Atheists have no morality!

[Acriku]

Well, if you're trying to say that a morality based off of an imaginary being is better, then I'll have to say you're wrong.

[nemafakei]

More refined:

Some religious people do not understand an objective basis for morality independant of the intangible products of the human imagination on which they depend.

Which leads to the troubling conclusion that they cannot see why morality is inherently good, other than that it is loved by their god(s).

Note the dialogue of Euthypho and Socrates: conclusion that what is pious is not because of the quality that it is loved by a god, but for a reason inherent in it, and that the god loves it because it is good.

[Navaros]

Note the dialogue of Euthypho and Socrates: conclusion that what is pious is not because of the quality that it is loved by a god, but for a reason inherent in it, and that the god loves it because it is good.

Socrates is in Hell right now, burning as we speak. He knew nothing of God, or what is good. So you picked a very bad example to quote from about this subject.

Humans do not have minds capable of knowing what is "good" better than God does. For example, you see many people on this site promoting and/or defending evil causes such as "homosexuality" (one reason why Socrates is now in Hell, by the way) and genocide against human children. They have no basis for saying these things are "good", yet they do. These things are in fact very evil. Many men who society considers "wise" are actually fools. So says God, and God is correct.

God knows what is good and what is not good. His opinion is the one that counts. Not the petty, evil opinion of man. Christ has said that mankind will naturally promote wickedness and evil instead of doing good. That is why you see things like "Gay Pride Parades" and genocide against children. Because the foolishness of man says that "these things are good!" It does not matter how many say that evil things are good - evil things will *NEVER* be good.

It is true that Atheists have no morality. Because a man in his natural state will almost always automatically promote and defend evildoings. Like Akriku and ACElethal and other Atheists promoting "homosexuality", for example. To be moral requires a man to leave his natural state and allow himself to become righteous. Atheists almost never have a reason to do this since they do not obey God's commands, and hence most Atheists have no morality

[nemafakei]

"So says God, and God is correct."

Nav, the only record of what is and is not good according to your god is the writings of humans (whom society considered 'wise') anyway!

"Socrates is in Hell right now, burning as we speak. He knew nothing of God, or what is good."

Nav, simply because he does not share your religion does not make his logic invalid. Is something right because a god says so, or does a god say something is right because of what is inherent in the action which makes it right?

"Because a man in his natural state will almost always automatically promote and defend evildoings."

Atheism is not necessarily man's 'natural state'; it has only become widespread relatively recently.

"It is true that Atheists have no morality /.../ hence most Atheists have no morality"

Let me try to confirm: Are you saying that all atheists are inherently immoral, or that some are moral, but most not, or something else?

"Atheists almost never have a reason to do this since they do not obey God's commands"

Some religious people do not understand an objective basis for morality independant of the intangible products of the human imagination on which they depend

[TMA_1]

Socrates is in Hell right now, burning as we speak. He knew nothing of God, or what is good. So you picked a very bad example to quote from about this subject.

I shodlnt even dignify that with an answer.

Socreties destroyed the pantheon in my opinion. He fought for truth, and totally mutilated the sophists. I am too tired to go into all the stuff he did, Ill post again tomorrow if I can.

you are an idiot nav. it really is pretty simple.

[Inoculator9]

Yeah, that's some pretty stupid nonsense, lol. Socrates, as every educated person knows, is in fact the devil. He created hell right under god's nose and still lives there today cohorting with his Hedonistic friends like... Plato, and Aristotle :P

[Phage]

Even saying atheists have no basis for morality is ridiculous. I have a basis for my morals: human nature. I thin we evolved to want certain moral norms respected. I mean if we see somebody rape a 4 year old girl, which one of us would really not WANT to step in a teach that man a lesson?

I think we are genetically predisposed to adhere to moral systems due to how such systems have helped out genes throughout our long evolutionary history.

Morality is thus intrinsic. To quote Matt Ridley, a leading scientist:

For St Augustine the source of social order lay in the teachings of Christ. For Hobbes it lay in the sovereign. For Rousseau it lay in solitude. For Lenin it lay in the party. They were all wrong. The roots of social order are in our heads, where we possess the instinctive capacities for creating not a perfectly harmonious and virtuous society, but a better one than we have at present.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26764&pagenumber=3

[emprworm]

Well, if you're trying to say that a morality based off of an imaginary being is better, then I'll have to say you're wrong.

i'm not saying that. i'm not comparing any "morality", you are dodging the issue.

as an atheist, you have no logical basis for morality. any attempt you make to try to explain this basis ends up in a logical contradiction. if you think otherwise, then humor me and explain your basis for morality.

