

All a god adds to the mix is that instead of arguing which action is better you get to debate which god is - and it isn't as if that isn't human opinion all the way.

 

[Soyeong]

Not considering your own wishes to be more important than that other others seems to work okay, for a basic start.

How so?

 

[KCfromNC]

"Deserting a child"
- Well great. Now that you've CLAIMED deserting a child is immoral, all you have to do now is prove it. Also note that my statement is for ATHEISTS. They need to prove it from an atheist framework.

You're acting as if there are other views on gods which somehow inevitably lead to the ability to deductively prove moral truths. I think that you should go ahead and demonstrate how that works before pretending it is a unique issue for non-believers.

 

[KCfromNC]

Are there any atheists viewing this thread that actually believe in objective morality? If so, could you present a positive case for how objective morals and values can exist if man is the ultimate authority? I've never seen it done.

I'd assume that an atheist who believes in objective morality wouldn't consider the subjective opinions of people to be the ultimate authority so your last question doesn't make much sense.

 

[-V-]

"All a god adds to the mix is that instead of arguing which action is better you get to debate which god is - and it isn't as if that isn't human opinion all the way."
- I've already specified that I'm talking about a philosophy's internal consistency. Proving one religion correct and another wrong is irrelevant.

“You're acting as if there are other views on gods which somehow inevitably lead to the ability to deductively prove moral truths. I think that you should go ahead and demonstrate how that works before pretending it is a unique issue for non-believers.”
- Again, I’m talking about internal consistency. Within a Christian framework, for an example, it can be proven God is good because God is defined as such in Christianity. Atheism, however, has no such internal definitions with morality. Not only does it not have such definitions, it goes further and doesn't even allow such definitions to exist as anything more than subjective, unprovable opinions.

 

[SPF]

I'd assume that an atheist who believes in objective morality wouldn't consider the subjective opinions of people to be the ultimate authority so your last question doesn't make much sense.

And what then would be the ultimate authority? And where does it derive its authority from?

 

[Soyeong]

"This is where your idea fails. In an atheistic view, the only consistent conclusion is that morality doesn't exist."

Wrong. Atheists just don't have an ultimate authority on morality. They still believe it's good and not evil to help an old lady cross the street.

My question is, why do we need an ultimate authority on morality?

Atheists can have moral beliefs, but not ones that originated from atheism. If one person thinks that it is moral to help old ladies cross the street and a second thinks that it is moral to push old ladies, by what standard do you have to determine which person is correct? If the standard is your values, then you have no grounds to show that other people ought to act according to your values while you are not obligated to act according to their values. So morality goes beyond saying that pushing old ladies is simply something that you don't value to saying that other people have a moral obligation to act according to some standard that exists outside of your values, but atheists deny the existence of this standard, so they should consistently deny the existence of morality.

 

[miknik5]

"Deserting a child"
- Well great. Now that you've CLAIMED deserting a child is immoral, all you have to do now is prove it. Also note that my statement is for ATHEISTS. They need to prove it from an atheist framework.

I don't have to prove it

You'll have to provide one reason why any Natural or Spiritual man would do it and call it good and moral

 

[-V-]

"I don't have to prove it"
- Sorry, but you're really not following the discussion.

 

[miknik5]

Sir provide

"I don't have to prove it"
- Sorry, but you're really not following the discussion.

Please reread my post

Any man who wants to suggest this is anything Other than evil is not a "good" example for anything but evil

 

[miknik5]

that I have to prove that deserting a child isn't always wrong!!!

Please sir
Tell us when it is right