Morality

[Allandavid]

"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.

"My question is, why do we need an ultimate authority on morality?"
- To avoid the problem I stated above.

Why is it good? Because, as a human, I can empathise with the plight of that other person. Moreover, I can see the benefits, to me, in encouraging such caring behaviour. After all, I too will be old and in need one day. What's good for the group can be good for the individual as well...

 

[Allandavid]

“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.

Prove you wrong? Easy.

Rape is immoral. It is immoral because human beings are able to empathise with the person being raped. It's painful, it's scary and most of us would hate for it to happen to us. Moreover, we are able to appreciate the level of societal instability and violence that such behaviour would cause if it were to be acceptable. So it becomes one of the things that we determine as "wrong".

No arbitrariness nor any deity involved.

 

[Allandavid]

I have yet to see an atheist put forth a positive argument as to how objective morals and values can exist when there is no higher authority than man.

I just did.

 

[Allandavid]

There is a significant difference between descriptive statements about what is and prescriptive statements about what ought to be. So pointing out that we exist in a society where we cooperate establishes what is, but does not establish what ought to be, and morality is in regard to what ought to be.

The "ought" is caused by the "what" we are. We are a species that has evolved to be both empathic and social.

 

[Allandavid]

Within Christianity, we consider the Bible to established as reliable source of what God's righteousness. Morality is concerning the way that we ought to behave regardless of human opinion, so it is inherently objective. God has said that His commands are for His people's own good, so obedience to His commands is a reasonable matter of trusting Him or having faith in Him.

Many of the religious attempt to equate morality with OBEDIENCE, as you have here..

It is a false equivalence.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

"this Yahweh character" has the wellbeing of humanity in his best interest.

And

Always has

You have no means of demonstrating that in any meaningful fashion. It is a naked assertion.

 

[quatona]

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 haven´t seen it done by a theist, either. (Except for defining something to be the ultimate authority - which theists and atheists can do.)

 

[quatona]

A number of atheists consistently deny the existence of morality and of good and evil, so they would not agree that deserting a child is immoral or evil. While it is true that many atheists would agree that it is evil and wrong to desert a child, they are not able to consistently establish that belief purely on the basis of atheism.

Of course not. Atheism as a single statement in response to one particular claim can´t do that. However, atheists do (besides not believing in your claim) typically hold world views. You would have to look there.

 

[KCfromNC]

“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.

If that's all it takes anyone can define anything as good and it becomes so by the very same internally consistent logic you're using here. That doesn't really seem like much of a basis for morality here in the real world but if it is what you're looking for you've answered your own question.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

If we're restricting the question to non-believers, it would be something not a god, and something not a god. That's all atheism is, though, so it isn't surprising it doesn't provide anything more. The additional stuff is up to whatever else the individual does or doesn't believe.

 

[SPF]

I just did... Rape is immoral. It is immoral because human beings are able to empathise with the person being raped. It's painful, it's scary and most of us would hate for it to happen to us. Moreover, we are able to appreciate the level of societal instability and violence that such behaviour would cause if it were to be acceptable. So it becomes one of the things that we determine as "wrong".

Your argument fails from the outset as setting up objective moral truth when you say that rape is wrong because "most" of us would not like it to happen. The very fact that you used to word "most" in your post demonstrates that it is not objective. Moreover, the person doing the raping doesn't think that it is wrong, they find it enjoyable. So on the one hand you have yourself telling the rapist that he is doing something immoral, and you have the rapist saying that it's not immoral because it's enjoyable to him. The problem is that you have no more authority over that man to tell him he's wrong and you're right than he has to tell you that he's right and you're wrong. If man is the measure of morality, then it is necessarily subjective.

Again, I don't even know why there is a desire from the atheist to attempt to establish objective morals and values.

 

[Khalliqa]

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

While, it's best imo.. to pay less attention to one's morality and more attention to how they receive information.. treat themselves and others and what the results are of their weighing in.. etc.. I don't think anyone has better morality than another..


We all use our current cultural understanding of what is "moral".. and there is heavy diversity in that area..



To a degree.. we can weigh the extent that our decisions bring peace to ourselves and others and aid in our own health and contribute to the health of our communities as a guide towards and a very makeshift bootleg way of assessing morality..



Those who are able to combine a sincere humility with reason tend to be more patient.. and self reflective.. and those are good qualities of a person who is moral imo.. They exist everywhere.. Christian.. Muslim.. Atheist.. Buddhist..


Not sure they exist in one place over another.. There are degrees.. A patient humble buddhist may lack reason and objective assessment and his morality stunted for lack of these things.. Those who ascribe to a religious dogma may read it through prejudiced eyes or egoistic hubris.. Atheists may be objective but lack humility ..

 

[-V-]

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

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

Please sir
Tell us when it is right

As I said before, you really are not following the conversation and are not understanding my position at all.

 

[Cearbhall]

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

I just wish people would start at square one and figure out what they actually believe, rather than picking a side and then going to any lengths to stick to those predetermined conclusions. This goes for politics as well.

 

[miknik5]

You have no means of demonstrating that in any meaningful fashion. It is a naked assertion.

Then you can tell THE FATHER that your self-professed "righteousness" apart from HIS PRECIOUS and COSTLY GIFT should suffice

 

[Left]

I just wish people would start at square one and figure out what they actually believe, rather than picking a side and then going to any lengths to stick to those predetermined conclusions. This goes for politics as well.

Sorry. When debating, you generally have to pick a side.

In any case, I'm just a spectator in the debate at this point. It's a good debate though, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[miknik5]

One died that the many may live

THE FATHER had to give HIS PERFECT SON for the many and HE will not allow any man to bypass THE GIFT of HIS SON or treat HIS SON's SACRIFICE as a secondary option

 

[miknik5]

If you're a father of many many children who can't and don't know the way, shouldn't you send the one who does know THE WAY?

Or, as a GOOD FATHER, should you keep silent about it?

 

[Cearbhall]

Sorry. When debating, you generally have to pick a side.

No, that's not what I mean. That's fine. Debating something doesn't mean you haven't already thought it through. I mean picking a side and then making it your goal to defend that side permanently, no matter what you find out, rather than seeking to find the truth no matter what it is.

 

[Left]

My current stance on this debate, is that it's neither been proven nor disproven that morality and God are directly related. Of course, if you have enough faith, you probably will believe that they are or that it has been proven.