[emprworm]

*waiting for Acriku's fallacy of the Red Herring* (meaning he will dodge the question and not explain the basis for his morality). If this happens, there will be no response from me.

i hope that I'm wrong and Acriku does indeed answer the question. If this happens, I will formally apologize in my next response.

[Acriku]

Lacking an objective source such as a god for my morality, I am not left with any disadvantage whatsoever in having a morality. Generically, morality has an evolutionary basis. It helps stabilize the tribe, society, civilization, etc, and helps us make decisions on issues. It also helps us to develop opinions, so that is my personal basis for having a morality. Question is, though, do I need a logical basis for my morality? I contend that there is no universal morality, no objective morality, and that all morality is subjective and made upon personal experiences and observations.

EDIT:I also forgot to mention the evolution of empathy, which is what I was referring to, above. It'd be also beneficial to mention that I'm not completely aware of what you mean 'logical basis' for morality, so any explanation would be grateful to have.

[ordos45]

Hmm, so basically you subscribe to Evolutionary Psychology's views as a basis of your morality? (Really, Cultural Universality isn't a good thing to wave as a basis of morality, its some of our most corrupt traits and doings are the same despite the cultures.)

[emprworm]

Lacking an objective source such as a god for my morality, I am not left with any disadvantage whatsoever in having a morality. Generically, morality has an evolutionary basis. It helps stabilize the tribe, society, civilization, etc, and helps us make decisions on issues. It also helps us to develop opinions, so that is my personal basis for having a morality. Question is, though, do I need a logical basis for my morality? I contend that there is no universal morality, no objective morality, and that all morality is subjective and made upon personal experiences and observations.

EDIT:I also forgot to mention the evolution of empathy, which is what I was referring to, above. It'd be also beneficial to mention that I'm not completely aware of what you mean 'logical basis' for morality, so any explanation would be grateful to have.

like I said, the moment Acriku tries to specify a basis of his morality, a contradiction occurs.

"I contend that there is no universal morality, no objective morality, and that all morality is subjective and made upon personal experiences and observations."

Acriku is making an absolute claim that no objective morality exists, and that all of it is subjective. No one can logically claim that something is subjective, and then state that such a claim applies to everyone. lol! A blatant contradiction! Acriku is trying to say that there is NO absolute, and expect his statement to be an absolute truth. He is trying to say that all morality is SUBJECTIVE and expect such a claim to be OBJECTIVE in scope. He is trying to say that morality is contingent upon one individual person, while expecting his claim to apply to everyone.

A bonafide, 100% pure logical contradiction.

Not to mention, there is no basis for morality that he gave. He makes an appeal to some evolutionary "herd instinct" yet morality is not instinctive and humans have the ability to suppress a stronger impulse to act out on a weaker impulse. Being able to weigh differing impulses to act on a weaker one vs. a stronger one must not be an impulse in itself. Acriku must demonstrate how a non-instinct can evolve from lower animals that act only on instinct. In addition, he should still provide a basis for morality (i.e. how could an atheist logically end the world wide slave trade)

[Acriku]

It's interesting how you consider that a logical contradiction, and is not the first time, either. I am making an absolute statement, but not that there are no absolutes, but that there is no objective morality. I do not see the contradiction.

Not to mention, there is no basis for morality that he gave.

I didn't give an objective source of my morality, no. I don't claim that a book is my source for morality, yet my personal experiences and observations are my sources for morality.

(i.e. how could an atheist logically end the world wide slave trade)

Empathy. I just said that in my post, so whether or not you've read it comprehensively seems to be the question. I'm interested in how a theist could logically end the world wide slave trade. Because their god said so? Where did the god get the morality? Just made it up?

Followers of the old testament will see that one of the commandments (the last of the ten I think) condones slavery. A product of its time, of course, but with such a condoning how, logically, can a follower end the world wide slave trade? An atheist could also believe that human beings have certain, inalienable rights, given by the government, to the citizens of that government.

Hmm, so basically you subscribe to Evolutionary Psychology's views as a basis of your morality?

As the source of it, most likely.

[emprworm]

It's interesting how you consider that a logical contradiction, and is not the first time, either. I am making an absolute statement, but not that there are no absolutes, but that there is no objective morality. I do not see the contradiction.

of course its a contradiction. you are stating that all morality is subjective and that objective right and wrong does not exist. Of course, what objective knowledge do you have to make an absolute claim regarding morality? You are saying that I am WRONG and who are you to say that someone else is wrong regarding a moral claim....especially when you yourself say that morality is subjective only? You kind of put yourself into a little box....and your trapped.

