Morality

[quatona]

IF those are central tenets of their world view, why not?

Yeah, IF. You would have to substantiate that in regards to your claim about "a whole system of atheist worldviews".

Now, the thing is: Your worldview is informed by the things you believe, not by the things that you don´t believe.

 

[Khalliqa]

Of note in general.. Just because I see this repeatedly..

The term Atheist is a term which represents a conclusion reached in response to the advancement of a particular worldview (namely theist.)

Theists advance that there is a god and so on and so forth..

Atheist simply says - I disagree and your reason/evidence is not enough to convince me.

There are atheists WITH worldviews. Meaning they have reached a conclusion relative to theist assertions but also advance and posit their own understanding about the world.. There are atheist Buddhist.. atheist humanists etc for example.. Please don't confuse them..

Thank you.

 

[SPF]

Last time I checked all atheists lacked a belief in God. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for someone to say, "God did not create the universe within an atheistic worldview."

 

[Ygrene Imref]

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.

Christians are humans, and most humans are awful.

It is that simple.

 

[Dave-W]

Now, the thing is: Your worldview is informed by the things you believe, not by the things that you don´t believe.

Do you believe that a god or gods do not exist?

 

[quatona]

Do you believe that a god or gods do not exist?

No.

 

[-V-]

So, first it's:

Yes and No. Morality is an inherently subjective and personal term to begin with. There is no true morality in any framework until and unless a group agrees (passively or actively) upon a set of guidelines regarding it. The belief system is not relevant. The agreement and it's security in society is relevant.

Those guidelines are the ethical framework and are not belief or dogma dependent THEY ARE CONSENSUS DEPENDENT.

So you tell us that moral guidelines "ARE CONSENSUS DEPENDENT".

But as soon as I point out that such an argument makes atheism inherently immoral, you change tunes to:

Consensus alone does not justify a moral stance

You can't have it both ways. You've contradicted yourself. Once again, atheism relies on inconsistent positions in order to hold moral standards.

 

[-V-]

No, you're quite wrong. It's a feature of being an evolved human being. As is the case with all primates, we have developed the ability to empathise with others around us. In humans, this ability is more keenly developed. This is not opinion, it is observable and measurable. Do your research.

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.

No, again you are wrong. "Emapathise" does not mean "feel that it is immoral". It means that you are able to recognise and to identify with the feelings and experiences of others.

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.

Because we are social animals that have discovered that our lives are more likely to be free of suffering in social groups that operate cohesively. It's not that someone has told us that we must behave this way; we have simply found for ourselves that our lives work better that way.
Because you will find yourself shunned, or even removed, from your social group. And, for most people, this will be a less desirable way to live.

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.

 

[-V-]

There are none.
I know you'd like there to be, because your entire apologetic is predicated on it, but reality is under no obligation to kowtow to your imagination.

There are some. I know you'd like there not to be, because your entire apologetic is predicated on it, but reality is under no obligation to kowtow to your imagination.

See? I can make the exact same statements. You're not validating your argument in the slightest.

Case in point,

'Atheism' makes no claims whatsoever.

False. It claims there is no god.

Such errors as these two just destroy your argument. There's no point to continue further.

 

[-V-]

These threads always make me wonder if simply saying "The God I believe in thinks so, too" would magically give my moral stances more weight.
I might consider doing so - if only for the reason that I will acquire the privilege of going to a Holy War.

But then you illustrate my whole point - to have that moral stance be consistent requires belief in a god - a theist framework. You can't make such an argument under an atheistic framework.

 

[-V-]

"simply define something to be good and therefore it is", same standard you mentioned believers use.

No, that doesn't work with atheism.

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

One clear example - God. If an atheist attempts to define God as the moral standard, they have abandoned atheism. For your argument to work, what you define as the moral standard still has to be consistent with atheism. And you have not yet provided such a standard.

 

[SPF]

V, is there a reason why you can't just make one long post instead of 6 short posts? Just a thought.

 

[-V-]

V, is there a reason why you can't just make one long post instead of 6 short posts? Just a thought.

I just figure it's easiest to separate them according to who I'm replying to. In the past, I've seen people get upset, thinking I was assigning quotes to them that someone else said. So, if group A is gonna be upset because I format one way, and group B is gonna get upset because I format another way, well, I'm just gonna pick one format, and one group is just gonna have to stay upset.

 

[Left]

For the record, I still like you, -V-. You have made the occasional good point. I forgot to wish you happy birthday yesterday.

/still a spectator/skeptic to the subject

 

[Dave-W]

No.

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

Did you read my question carefully?

 

[-V-]

For the record, I still like you, -V-. You have made the occasional good point. I forgot to wish you happy birthday yesterday.

/still a spectator/skeptic to the subject

lol, ty

 

[Khalliqa]

There is a difference between a thing or idea coming into being and evaluating said thing or idea.

Think of it like this: You see a woman laughing as the result of a joke.

We cannot say therefore jokes are good or bad. We can only say that the laughter is the result of a joke being told.

Not an exact analogy but similarly, morality is the emergent reality of a consensus. It is the result of a consensus regarding ethics.

We do not know whether or not the resulting moral consensus is good or bad just that it is.

So think of it as

Step one: the creation of morality (all humans agree on the valuation of a thing) - consensus. We all agree that xxx is wrong.. or xxx is right..


Step two: Let's evaluate the consensus which brought out the moral values: Is that consensus good, bad, sound etc.. ? Maybe the consensus came about against their will, under duress, in complete ignorance of all the points? Maybe the consensus came bout willfully and intelligently etc.

We came to the conclusion that xxx is wrong because we were forced.. because we were ignorant.. xxx is wrong because we agree that this book says it's wrong.. xxxx is wrong because we agree that this book which says it's right is actually wrong.. because we were lazy.. because we evaluated it soundly.. and objectively etc..

Your position that morality comes from an external source or more specifically a specific religious source is untrue.. It is the reason why different

 

[Larniavc]

“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.

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

 

[Larniavc]

"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.

There is no atheist frame work.

 

[-V-]

We do not know whether or not the resulting moral consensus is good or bad just that it is.

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