Two Cabins

Dave Ellis said:

Your actions always have consequences. If you wish to live in a peaceful society, there are things you should do, and things you should not do.

We also have things such as mirror neurons in our brains. Those are responsible for things like when you flinch someone hits their hand with a hammer, or when you feel warm and fuzzy when something good happens to someone else.

So, if you want to avoid feels of shame or guilt for hurting someone else, then you should not hurt that person. If you want to feel warm and fuzzy inside, then you should do something nice for someone else.

Those are natural impulses/emotions we all have. The small minority of people that have no empathy for others are who we call sociopaths.

Click to expand...

That's how we feel about things, but it kind of misses the point. Obviously, there is nothing compelling us to do what is right. We still have to make decisions, and two or more impulses certainly can be in conflict, and we make value judgments about those decisions. Yes there may be sociopaths, but there are lots of people (I'd venture to say all people) who feel empathy and know what is right, yet still do wrong.

Because they're bodies full of millions of unquestioning followers who might speak out against the state. That could pose a serious risk to Stalin's authority.

Rather than trying to appease the churches and keep them happy with the government, it was easier and safer to just shut them down.

I don't agree with his actions, however I can certainly see the logic. If you're trying to set up a totalitarian regime, you need to silence anyone who holds any form of widespread power that might one day turn against you.

Click to expand...

Many nations are full of millions of religious people and they're not seen as a risk to the state. It was about the atheism. Stalin was a good disciple of Marx, and Marx's idea wasn't called dialectical materialism for nothing.

So what you're saying is if atheistic evolution is true, then you would no longer find any value your own life?

I don't see how the existence of a god is relevant to the value of my own life at all? To be completely honest I think I'd find less value in my own life if there really was a god.

I mean think about it, if you're destined to an eternal existence of singing praises to god in heaven, or roasting in hell, that makes life on earth almost meaningless. You hear Christians often say that as well "this life is but a drop in the bucket", "we are all worthless sinners", etc.

If there is no god, and I only have 80 or 90 years to experience what I can, then we have a very short existence. Every second is therefore very valuable. We need to make the most of it while we can.

Click to expand...

Without eternity, how is your life more valuable than a bacterium's? Anyway, I think what Dahmer meant is it cheapens other people's lives, or life in general, not necessarily his own.

I never made that argument.... I said

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was advocating the idea that atheists only act moral out of a fear for the law. In fact I quite explicitly said if that was your motivation, then you are not a moral person.

Click to expand...

I got the idea that you haven't given another reason why atheists would act moral. You said that actions have consequences, but that's not a good reason because the actions have consequences for other people (victims). I'd have to begin with a moral foundation of even caring about that before consequences to others would matter. If you think I should just act out of caring for society or posterity, then you're starting by assuming a moral premise at the outset.

If you go to an ice cream shop knowing that vanilla ice cream is your preferred flavour, then logic would dictate you should order some vanilla ice cream.

If you live in a society where you would prefer there is no theft, then logic would dictate you shouldn't go stealing other people's stuff.

It's not that hard.

Click to expand...

I'm sure every thief would prefer there is no theft from them. That can't logically stop them from stealing, and it can't make them care whether other people steal from each other.

No, ice cream flavours are subjectively better.

However, pretty well everybody will subjectively agree vanilla ice cream is better than dog dropping flavoured ice cream. That would be a consensus which is subjectively reached because we all share things in common, and if anyone actually prefers the dog dropping ice cream, they'd be a minuscule minority.

Likewise, morality is also subjectively based. However, since we also share many things in common (the desire to not be killed, the desire to not be raped, or have our stuff stolen), then it's very easy to see where we would reach a similar consensus that we shouldn't do that stuff. If anyone actually thinks murder is OK, they are also a minuscule minority.

That's the whole basis of consequential ethicism. Taking the good feelings of doing something good for someone out of the equation, there is still a strong self interest in acting morally towards other people. Without that drive, we could have never formed coherent tribes, societies and civilizations. We may have gone extinct before we made it out of the African jungles.

Those who can work together with other people have a strong survival advantage. Humans are not the only species this is true for either by far.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you need order for a coherent society. Ever see a movie called Glengarry Glen Ross? It's interesting for it's complete lack of anything but self-interest among the characters, no good guy, no shred of virtue in anyone, but there they are, existing. I think Nietzsche sometimes preferred a society where you didn't have empathy, or agreement on morality, just a man with a strong "will to power" to impose cohesion. He had some kind of a point maybe since great civilizations of the past were slave states, and America was sorta built on stolen land.