I didn't give an objective source of my morality, no. I don't claim that a book is my source for morality, yet my personal experiences and observations are my sources for morality.

tell me: how could an atheist stop the 19th century slave trade? (note: The slave trade was considered by the majority of the WORLD population to be morally fine) Was slavery wrong, Acriku? I'm guessing, that you would say it was right and good at the time it existed......if not, please explain

I'm interested in how a theist could logically end the world wide slave trade.

then read your history books, because thats exactly what happened. Moral absolutists ended slavery. It is logically impossible for moral relativism to have ended it, and history demonstrates this with concrete proof.

<snip off topic red herrings>

[Acriku]

of course its a contradiction. you are stating that all morality is subjective and that objective right and wrong does not exist. Of course, what objective knowledge do you have to make an absolute claim regarding morality? You are saying that I am WRONG and who are you to say that someone else is wrong regarding a moral claim....especially when you yourself say that morality is subjective only? You kind of put yourself into a little box....and your trapped.

Are you reading comprehensively? Note that I contended that assertion, meaning I argued that assertion. Of course, it is my opinion, developed from personal experiences and observations. Notice my wording:

I contend that there is no universal morality, no objective morality, and that all morality is subjective and made upon personal experiences and observations.

tell me: how could an atheist stop the 19th century slave trade? (note: The slave trade was considered by the majority of the WORLD population to be morally fine) Was slavery wrong, Acriku? I'm guessing, that you would say it was right and good at the time it existed......if not, please explain

Atheists who might feel that every human being deserves the same as another, would be against slavery. But, this is entirely irrelevant. An atheist might have whatever morality, for or against slavery, but it is not correlated to their lack of belief.

then read your history books, because thats exactly what happened. Moral absolutists ended slavery. It is logically impossible for moral relativism to have ended it, and history demonstrates this with concrete proof.

Theism does not equate to moral absolutism, and vice versa, so that's irrelevant.

[Atomic Mitten]

I think i'm an atheist, thank god ! ;)

Only kidding !

[emprworm]

Are you reading comprehensively?

if i'm reading your dodges and logical fallacies, probably not. then again, who could? :D

Note that I contended that assertion, meaning I argued that assertion. Of course, it is my opinion, developed from personal experiences and observations. Notice my wording:

I contend that there is no universal morality, no objective morality, and that all morality is subjective and made upon personal experiences and observations.

if there is no right and wrong, then why do you constantly make appeals to it when someone cuts in front of you in a line? You make continuous appeals to an unwritten rule of how something ought to be. This is easily observed in children, (take the ball away from the child, and the child wants the ball back), and it is universal, spanning all races, and all societies. Furthermore, if you contend that something can only apply to an individual, you are contending that such a statement itself applies to all individuals, hence the contradiction. Since you are a moral relativist, you can only logically speak for yourself, yet for some reason you want to speak for everyone.

tell me: how could an atheist stop the 19th century slave trade? (note: The slave trade was considered by the majority of the WORLD population to be morally fine) Was slavery wrong, Acriku? I'm guessing, that you would say it was right and good at the time it existed......if not, please explain

Atheists who might feel that every human being deserves the same as another, would be against slavery. But, this is entirely irrelevant. An atheist might have whatever morality, for or against slavery, but it is not correlated to their lack of belief.

in other words, atheists were powerless to stop the world wide slave trade, both now and forever more. Since you cannot call slavery wrong at the time it was instituted, your morality is weak. That is my view of it looking from the outside- you have a weak, decrepid moral code since you are unable to look at slavery and declare it to be wrong. Not just wrong now, but wrong at the time it was in place, and wrong for all time in the future. Until you can say that, I contend your morality is flippant and whimsical, allowing for the worst human atrocities. Atheists could not have drafted the US constitution, which appeals to an absolute moral law (inherent rights)

Theism does not equate to moral absolutism, and vice versa, so that's irrelevant.

I never said it does. I said that moral absolutists stopped slavery, and that moral relativists could never have possibly done so. Thus, the weaker morality is clearly seen.

[Anathema]

There is a side of humanity other then its cruelness. Some of the greatest philosofic thinkers going back till the greek stoics believed in "natural rights", rights wich all men are endowed. Rousseau believed that man was by nature good, and that modern culture has corrupted us.

Many of these great thinkers were christians and believed it was something God gave us, but it's nevertheless part of us.

"and this (natural rights)would be valid even if we would assume there is no God or that human affairs are not handled by him"

- Hugo de Groot

Then there's guys like Epicurus who basicly said that people would eat eachother alive if there would be no laws, and that we invented them to prevent chaos and bloodshed. Slighly pessimistic, don't you think?

[SurlyPIG]

emprworm:

of course its a contradiction. you are stating that all morality is subjective and that objective right and wrong does not exist. Of course, what objective knowledge do you have to make an absolute claim regarding morality? You are saying that I am WRONG and who are you to say that someone else is wrong regarding a moral claim....especially when you yourself say that morality is subjective only?

Do you agree that there's a distinction between technical accuracy/truth and morality (and I'm not asking that rhetorically)? When someone looks at the answer to a math problem and says "that's wrong", they don't mean the same wrong than if they see a guy beating his wife and say "that's wrong" While, in a few ways, I don't agree with it, Acriku's claim that there is no universally objective basis for morality is a technical claim, not a moral claim. It's like "the sky is blue" vs. "abortion is wrong."

Morals are merely a code by which someone lives. Personally, what I think is the basis of good morality is empathy or compassion. It is universal, as everyone (that I know of) is capable of such an emotional response to external situations. And it is also objective because, when applied logically, the results are universal.

In a sense, all morality can be considered subjective because it can be applied illogically. And this applies not only to the kind of morality I hold, but to externally defined morality such as laws (or Commandments, for that matter). For example, not everyone applies morality logically. An example of your kind of morality being misused subjectively would be an anti-abortionist murdering doctors that have done the operation. They went wrong when they failed to recognize that they were violated their morals in order to enforce their morals (the same moral, actually). An example of abuse of my kind would be somebody who is suicidal killing someone else before killing themselves. They employed empathy and put themselves in their victim's shoes, but they want to die so they still killed the victim. They failed to consider that their victim didn't want to die, and that even if they did, they would want to decide for themselves instead of have someone else do it for them.

[Acriku]

Since you are a moral relativist, you can only logically speak for yourself, yet for some reason you want to speak for everyone.

When did I say that I speak for everyone? I said explicitly that it was MY opinion. You're not reading with your glasses on!

in other words, atheists were powerless to stop the world wide slave trade, both now and forever more. Since you cannot call slavery wrong at the time it was instituted, your morality is weak. That is my view of it looking from the outside- you have a weak, decrepid moral code since you are unable to look at slavery and declare it to be wrong. Not just wrong now, but wrong at the time it was in place, and wrong for all time in the future. Until you can say that, I contend your morality is flippant and whimsical, allowing for the worst human atrocities. Atheists could not have drafted the US constitution, which appeals to an absolute moral law (inherent rights)

How are atheists powerless to stop the slave trade? Do tell me. Also, do not confuse what atheism is, and what I believe personally. An atheist could believe in moral absolutism, because atheism itself makes no decision on it either way.

From my morality, of course I would call slavery wrong. But I wouldn't blame most people who were slave masters because they were brought up where it was accepted.

Only in the Declaration of Independence does it refer to inherent rights(natural rights to be more accurate), so your assertion is false.

In fact, secular humanists like myself would be most adament about natural rights that should be applied to all human beings, so theism and atheism have absolutely no bearing in it.

I never said it does. I said that moral absolutists stopped slavery, and that moral relativists could never have possibly done so. Thus, the weaker morality is clearly seen.

You are not backing anything up. You are just spewing things out and waiting for my response - so back it up, emprworm.

ACE:

Acriku's claim that there is no universally objective basis for morality is a technical claim

I think I said universal morality, as in there is one true morality. And empathy could be an objective basis for morality, but I'm not fully knowledgeable of the evolution of such.

[nemafakei]

Emprworm, Acriku suggesting that morality is subjective is not necessarily subjective. No amount of juxtaposition-in-caps of the two words will alter the fact that his claim is what is objective, and the morality subjective; you try to blur the line between Acriku's claim and morality.

Let us take beauty. Do you not agree that it is subjective? Can it not be an objective claim to suggest that it is subjective? Even if it's only your opinion that beauty is subjective, it may yet be an objective claim.

As I have said before, I believe morality is a concept basically invented by humanity which should really describe the desire to and attempt at doing what is most constructive. Any subjectivity which may be involved depends on the initial assumption of the purpose ultimately served by the constructivity: You don't have to be religious to decide to do things for the good of humanity as a whole - this is one possible object of such constructivity. You DO have to be religious if the only thing your constructivity is for is a divine entity - But this is only one possibility.