I've seen that post, you're still describing one of the prongs of the euthyphro dilemma. You're arguing morality comes from god. You're saying morality and his word are essentially the same thing.

Click to expand...

Right, it comes from Him and it is His very nature. The idea runs throughout the Hebrew and other religious scriptures.

But that's the thing, it's not. Under your strawman view of what we believe, you might have a justifiable case. However based on what we actually believe, you don't have a case here at all.

Click to expand...

I've only said what you don't believe. I've asked people what atheists do believe, and you've come the closest to saying anything about that. From my experience, atheists are loathe to use the word "believe" about anything. They prefer to say they only accept or reject things based on evidence, or some euphemisms like that.

Ultimately it comes down to good or harm caused to people (or animals or whatnot as well).

On that note, the good or harm caused is actually objective. So when you hear an atheist talking about an objective basis for morality, that's usually what they're referring to. If you caused harm to someone, it doesn't matter what you believe, you still caused them harm. (and that's why not everyone's subjective moral opinion is equal to everyone elses)

On clear-cut issues however, I think people who argue an objective basis have a point. The problem is though on "grey area" issues, or moral dilemmas, there isn't a clear cut answer all the time.

The facts are still objective, but it's completely up to us how we weigh the facts against each other. That takes a lot of thought, debate and hard work. That's why under subjective moral systems, there will almost always be a consensus that murder is bad, however there will be a fair bit of debate over whether it's moral or not to drive above the speed limit.

So, I believe morality/moral systems are ultimately subjective, however there's no questions the facts we base our opinions are objective, and that will cause general consensus on a lot of fairly obvious issues.

Click to expand...

That's misleading if you leave out the huge caveat of justice, which is itself a moral idea. We cause harm all the time. We discipline children, we lock people in cells, we kill enemy soldiers, we kill animals to eat. And I think evolutionary issues only seem obvious in retrospect.

Dave Ellis said:

Most Atheists are Humanists, including myself.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen the stats, I'll take your word for it.

Ana the Ist said:

If there's no implication that one is likely to be more moral than the other....then what is the point of the question? Without the implication, there's no reason to choose one over the other.

Click to expand...

You're right. If you see no point, then flip a coin.

Dave Ellis said:

Why does a Christian have more incentive to be moral?

Click to expand...

Because they wish to live in accordance with the creator's will, or the Tao of the cosmos if you want, which involve moral behavior.

Ana the Ist said:

Lol now you're saying that everyone feels a compulsion to act morally because you think that you do. I hate to break it to you, but you probably break your moral laws all the time without a second thought. Please think about that for a moment before you reply.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I break laws all the time. Feeling a compulsion and obeying are two different things. But yes, from everything I know, I'm pretty sure everyone feels similar compulsions.

So....you've spoken with atheists who claim to believe in objective morality before....but you don't think any atheists believe in objective morality? Did you think they were lying? Maybe they were closet theists? Maybe they were AI programs that were created to go onto CF and pretend to be atheists?

How does that work?

Click to expand...

They usually present an argument for their morality which doesn't really hold water, at least to the extent that they claim it differs from the more or less common morality of all humanity throughout time.

bhsmte said:

I know people who have a high degree of morality without believing in a creator.

You know why? Because they have internal motivation to be moral, all without relying on a faith belief.

Ain't that something?

Click to expand...

Not really. Everyone has different reasons, and different biological/mental make-ups. I've already said that. Some may be blessed by God without even knowing it.

Ana the Ist said:

I'd agree that I don't buy into their view of objective morality any more than I buy into yours... but to say they don't exist is like saying you don't exist.

Click to expand...

I was just trying to say I don't think they make a lot of sense.

If you feel a compulsion that you don't obey, would it be right to assume you have a stronger compulsion to disobey? Where would that come from?

Click to expand...

A proclivity to sin.

Davian said:

Or, a proclivity to behave according to human nature. Someone then calls that the problem of "sin", then proceeds to offer the only "solution" to this "problem". A religion is formed.

Click to expand...

Do you see any problem with human nature?

Dave Ellis said:

How is that relevant?

Click to expand...

I'm looking for common ground hoping we might agree something is wrong with human nature, although I suspect it will be said that nothing's "wrong", it just is what it is. But if that's the case, it raises the question of why we all complain about the bad results, or how we can even recognize that some results are bad.

Tinker Grey said:

None that being a Christian (True (tm) or otherwise) rectifies.

Click to expand...

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."