[Phage]

Hmm, so basically you subscribe to Evolutionary Psychology's views as a basis of your morality? (Really, Cultural Universality isn't a good thing to wave as a basis of morality, its some of our most corrupt traits and doings are the same despite the cultures.)

I never said that. I said the basis was human nature and intrinsic values. Evolutionary psychology simply tells us how these values came into being.

BTW EmperorWorm, I do think there is one universal in ethics. And that is "do what best serves your intrinsic values."

I have never seen anyone refute that.

Also I would like to ask you EmpWorm, since your morality is so absolute.

Is murder wrong?

Is rape wrong?

Is torturing wrong?

Is killing children wrong?

Is supporting slavery wrong?

Because if anyone of the above are "yes" God is in a lot of trouble.

Since the God of the Bible murders people in various way via flood, bears etc. Even unborn fetuses. God also condones rape, after the Israelis conquer the Cannaanites. God murders children, i.e. the first born sons of Egypt.(As if they had control over Egyptian policy.) God condones slavery i.e. Israel.

If these things are "absolutely wrong no matter what or who" then God is in trouble.

[nemafakei]

"Is murder wrong?

Is rape wrong?

Is torturing wrong?

Is killing children wrong?

Is supporting slavery wrong?"

Even if you don't believe what is written in the NT, I would ask all theists:

Are these things inherently wrong?

Is it that they are wrong because god says so, or are they wrong in of themselves, hence causing god to say so?

[emprworm]

When did I say that I speak for everyone? I said explicitly that it was MY opinion. You're not reading with your glasses on!

the moment you say that there is no right and wrong, you speak for everyone. Even if it is your opinion, you are still saying "It is my opinion that everyone who thinks there is a right and wrong....is wrong. Right and wrong is only determined individually....and if you disagree, even though you are not me, you are wrong."

a SERIOUS contradiction here. So sad that your atheism has blinded you to simple logic.

How are atheists powerless to stop the slave trade? Do tell me. Also, do not confuse what atheism is, and what I believe personally. An atheist could believe in moral absolutism, because atheism itself makes no decision on it either way.

an atheist could have stopped the slave trade, but not do so rationally and be consistent with himself. The only way to have stopped a WORLD WIDE institution that was accepted as RIGHT by the MAJORITY of humans on earth, is to make an appeal to an absolute moral standard. It is impossible to do so otherwise...or are you going to explain how?

From my morality, of course I would call slavery wrong.

wrong for just you? Or wrong for everyone, for all time?

If it is your opinion that slavery is wrong for everyone, then you just contradicted yourself (again).

[emprworm]

Emprworm, Acriku suggesting that morality is subjective is not necessarily subjective. No amount of juxtaposition-in-caps of the two words will alter the fact that his claim is what is objective, and the morality subjective; you try to blur the line between Acriku's claim and morality.

any objective claim about anything is just that...objective. And no amount of entanglement with semantics will erase that Acriku is making objective claims about morality, and that the summary of those claims is that morality is not objective.

aside from that, the very fact that any athiest would make an objective claim is questionable to begin with.

Let us take beauty. Do you not agree that it is subjective? Can it not be an objective claim to suggest that it is subjective? Even if it's only your opinion that beauty is subjective, it may yet be an objective claim.

but its different when you make an objective claim about morality. Beauty is by definition subjective. Same with things like "memory" or "personal opinions". Obviously all memory will be subjective. But morality is not by definition subjective. Hitler kills 6 million Jews. Either his actions were objectively wrong or they were not. One must be true, and the other must be false. (law of noncontradiction)

To claim that, simultaneously, Hitler was NOT wrong, is to make an objective moral judgment about HItler. And JUDGMENT is by definition MORAL. Therefore, Acriku contradicts himself when he says that all morality is subjective, since in order to do so, he makes JUDGMENTS against all actions people have ever done.

You cannot say "All morality is subjective" and not make the moral judgment of Hitler that his actions were not wrong (objectively).

Either Hitler's actions were WRONG or they were NOT WRONG. They cannot be both right and wrong simultaneously.

As I have said before, I believe morality is a concept basically invented by humanity which should really describe the desire to and attempt at doing what is most constructive.

morality: something you appeal to everytime someone cuts in front of you in a line, or takes something that belongs to you. It is something you notice and appeal to when other people violate, but make excuses for yourself when you violate those same things (i.e. you are the one cutting in line). This statement is true for all humans.

You can affirm moiral absolutes logically; you just cannot deny them